Anne Stanley (Werriwa, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to make my contribution to the Net Zero Economy Authority Bill 2024 and the Net Zero Economy Authority (Transitional Provisions) Bill 2024. When we look back through history, we see events throughout time that define the following decades and centuries, creating lasting effects till this day. We often see these events as single defining moments, but that's almost never the case. When Alexander Fleming first published his findings on penicillin, it went largely unnoticed until ten years later and took several more years of delays until its widespread use eventually began saving millions of lives and revolutionising medicine. When we think of the moon landings, we see Neil Armstrong taking his first step on the moon on 20 July 1969, but it began years and years before that, built on the successes and failures of millions of individuals worldwide and hundreds of projects. And, if we go back to the Industrial Revolution, it was a process which spanned generations. A recent estimate suggests it actually started almost 100 years earlier than thought, not in the 1760s but in the 1600s. Millions of people shifted their livelihoods, the fundamental industries that power economies changed and societies fundamentally changed forever. When we look at these events, we appreciate how pivotal they were for humanity, defining us and reshaping what humanity's future will look like.

Australia and the rest of the world are once again facing a pivotal moment, a moment which will be looked back on in a similar way to how we look back on the Industrial Revolution. The transition to a net zero economy is the most significant challenge humanity has faced. There's no denying or doubting how monumental and necessary it is. Every day we not only hear about but see and feel the impacts of climate change. Our weather is becoming more extreme, our reefs are facing unprecedented coral bleaching and we are losing an extraordinary number of unique flora and fauna. There is no denying that this is a result of our actions both historically and today, which means we have the responsibility not only to ourselves but to future generations to mitigate the effects of climate change and build a future which will be liveable.

Since coming to power in 2022, the Albanese government has dramatically shifted and expanded Australia's climate action. The previous government not only delayed action but actively struggled to believe in the facts of climate change, an issue that still plagues them in opposition, with their economically illiterate and irrational pursuit of nuclear power. The Albanese government lifted and legislated our emissions reduction targets, passed changes to the safeguard mechanism, introduced and expanded the Capacity Investment Scheme and set a target of 82 per cent renewables in the NEM, amongst many other changes since 2022. After a wasted decade, we are acting. And because of the wasted decade under those opposite, all levels of government are faced with the difficult task of transitioning our economy and power grid swiftly whilst the coal power stations still operate. The exit that those opposite refused to plan for, despite being warned for years, is now imminent, and the Albanese government has not been sitting on its hands. Australia is a fossil-fuel-based economy, and we must not be left behind as the world transitions away from fossil fuels. Australia must benefit from decarbonisation, and there are significant opportunities for us as a nation to leverage our advantages to become a renewable energy superpower.

Australia is blessed with an abundance of renewable energy sources, critical minerals deposits and the knowledge to benefit from them. However, the Albanese government recognise that, for a fossil-fuel-based economy, the industries, communities and workers will be impacted by this transition, much like the displacement of previous shifts in the world's economy—whether from the industrial revolution or globalisation. This is why this legislation is critical, as it establishes a permanent Net Zero Economy Authority. It is not only another stepping stone in our path towards net zero but it will ensure that our communities, especially in regional Australia, are not left behind. It's one of those measures that will define our response to the climate crisis, especially when examined by future generations.

Announced in May 2023, the Albanese government has moved to establish the interim Net Zero Economy Authority, and today the bill before the House details functions, powers and government arrangements, as well as a transition for the current interim body to an independent statutory authority. This authority has been subject to significant consultation and feedback from across society, with investor groups, business bodies, unions, peak energy bodies and local community groups across Australia participating. As a result of the extensive consultations, this authority has received support from 16 peak bodies, including the ACTU, the Australian Energy Council, the Australian Council of Superannuation Investors and the National Farmers Federation, because they all recognise the importance of a just and orderly transition to net zero.

The authority will play an important role in coordinating the government's policies and help facilitate public and private sector participation and investment across the country. It will support those workers in industries that are emissions intensive and will be affected by the transition with access to new employment and upskilling opportunities, and it will help improve their employment prospects. It will also support the implementation of the Energy Industry Jobs Plan, which will create a consistent approach in supporting workers to transfer from coal- and gas-powered stations and dependent coal mines to new employment. The authority will work with Indigenous communities so they, too, can benefit from transition to net zero. In exercising its functions, it will prioritise those communities, regions, industries and workers most impacted.

