Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have received a letter from the honourable member for Fairfax proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:

This Government's failure to consider the impact of renewable energy projects on communities.

I call upon those honourable members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.

More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

Ted O'Brien (Fairfax, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Today, on the first day in the parliamentary year, hundreds of Australians descend on Parliament House to protest the treatment of their communities by the Albanese government in their reckless rollout of an 82 per cent renewables grid.

Here we have a matter of public importance, a very important procedure of the parliament set aside to host this very debate, yet there's one person missing from this chamber right now. One chamber, one minister—and that minister is missing. The very minister who is responsible has gone AWOL from this very debate. It matters not how profound the contributions might be from either side of the chamber today. What speaks loudest is the minister's absence from this chamber. On the very day that regional communities have come to parliament to say, 'The minister is not listening,' the minister decides he will not even pay the courtesy to the parliament, let alone the Australian people, of attending the debate for which he is responsible! This tells you everything about the business model of the Labor Party: deception and deflection.

Now, we already know their deception. It's not just their broken promise on the stage 3 tax cuts. In the portfolio of climate and energy, there is not a promise they make that they cannot break. There is not a community that they're not prepared to hurt in the process. If you look at their promise of 43 per cent emissions reduction by 2030, after years under the coalition, where emissions were coming down, right now, under this Labor government, emissions are actually going up. They have no chance of achieving their 2030 emissions target—Buckley's chance! But will they come forward and come clean to the Australian people? Of course not.

What about their promise of a $275 reduction in household power bills? Everybody knows that is untrue. In some parts of Australia prices have gone up by $1,000 since they came to office, but to this day they refuse to stand at this dispatch box and concede they told an untruth. They still pretend they're going to achieve it. How about the EVs? Sales of EVs by 2030 will represent 89 per cent of all sales in Australia. Their own department says, in fact, it's going to be 27 per cent. Have they conceded? No, they have not. It is all about deception.

But one of their greatest deceptions is the idea of an 82 per cent renewables grid by 2030. It fails on every count. It fails due to economics. It fails due to engineering. It fails due to social impact. It fails due to environmental impact.

And how have they gone to date? An unmitigated failure. Under this government that boasts so much about its renewables-only plan, investment in renewables has dropped. It's down by 40 per cent—absolute disaster! You had the market operator, in its draft integrated system plan released only in December, doing sensitivity analyses. On supply chain constraints alone, drags, at 82, are already down to the early 60 per cents. You've got the Clean Energy Council saying, as a result of the September quarter of deal closures in renewables, that it's running at one-tenth of Labor's plan. They've come into government, and, with all their talk about emissions going down, they're going up; with all the talk about 82 per cent renewables, they're failing.

On our side of the parliament, we've got no problem with renewables. Indeed, look at our track record in government. But the objective is to have the optimum level of renewables, not the maximum level. We believe in an all-of-the-above approach, not a renewables-only approach.

But what happens, especially with this absent minister, with his ideological zealotry, when he knows his targets have fallen short? Desperation kicks in. And that is what we are seeing now. He is prepared to display reckless indifference towards regional communities because he is desperate and he knows he will not reach that target. Now, that is why he is prepared to ensure, as to baseload power, 90 per cent exits the grid by 2034; it's why he's trying to kill off gas—to effectively bring Australia's energy security to a point where there's no choice but to take his 82 per cent renewables. It's why he's introduced a capacity investment scheme with a blank cheque and won't tell us how much it's going to cost—to make sure renewables go through. It's also why—and this is the biggest hit of the lot—he is steamrolling regional communities.

Let's take just one example only. Let's take the Hunter offshore wind zone. Here we have a community that was meant to be consulted about a potential zone. That community has made it very clear: its residents, by majority, didn't even know there was a consultation on. They had made that clear after it came out that a consultation had come and gone. I went there; I spoke to them; I had public forums. The minister has refused to have public forums there. They didn't even know it was on. The union movement was co-opted, encouraged, to make positive submissions into the process. So don't worry about the residents who live there! Don't worry about the business owners whose entire incomes are based on that region! Get the union members to send in positive submissions! There were stories of senior citizens being told they could not submit their written submissions because they were written; stories of basic, normal questions by the community not being answered.

When I was in Norah Head listening to the community on some of this, and doing a fair bit of media, the minister came out and publicly announced that he was going to commission a community engagement review. I have to say: I supported his move. It was a concession on his part; maybe this community engagement review was going to fix the problem that he was recognising. But within only a week—one week later—he'd declared that zone. So think about this. The minister comes out and says, 'I concede the community engagement process is broken,' and then goes on and declares a zone on the basis of that very broken community engagement process. And he expects that community to be patting him on the back?

And talking about AWOL, by the way, where is the member for Dobell in this chamber? Where is the member for Paterson? They're all back in the minister's office, hiding away, full of deception and deflection on this very debate. There are members of their community in this gallery today, and those members are not prepared to come in this chamber and debate. That is why, for that offshore wind farm zone, we have said to the government they should rescind that declaration and they should fix that community engagement process before reopening for public consultation.

The minister stood in question time just today and said his community engagement review is done and is great. He only mentioned one stakeholder who was apparently there at his announcement, and that was the National Farmers Federation. I'll finish with the National Farmers Federation's media release on that review. It leads, '92 per cent of people dissatisfied with community engagement on renewables.' It goes on to say:

The National Farmers' Federation … has raised red flags the report's recommendations doesn't even touch the sides in addressing the problems being felt across Australia.

Don't blame the commissioner, who had to draft it. Blame the minister, whose terms of reference made it crystal clear that the objective was to ensure a rapid, accelerated rollout of renewables, not to put communities at the centre, which is precisely what he should be doing.

Pat Conroy (Shortland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Defence Industry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's with real pleasure I take this MPI. Before the member for Fairfax scurries off, I want to make an offer to him. He was at Norah Head, and I'm happy to drive him from here to my electorate to talk about offshore wind and so he can explain to my constituents why he's opposed to 3,000 good paying jobs building those wind farms, why he's opposed to the 1,500 ongoing jobs operating those wind farms and why he's opposed to the Tomago aluminium smelter that needs that cheap, clean energy to keep going. While he's there, he might want to talk about his plans to put not one but two nuclear power stations on the shores of Lake Macquarie, which is his real ideological obsession. Fair dinkum, guys—no-one can talk more about ideological obsession than this guy, a guy who is obsessed about nuclear power.

This is the truth about what is going on: those opposite stand opposed to 3,000 jobs in my community. They stand opposed to cheaper and cleaner energy in my electorate, and they will be condemned not just by history but by the electors in my community. Come anytime you want, member for Fairfax. I'll even buy you a coffee—maybe a beer—so that you can talk to people about this.

The truth is that the Albanese government knows that poor community engagement from transmission and renewables development does threaten the rollout of cheaper, cleaner and more reliable energy, and that's why it's taken strong action to fix a problem those opposite created when they were in power. For 9½ long years they were happy to rollout renewable infrastructure, but did they do any community engagement? No, not in the least. That's why we're taking strong action. That's why Commissioner Andrew Dyer has released a strong report, and we've accepted, in principle, all nine recommendations to address community needs. In fact, the CEO of the National Farmers Federation, when asked about the report, said, 'This report is a great thing.'

We recognise that regional communities do deserve and should be consulted about renewable energy infrastructure. I'm a proud representative of a regional area, and our communities do want to be engaged and consulted. That's what this government is doing, and the consultation around the Hunter offshore wind zone is an example of that. We saw a comprehensive consultation process with 40,000 letterbox drops; seven community drop-in sessions, all over the coast; and over 1,900 public submissions. The result of that consultation was support for the zone but a reduction in the zone from 2,800 square kilometres to 1,800 square kilometres. My electorate has the longest stretch of coastline of the Hunter offshore wind zone, and that consultation moved the closest point in my electorate from 10 kilometres offshore to 30 kilometres offshore—and I welcome that. But my constituents are strongly committed to renewable energy and offshore wind because it delivers cheaper and cleaner energy and a stackload of jobs. I can honestly say, hand on heart, I have not had a single constituent contact me after the final declared zone was released, because my community's concerns were addressed. The truth is that we need this power if we are to invest in cleaner and cheaper power.

The hypocrisy of those opposite is manifest, because what did they do when they were in government? That is the real test of political parties: what do they do in government? The now shadow Treasurer, the member for Hume, when he was a minister, said of transmission lines: 'The development of interconnectors and transmission is critical to bringing new generation capacity into the energy system, while shoring up reliability and affordability across state borders,' and 'We are backing every transmission project in this country, every single one of them.'

What did he say about offshore wind? He said: 'Enabling the development of an offshore electricity sector will deliver significant local benefits to all Australians,' and 'International experience shows that offshore electricity sectors coexist with other offshore sectors and activities, such as fishing and shipping industries.' Those are the words of the member for Hume, the now shadow Treasurer. And what did their energy spokesperson, the now departed member for Fairfax, say about offshore wind on 25 October 2022? He said, 'Offshore energy infrastructure has the potential to create significant investment and job creation opportunities, as well as to contribute to Australia's future energy security,' and 'the coalition supports the ongoing development of Australia's offshore wind industry.' That's what their spokesperson said this term.

But the truth is that they are hopelessly split on this. Only today we had the member for New England, the brains trust of the National Party, who said that wind turbines are 'filth.' This is his party's commitment to renewable energy. The truth is it's not about whether it's the right zone or not; they are opposed to renewable energy—full stop; they're opposed to action on climate change—full stop; they're opposed to cheaper electricity—full stop; they're opposed to thousands of jobs in the Hunter—full stop. Then we had Senator Nampijinpa Price, who said, 'Nothing angered me more than the sight of wind turbines.'