Importantly, the authority will be governed by an independent board of up to eight members, and a chair to be appointed by the minister. The board's composition must also consist of two members with experience in the union movement, to ensure that the views and concerns of workers are considered. Two members must also have experience in business, industry, finance or investment. Other members should have experience in economics, decarbonisation pathways, climate change policy, energy markets, regional development, First Nations engagement, public or cooperative governance, or law. The diversity of experience on the board will ensure its advice and decisions are made in the best interests of everyone, and will deliver Australia's goal of reaching net zero.

The Net Zero Economy Authority will play a fundamental and critical role in Australia's transition to net zero, alongside the almost $40 billion in government incentives to reduce emissions—incentives such as the $20 billion Rewiring the Nation Fund, the $1.9 billion Powering the Regions Fund, the $2 billion Hydrogen Headstart program and the $15 billion National Reconstruction Fund.

No single program or initiative will solve the complex task of transitioning our economy. Much like every other significant moment in humanity's history, it will take the efforts and contributions of millions of people working across projects both small and large and spanning decades. The transition is one of humanity's most significant challenges, and this government is committing to ensuring that all Australians are brought along and will benefit from it. This is the purpose of this authority. I commend the bill to the House.

Monique Ryan (Kooyong, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Net Zero Economy Authority Bill 2024 and the related bill.

The Net Zero Economy Authority will be a new statutory authority tasked with promoting an orderly and positive economic transformation as the world decarbonises. Ninety-seven per cent of the countries that we export to have already committed to net zero. The scale and the significance of this global transformation will be huge for a country like ours, which has relied for decades on emissions-intensive industries as the bedrock of our economic success. For Australia, the transition is a singular and extraordinary economic opportunity—a chance to lead the world in production of cheap, clean energy and to take back control of our mineral and rare-earth-dependent industries.

If we want that opportunity, if we recognise it for its unique circumstances, then we have to be prepared to invest in it. The establishment of this authority as the coordinating national body is a solid and welcome step. Unsurprisingly, the previous government lacked the vision for this commitment. The current government is acting appropriately, but it could go much further. The authority will coordinate the net zero transformation in three main ways: firstly, by facilitating achievement of Australia's greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets; secondly, by assisting our transformation to becoming a renewable energy superpower; and, thirdly, by supporting our Australian regions and workers through and beyond that economic transformation. Today I shall focus my remarks on the first two objectives of the authority.

Australia has committed internationally and domestically to lowering our greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2050. Those international obligations arose when we signed the Paris agreement, along with over 150 other nations. As a nation, with the passage of the Climate Change Act in 2022 we further committed to reducing our greenhouse gas emissions to 43 per cent below 2005 levels and to net zero by 2050 in our domestic law. The effort and the commitment required for us to achieve these reductions is enormous. As the Minister for Climate Change and Energy has said, holding the world to 1.5 degrees of warming will be very, very difficult to achieve. And yet, in spite of that, this government recently announced its Future Gas Strategy, which includes the ramp-up of gas extraction and the use of gas until 2050 and beyond. The strategy proposes the use of gas as a 'transition' fuel because it displaces coal in the energy mix and because burning gas produces fewer emissions than coal. But the government's gas strategy goes much further than delineating a diminishing need for gas and a mature plan for the rollout of large-scale renewables over the next 10 to 15 years. It also includes the release of new offshore acreage for greenhouse gas storage and for new transboundary carbon capture and storage programs.

With this policy, the government has put us into a policy landscape of reverse thinking and backward logic. As my kids used to say, it feels like 'opposite' day. We can ramp up our gas exports at the cost of domestic power prices, and of local manufacturing, while we're claiming to decrease our carbon emissions. Yep—that's opposite day. We're still putting more than $14 billion a year into subsidising fossil fuel use and subsidies in this country. And in the recent budget, the government committed $566 million in funding for Geoscience Australia to conduct mapping of mineral and gas deposits across the country and its territorial waters. It will provide that data for free to gas companies, and yet the Prime Minister has claimed that no government money will be given to gas companies through the Future Gas Strategy. Yep—opposite day.