This is the real position of those opposite, because what do they actually want to see? What do they want to see instead of cheaper, cleaner energy? What do they want to see instead of the 3,000 construction jobs that will be created and the 1,500 ongoing jobs? What do they want to see? They want to see nuclear power stations from shore to shore. That's their true position. The truth is that if they get into power what we'll see in the Hunter and Central Coast, according to independent analysis, is nuclear power stations at Lake Munmorah, nuclear power stations at Vales Point and nuclear power stations at Tuggerah, Eraring and Bayswater.

The Switkowski report made it very clear that there are four criteria for nuclear power station location: proximity to existing electricity infrastructure; proximity to load centres; proximity to transport infrastructure; and access to large quantities of water. The truth is that you can't have a domestic nuclear power industry in this country without putting them on the shores of Lake Macquarie, the shores of Lake Munmorah, the shores of Tuggerah Lake, and up the valley at Bayswater. That is the truth of what they're arguing for. They're arguing for nuclear power stations in my community.

If you want to talk about social license, come up to my community and talk about nuclear power, because you will get the response you deserve up there. That's what the National Party and their fellow travellers in the LNP in Queensland, who really run the opposition, will get. Not only do they lack a social license, not only will people be lining up to say, 'No, not in my community'; they should also explain the prohibitive cost of this, because that's what kills nuclear power.

According to the latest CSIRO report, when the levelised costs are included, which take into account the need for more storage and transmission development for wind and solar, wind and solar are $112 per megawatt hour, and nuclear power is north of $500 per megawatt hour. So what they're arguing for is power that is 4½ times the cost of cheap renewable energy, which is made completely reliable with transmission and storage.

The member for New England, the brains trust of the opposition, also talked about the English example. I'm glad he brought up Hinkley Point C. Hinkley Point C is a power station that was promised to be built with the equivalent of A$34 billion. Guess where the costs are now: not $35 billion or $36 billion but $89 billion, more than doubling in price since 2015.

If you want to argue for more expensive power, go to the National Party. If you want to argue for fewer jobs in regional areas, go to the National Party. If you want to argue for decimating manufacturing, go to the National Party, who are running the opposition, which is a fact-free zone. All they do is listen to Sky News After Dark, another fact-free zone. Any independent expert will tell you that nothing they say is based in fact, and I'm very happy for the next election to be a referendum on renewable power versus nuclear power. I'll be on the side of cheaper power. I'll be on the side of cleaner power. I'll be on the side of re-industrialising the manufacturing sector on cheaper power, while those opposite are arguing for expensive, unreliable power that lacks a social licence.

Barnaby Joyce (New England, National Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to tell you about the consultation process. Last year I got home and there was a black plastic bag—a possibly decomposing plastic bag—on my front gate, telling me that we were going to have a one-kilometre-wide transmission zone going over our house. But it wasn't just my house; it was also the other houses in the valley, and this was the process of consultation.

Then we had the sneaky process where they took people down into halls; EnergyCo had everybody sitting in different corners, and you weren't allowed to talk to each other. We had these swindling overseas multinational wind companies, saying: 'We'll do you a deal, but you've got to keep the confidentiality clause. You can't tell anybody what you're doing, and we're going to put a caveat on your title once you do it.' This is the process that's happening.

Then we had the sneakiness of Minister Bowen, the minister for this, who's giving these overseas companies a deed-rate return but won't tell the parliament what it is. We hear that it could be around 15 to 18 per cent. They borrow the money at four per cent and they pocket the difference, whether they produce power or not. It is an absolute swindle, and who pays for it at the end? The taxpayer. What's happening to our power price? The price is going through the roof, the reliability is going through the floor and the money is going overseas. The money's going overseas.

We hear about the virtue of these renewables, yet who's responsible for the decommissioning and the rehabilitation when they get to the end of their life on the land? Has that problem been fixed up? Who's going to deal with these rusting pieces of filth on people's places? That's what they will be: rusting, decomposing pieces of filth, like they are in other parts of the world. Well, the farmer is responsible for the decommissioning. If those opposite believed it was virtuous they would underwrite the decommissioning, but of course they don't. Do the overseas companies, the multinationals, underwrite the decommissioning? No, they don't. This is all part of the swindle that's happening to us.

I want to give credit to the people who turned up today. The movement has started. The movement is growing, and we're going to go all the way with this. We're going to go all the way. I'd also like to acknowledge that it's not a National Party thing. There were Greens there today. There were people who are supporters of the Labor Party there today. You should've come out. There were a lot of Labor Party supporters, and they don't like being dismissed. Overwhelmingly they said the same thing: 'We can't see our local member.' Whether it's in Shortland, Paterson, Whitlam, Gilmore, Dobell or Eden-Monaro, these local members won't see their own constituents. And I can tell the member for Shortland that that ain't working for him.

We see this furphy of the 3,000 jobs. Where are these jobs? Where are they? I can tell you the towns that are put under threat, whether it's Cessnock, Kurri Kurri, Singleton, Biloela, Gunnedah or Muswellbrook, where there are workers. Where's this renewable town? Where's this town where all the renewable jobs are? They're fly-in fly-out contractors. A lot of them come in from overseas. You're also ripping off your own union members. You are ripping them off. Actually, when you look at it, the vast majority of you have never done a job. You haven't done any labouring in your life. There's not a labourer amongst the Labor Party.

They've said, 'You want have an election based around this.' Yes, I do—you got that one right. You've got that one absolutely right, because, when I went to Port Stephens and there were 3,000 people there, I got a sense that I wouldn't mind having an election on this issue. I've got a real sense of comfort about that. It was the same in the Illawarra, and when they're turning up here and at Martin Place. You are so conceited that you don't realise what's before you.

Now, Minister Conroy said he hadn't had one person contact his office. I'm sorry about that, so I'm going to help him out. Minister Conroy's phone number—and listen to this—is (02) 49479546. You should write that down, and I say to you, give him a bell. Give him a call. Ring him up because he's so lonely. He hasn't heard from you but, by gosh, he's going to hear from you now.

Josh Burns (Macnamara, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think we can all take a deep breath after that. I do enjoy speaking after the member for New England. He gives it his all, and that's credible. It's always interesting with the member for New England. One thing I will say about the National Party is that they do enjoy making it harder for the Liberals to win seats, don't they? They do enjoy making it really difficult for the Liberal Party to win seats, because at the last election, with the contributions we've seen from the National Party, we saw a lot of Liberal Party members lose their seats.

Barnaby Joyce (New England, National Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We won every seat.

Josh Burns (Macnamara, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Nationals kept their seats, as the member for New England rightly points out. But the member for New England made it very difficult for campaigning in Higgins, Bennelong, Reid, Goldstein, Kooyong, North Sydney, Mackellar, Wentworth and all the other seats they no longer hold, because of the attitudes of he and his friends in the National Party. They are going down this ridiculous path of having an ideological war against the cheapest form of energy. They are against the cheapest form of energy because that is what the National Party stands for. They are ideologically opposed to renewables; it is in their DNA. The member for New England has fought against renewables his entire career and, to give him credit, he's consistent. He has fought against renewables his entire career, and that's what the National Party are all about.

But the Liberal Party is disintegrating because, obviously, there are people in Australia who understand that renewables are the cheapest form of energy. Our energy grid is changing as the coal-fired power stations come out of the grid. We're not going to replace them with the most expensive form of energy. We're going to replace them with a cheaper form of energy so that Australians in a cost-of-living crisis can actually have some cheaper form of energy. Now, as the new energy comes on to the grid, that's a process that needs to be managed respectfully and appropriately. But we are absolutely proud of the fact that, over the next 10 years, we are going to transform our grid into a renewable energy grid, because it is going to be better and cheaper for Australians. We have a coastline that is larger than any other country in the world and we have a desert the size of the Sahara. It is insane that, for the last 10 years, the previous government was fighting renewable energy every single step of the way. You have to ask yourself: if these people opposite are so hell-bent on stopping renewable energy and stopping the new cheaper forms of energy, what are they going to do instead?

You only have to listen to them when they tell us exactly what they want to do—it's nuclear energy. Time and time again, we've gone through this tiresome debate about how long it would take to build a large-scale reactor. Well, fine, they've now ruled out the fact that they're not going to build a large-scale reactor; they want to build a small modular reactor. The only problem is: give me one example in the world where there is a modular reactor that is ready to go—being built, that hasn't pushed out time lines—that's actually being rolled out around the world. The amount of energy that you're going to need to power our country via small modular reactors is the equivalent of around 80 small modular reactors. So when are you going to tell the Australian people where these 80 modular reactors are going to go? Are they going to go in all the Liberal seats that you've lost because you keep up this insane ranting about renewable energy? Or are they going to go in the National seats that you haven't been honest about? Where are those nuclear energy power plants going to go?

Barnaby Joyce (New England, National Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As opposed to thousands and thousands of wind towers. Why don't you put the wind towers in your seats?

Josh Burns (Macnamara, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And are you going to be honest about how much it's going to cost Australians?

The member for New England wants to build a nuclear reactor in my seat. Well—

Barnaby Joyce (New England, National Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, put a wind tower in your seat.

Josh Burns (Macnamara, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

please come and build a nuclear power plant in my seat or say that you're going to. You can have a press conference outside my office and you can do it as loud as you want, because people in my seat, people in Macnamara, understand that renewable energy is the cheapest form of energy. We are going to transition towards renewable energy. I would be proud if the member for New England came to Macnamara. In fact, please come to Macnamara and tell us all about your plans for whatever it is that you want to build.

We are clear about the fact that renewable energy is the cheapest form of energy. We're clear about the fact that nuclear power is not going to power Australia. It would be diabolically expensive for Australians. It would be hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars that would add power prices to Australian families. Instead, we're going to get on with the job of building renewable energy, solar and wind, backed up by firming engines, because it's the cheapest form of energy, and that's what we're going to build.

Michelle Landry (Capricornia, National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Manufacturing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Today I draw your attention to this government's lack of concern for those across regional Australia, who are being directly impacted by the ideological net zero targets. The goal of achieving 82 per cent renewable energy to power our nation by 2030 is significantly affecting regional communities on an unprecedented scale. This target is causing substantial harm to the lives of thousands of residents in rural and regional Australia, as they bear witness to the extensive destruction of our native flora and fauna habitats.

To truly understand how much of our prime agricultural land and untouched remnant vegetation is at stake, let me put this into perspective for those sitting opposite: one seven-megawatt wind turbine must be erected every 18 hours and 22,000 solar panels must be installed every single day until 2030. This is on top of the 23,000 kilometres of transmission lines scarring our countryside to connect each project. Where are these industrial-scale renewable projects going to go? Certainly not in inner-city Melbourne or off the coast of Bondi Beach. According to projections from Net Zero Australia, it is estimated that, by 2050, the energy required to replace Australia's fossil fuel exports, in addition to domestic consumption, will require solar farms equivalent in size to five Tasmanias.

The current climate and energy plan put forth by Labor has proven to be ineffective, resulting in adverse consequences for everyday Australians. Despite their promise of a $275 reduction in their household power bills, Australians now find themselves paying up to $1,000 more annually. This has led to Australia having some of the highest energy bills in the world, placing an undue financial burden on households. Despite assurances of a more reliable grid, reports from the Australian Energy Market Operator indicate significant risks of blackouts in the future.

The disconnect between promises and the actual state of energy infrastructure raises concerns about the reliability and sustainability of Australia's energy systems. The potential for blackouts poses not only an inconvenience but also potential economic and social repercussions, emphasising the urgency for effective and comprehensive energy policies. Labor's energy solutions and net-zero target policies are tearing apart regional communities at the seams.

I want to paint a picture for you of just one project that is tearing the lives apart of the regional community of Eungella. Just 80 kilometres west of Mackay and perched high above the rich plains of the Pioneer Valley lies the townships of Eungella and Netherdale. This mist-shrouded and forest-clad mountain refuge is one of Queensland's most ecologically diverse parks, with 860 plant species and a wonderful variety of wildlife. Nevertheless, the former Premier of Queensland surprised residents in Eungella and Netherdale in 2022 by revealing the state Labor government's intention to establish the centrepiece of their renewable initiative, referred to as the 'jewel in the crown'.

Their plan is to create the world's largest pumped hydro scheme in one of Australia's most ecologically diverse regions and force families from their homes. This $12 billion pie-in-the-sky scheme, known as Pioneer-Burdekin pumped hydro, involves the construction of three dams, two at the top of the mountain and a third reservoir at the bottom, with a 65-metre-high wall. A hair-raising 937 hectares of land, or 1,753 football fields, will be flooded for the three reservoirs, also taking out the town of Netherdale and countless other farms and homes. I have visited farmers and locals of Eungella and Netherdale, and the impact this is having on the community is heartbreaking. Families who have resided on the properties there for generations are being forced off the land. Hundreds more throughout the community of Eungella will be indirectly impacted by the loss of essential infrastructure, like Eungella Primary School, due to the drastic decline in population.

The Pioneer-Burdekin pumped hydro project is bringing the community of Eungella and the Pioneer Valley to its knees. This project is creating substantial impact on locals in Eungella and Netherdale. The residents are experiencing enormous emotional and psychological impacts as they live in a state of uncertainty and are hindered from making decisions about their future. Anxiety prevails, with looming questions about the potential requisition of their homes, the potential fragmentation of their community and the fate of the land once envisioned as a lasting legacy for future generations.

I call on this government to pause their relentless march to their net zero targets and to undertake an inquiry into the impact these renewable energy projects have on regional communities. Save our platypus; save our koalas; save our land.

Alicia Payne (Canberra, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Here we are in 2024 and the Liberals and Nationals are trying to find yet another new angle to their climate denial. It is unbelievable that at this point in history we are still having these discussions and that there are still people in the Australian parliament saying things like 'ideological net zero targets'. What a disgrace! In fact, renewable energy is the only way to ensure that the nation remains standing after a decade of backpedalling and denial by the coalition on climate change.

Today's matter of public importance is, 'This Government's failure to consider the impact of renewable energy projects on communities', yet the impacts of failing to build renewable energy capability in Australia will have a significantly more harmful effect on Australian communities. The previous government ensured that Australia remains far behind the rest of the world in developing our renewable energy capability. We've had hundreds of people outside parliament today campaigning against renewable energy, and they were supported by the members opposite. This constant refusal by members opposite to see the detrimental effects of climate change will have the biggest impact on Australian communities.

The Albanese Labor government has been working with communities to ensure that they are engaged in our renewable energy work. Particularly, the regions stand to benefit the most from our renewable energy transformation, and we are excited to address community expectations about energy projects. The Minister for Climate Change and Energy released the Community engagement review by the Australian Energy Infrastructure Commissioner. This review is evidence of our government's work to ensure that the voices of regional communities have been heard and to ensure that they receive real benefits from the renewable energy transition. The government accepted, in principle, all the recommendations made in the report, which included streamlining and ensuring transparency in approval processes; keeping communities informed of energy transformation goals, benefits and needs; and improving complaints handling.

Regional communities and renewable energy can coexist successfully. This is just another false dichotomy peddled by those opposite. Research indicates that regional people believe renewable energy projects will be the biggest opportunity for their local regions over the next two decades. Further, the impacts of climate change were considered to be the biggest threat to farming in regional areas over the next two decades, and farmers know this. Renewable energy projects will help protect regional areas and ensure that they are able to remain the backbone of Australia.

Climate change and its effects is the biggest concern for many Australians, particularly younger Australians. I am fortunate to have one of the youngest electorates in the country; an electorate filled with young people who are fighting every day for their future and making Australia the country that they want it to be. Yet it is young people who will live for decades with the decisions that we make in this place and who are experiencing never-before-seen levels of climate anxiety that are affecting their day-to-day lives. As one mother of teenagers in my electorate put it to me, they feel that the adults have let them down. I remember learning about climate change, which we then called the greenhouse effect, when I was in primary school. I cannot believe that here we are, in 2024, still having these discussions in this parliament, nor that there would still be people denying the existence of climate change—this existential crisis facing us—or that people are still sticking their heads in the sand on this.

I am proud to be standing here as part of a government that is taking this seriously, that is investing in renewable energy and that is addressing this head on. The Albanese Labor government is committed to ensuring that this planet is safe and well into the future by reversing the damage and setbacks perpetrated by the previous government. We want to ensure that the Earth is livable for future generations, for our children and our grandchildren. We are working to make renewable energy cheaper and more accessible while taking concrete steps to improve the climate.

I am proud that, here in the ACT, the ACT government has achieved 100 per cent renewable energy and last year announced that they will futureproof the ACT's energy supply by creating a large-scale battery storage facility. This will prevent future blackouts in the ACT and will be completed in 2025. The ACT government proves that renewable energy has only positive impacts on local communities.

The Albanese Labor government has also, just this week, announced another policy that is going to need more renewable energy than before. The New Vehicle Efficiency Standard will bring more electric vehicles to Australia while also ensuring that petrol cars are fuel efficient and cheaper to run. Australia and Russia are the only two countries without these standards. It is time we joined the world and it is time those opposite caught up.

Anne Webster (Mallee, National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Regional Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would respond to the member for Canberra. I don't see any wind towers within Canberra at this point in time. I'm sure that you would welcome them here. I would also remind the member for Canberra that Australia's contribution to omissions is one per cent; in fact, it's less than that.

The key enabler of renewable energy projects are transmission lines. I was proud to support Mallee residents visiting Canberra today who met with members from both sides of the House and the Senate to make their voices heard on the VNI West transmission project in my electorate. As the member for Mallee, it's my job to ensure that my community is seen and heard and listened to. I am very, very concerned that this Labor government is simply not interested in listening to farmers and regional communities. These custodians of the land, and I'm referring to the farmers, are threatened by the Albanese government's race to a political target of 82 per cent renewable generation by 2030. At federal and state levels, Labor have enabled renewable energy providers to abandon any social license—and they ought to be ashamed—and run roughshod over farmers in my electorate of Mallee and beyond. Farmers and landholders are giving that clear feedback to my electorate office and they have given it to the Australian Energy Infrastructure Commissioner, Andrew Dyer.

The VNI West project runs through Mallee and people's homes, and a classic example is Matthew McLoughlan from Charlton. The VNI West threatens his farm and his family home. Imagine if his home was in suburban Melbourne or Sydney or Canberra. In fact, his family's home is historically significant. The 125-year-old mudbrick home was also the childhood home of World War I hero and former Victorian Senator Harold Edward 'Pompey' Elliott. Matt has been raising the agricultural impacts and heritage impacts of the VNI West proposal, but the proponent, Transmission Company Victoria, TCV, has given him jargonistic answers and tokenistic consultation. This is a picture that I would say is happening across Mallee and not just Mallee. Matt's family are in despair, and they are not the only ones in Mallee who will have to abandon their family home.

The Australian Energy Market Operator, AEMO, and TCV, in AEMO's unique Victorian arrangement, have been emboldened by the Albanese Labor government and energy minister, Chris Bowen. Their actions are in lockstep with the government's Rewiring the Nation plan.

This morning, I supported a delegation of Mallee farmers meeting Minister Bowen, including Kanya's Marcia McIntyre, Ben Duxson, Glenden Watts, Gerald Feeny and Alex Matthews from the Southern Wimmera Renewables Research Association. Many of these Mallee locals drove for about eight hours to get to Canberra. That is how passionate they are about this topic.

The Australian Energy Infrastructure Commissioner, Andrew Dyer, reviewed community engagement efforts by transmission and energy project proponents in regional communities. Farmers and farming communities have very strong bulldust detectors. In effect, Mallee residents and other regional communities nationwide have collectively told Commissioner Dyer they feel like they have been buried in bulldust. Here are some statistics from the report: 92 per cent of respondents were dissatisfied with the level of engagement; 85 per cent were dissatisfied with the developer's explanations in response to their questions; 89 per cent of respondents said they received information irrelevant to the concerns they raised; and 93 per cent of respondents did not see their concerns satisfactorily answered. Abysmal community consultation and a ham-fisted handling of social licence is why farmers in Mallee started protesting, with my support, in St Arnaud; in Horsham, when the Prime Minister visited; on the steps of state parliament in Melbourne; and today a number were in the crowd outside Parliament House here. Many landholders involved in the wind turbine negotiations do not realise it can cost up to $600,000 to decommission each turbine, and they will be holding that bill.

Sally Sitou (Reid, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I appreciate the contributions from those opposite, and I appreciate the opportunity to talk about the communities that we get to represent. Unlike those opposite, we have a very clear and simple view when it comes to climate change: we believe it's real, we believe it is having a devastating impact on communities and we believe we need to address climate change by moving towards more renewable energy. We also believe that if we manage the transition well we'll be able to create new, clean energy jobs. That's what we believe on this side of the House. It's a belief backed by science, backed by the international community and backed by business and industry.

What do those opposite believe? Do they believe in the science of climate change? Not sure. Do they believe the businesses yelling out for investment certainty? Doubtful. Do they believe in renewable energy? Only nuclear, it seems—and the member for Cook seems to have a greater affinity for lumps of coal. Those opposite have a dysfunctional relationship with renewable energy. It's so dysfunctional, you could almost make a documentary out of it—and the ABC did just that on Monday night on the infamous NEG: the National Energy Guarantee. In the words of former treasurer Josh Frydenberg, it was a policy designed by experts, backed by business, supported by states and by modelling. It would show that energy prices could come down, create a more sustainable grid and a smaller carbon footprint. And yet those opposite couldn't back it. Why? As we were reminded by the former Liberal prime minister Malcolm Turnbull, they saw an attempt to reduce emissions as surrendering to the climate gods. They fought long and hard to wreck any action to address climate change, and to deny this country the opportunity to take advantage of the extraordinary natural advantages this country has.

The final instalment of Nemesis will air next Monday, and the focus will be on our coal-loving, Hawaii-vacationing former prime minister. I hope the documentary focuses on a key moment in the Morrison government, when they utterly and completely let down communities in rural and regional Australia. It was during the 2019-2020 bushfires. The former prime minister was on vacation and made his infamous statement about not holding a hose. But, worse still, he refused to listen to advice from Greg Mullins, former commissioner of fire and rescue NSW. Greg Mullins said of those devastating bushfires that raged for months and months:

… this disaster is a weather-driven event, not a fuel-driven one, underpinned by years of drying and warming. Climate change is the driver of increasing extreme weather.

He directed his frustration at the former prime minister:

… together with 22 former fire and emergency service chiefs from every state and territory I had tried from April 2019 to warn the prime minister about what veteran firefighters, climate scientists and meteorologists all identified as a looming bushfire disaster. We were ignored and trivialised …

It seems the former Prime Minister not only couldn't hold a hose, he couldn't take a simple meeting, and it was a damning indictment of the Morrison government from the former fire commissioner. There has been an appalling failure in national leadership from Canberra. I thank the members opposite for raising this matter of public importance because it is important we consider the impact climate change has on communities right across Australia.

To the communities on the Mid North Coast of New South Wales, the Hunter region, Wollondilly, Blue Mountains, the Hawkesbury, East Gippsland and other communities so badly devastated by those bushfires, I say that we will never forget the impact those fires had on your lives. That's why we are acting to address climate change. That's why we have set a target of 82 per cent renewable energy by 2030.

David Gillespie (Lyne, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is a really important MPI. I want to reject a lot of those assertions. Eighty-two per cent is totally unrealistic. There is no country in the world, unless you're somewhere that has oodles of lakes like Canada, that can do renewables to 82 per cent. Here are the basic physics—to get it off my chest—so you understand: grids run on alternating current, and renewables, unless they're synchronist generators, generate direct current. They have to synthesise it into alternating current and it's very unstable with big machines. If you can prove to me that this hypothetical world exists and you can find an engineer who says it will, you're doing well, because we can't.

At today's rally against too many renewables, people came from around the country. I have people here today whose livelihoods, their own town's industry, are at risk. I met people from Port Stephens who I have met at huge rallies in Port Stephens and in Hawks Nest but there were also people affected by the Illawarra offshore wind farm which, like the Port Stephens, Hunter and wild coast proposal, will destroy the commercial fishing industry. It will destroy the blue water economy. The 1,400 square kilometre area of the Illawarra occupies half the fishing grounds of the South Coast fishing fleet. That's both for eating fish and for eastern rock lobster. It is the same with Port Stephens. It's a billion-dollar economy based around commercial fishing and blue water tourism. Both these areas are pristine—so much for saving the environment.

This is going to impact RAMSAR-protected islands and birds—kestrels and other sea birds. Some 40,000 giant whales pass through these offshore wind farms. There are a lot of electromagnetic fields—the mapping, the sounds—and there are 6,000 commercial ships going in and out of the Port of Newcastle and Port Stephens. The risk during storms and tempests for these massive 267 metre high wind turbines that are anchored by wires to cement blocks will be Pasha Bulka times 300 in each area—that's how many wind turbines there are. It will clash with the East Coast current and divert it because there will be so much turbulence.

The economic concerns of these areas are valid. If you're in these places that mums and dads own looking out to sea, the views will be destroyed. The Australian Property Institute has conservatively estimated that all these houses will decrease in value, as will all these jobs and industries that exist in these areas opposite them.

You've got the same environmental vandalism happening in Queensland. There are going to be 600,000 hectares in Queensland, along the Great Dividing Range, destroyed by these onshore wind farms that are popping up all over the place, with all these cowboy carpetbaggers who sign things up and get them approved by the local council without even councillors knowing. There are ridiculous leave passes for all the environmental checks and balances for these wind farms. It's the same in New South Wales, except they get a leave pass higher up the chain of government.

People on the other side are obsessed with talking about really expensive nuclear projects, but they never talk about the best-case-managed nuclear projects, like the one in the Emirates. We all know about Hinkley C; it's an example of how you don't do it; that's why people don't do it the way they've done it. But in the Emirates they have 5,600 megawatts—almost the same as the baseload of New South Wales—built and delivered and operating in the Emirates for US$22 billion. They started building it just as I came into parliament, in 2013, and, in the space of 10 years, they have built exactly what we need in New South Wales. It's cheap if you do it well.

Libby Coker (Corangamite, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I begin by thanking the member for Fairfax for putting forward this matter of public importance, and I'd like to take this opportunity to remind the member that, for too long, Australia has lagged behind the rest of the world in seizing the economic and environmental opportunities that come with cleaner and more affordable energy. We know that, in the global race for new energy jobs and investments, we've found ourselves falling behind, after a decade of policy drift, funding neglect and climate change denial. We've fallen behind in securing the benefits that come from renewable energy—benefits including cheaper energy bills, and savings for Australian households; lower emissions and cleaner air quality; new jobs and manufacturing opportunities; and, importantly, reducing the impacts of climate change: floods, fires, sea-level rise and rising community anxiety. Who remembers the former PM, the member for Cook, whose response to bushfire disaster was: 'I don't hold a hose'?

But times are changing. We now have a government, the Albanese government, which is seizing the opportunity of renewable energy. And we have strong support from our communities, who know that this cannot come soon enough. The Albanese government recognises that the key to economic prosperity and to securing the future health of our planet rests with the transition to renewable energy. That's why, on coming to government, we set ambitious targets for emissions reduction and renewable energy.

As our Minister for Climate Change and Energy has made clear, we've made a good start, but the job is far from over. On this side of the House, we recognise that much of the potential of renewable energy exists in our regions—like my electorate of Corangamite, where there is much open space and where there is capacity for wind, hydro, solar and hydrogen. Corangamite, which includes the Surf Coast, Golden Plains, the Bellarine Peninsula and parts of Geelong, has a strong manufacturing history. When you add a dynamic university like Deakin, a TAFE like Gordon TAFE, and industry that is already on the renewables journey, we are well placed for rapid success. And there are many other regions across Australia just like mine. Our government recognises this, and so do our local communities. They recognise that the transition to renewables will bring with it new jobs, cheaper energy prices and even more cost-of-living relief, that will work alongside our proposed tax cuts for all Australians—tax cuts that will put more money in the pockets of every Australian taxpayer.

It's with the support of community that we've been able to pursue an ambitious renewable energy agenda over the last year. But they want to see this done right. That's why the Albanese government has accepted, and is acting on, all nine recommendations of the Dyer review, in principle. The review has looked at how we can best help local landholders and regional communities to receive real benefits from the renewable energy transformation.

These nine recommendations cover a number of themes: improving the way project sites are selected, increasing early local collaboration; revising planning and approval processes to be more transparent and streamlined when it comes to community feedback; motivating developers to ensure best-practice engagement; improving complaints handling; keeping communities better informed on energy transformation goals, benefits and needs; and equitably sharing the benefits of the transformation. Our government will now work to implement these recommendations, working alongside states and territories, local communities and landholders.

In the past 12 months we've also announced a critical expansion in the Capacity Investment Scheme to deliver the long-term reliable, affordable and low-emissions energy system. We've also established the National Reconstruction Fund, with targeted investment of $3 billion in renewables and low-emissions technologies.

We're achieving so much, but there's so much more to do. In the area of research and development, we're investing so that more people and more companies can make more things in Australia. There's so much potential, and our task is ready and waiting to get going. We have the continued support of the community and industry, and in this way we will become a visionary renewable powerhouse.

Lisa Chesters (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This discussion is now concluded.