Australian industries used to enjoy abundant, cheap gas and that gave them a comparative advantage. But successive Australian governments have green-lit massive gas exports without instituting a domestic gas reservation policy, so we sell our gas cheaply overseas while we pay more for it here. It's multinationals, not Australians, who reap the superprofits from those gas exports. We pay too much for electricity and we're paying too much for our own gas after it gets processed overseas and shipped back home. We export 82 per cent of our gas, but this government's Future Gas Strategy says that we need to build new import terminals. It's opposite day.

Woodside's planned Burrup Hub expansion will be the largest fossil fuel development in the southern hemisphere. It alone would emit more greenhouse gas emissions than the output of all of Australia's existing coal-fired power stations. You don't increase emissions to decrease emissions. The same goes for carbon capture and storage. The success of this technology to date has been limited to its success in providing a convenient cover for fossil fuel industries. Take Chevron's recently approved Gorgon LNG stage 2 expansion. It will release three billion tonnes of carbon emissions over the next five decades. In contrast, its carbon capture and storage program has sequestered just over nine million tonnes to date and will capture only 100 million tonnes over the life of the system. The government has provided millions of dollars to provide regulatory and administrative certainty for offshore carbon capture and storage programs, but it says that it's not supporting gas developments. It's opposite day.

The second role of the Net Zero Economy Authority is to facilitate Australia's transformation as a renewable energy superpower. By putting billions of dollars towards critical minerals and green hydrogen in its Future Made in Australia strategy, the federal government shows that it is getting serious about a clean energy future. That is great. But I believe that it has missed a big, possibly the biggest, piece of the puzzle. Alongside critical minerals and green industry, the government must support home electrification via solar, home batteries and heat pumps. More domestic carbon emissions are created in our homes and from our cars—40 per cent in total—than from all of our businesses and their operations—30 per cent. Millions of households in this country have already saved on their power bills. They've cut emissions by electrifying parts of their home life. The electricity sector has achieved a 26 per cent drop in emissions in the last 15 years, while other sectors have remained largely static. Rooftop solar contributed 11 per cent of total supply in the national electricity market last year That is more than twice the electricity generated from gas. Those solar panels on our homes deliver electricity at a cost of three to six cents per kilowatt hour, a small fraction of the 30 cents per kilowatt hour that we pay when we get that electricity from the grid.

We have the world's cheapest renewable energy, and we could all share in lower electricity prices if the government 's approach to Australia's clean energy future expanded to include our homes and cars more aggressively. We should be taking full advantage of solar power by maximising rooftop panel installation and increasing storage capacity in homes, so-called behind-the-meter storage. We can do that via cheaper home batteries, heat pumps and in electric vehicles. Only 12 per cent of homes which installed solar last year installed a battery too. They're expensive. While I welcome the $27.7 million that was allocated in the budget to integrate rooftop solar and household batteries into the grid, this is only a tiny fraction of the $22.7 billion dollars allotted to Future Made in Australia in total.

Strong leadership is needed to give homeowners and small businesses support and certainty. The benefits are obvious. While the initial cost of purchasing solar panels, batteries and electric vehicles is high, they set those households up for a lifetime of savings: lower power bills as households generate their own electricity. This would be a much more durable and significant contribution than that $300 electricity bill rebate—less need for large-scale renewable generation, transition and storage, progress on which is much slower than the government would like. By 2050 the cumulative storage capacity in EVs in Australia will be four times the total energy storage requirement for the national electricity grid. By linking those EVs to the grid we could save the country tens of billions of dollars in infrastructure bills for batteries and other forms of large-scale energy storage. The government should help households stump up the capital that is required to help switch their appliances and vehicles, to help Australian households become domestic energy producers—a more reliable and resilient electricity network with distributed storage capacity and every suburb, ideally in every home.

For this to work, though, the government is going have to get the energy market governance right as well. Recently the biggest electricity distributor on the east coast, Ausgrid, announced plans to charge solar panel owners who export power to the grid during off-peak daytime hours. Other energy distribution businesses are considering similar pricing frameworks. These policies penalise householders and homeowners who have solar panels but have not been able to afford a home battery. The Australian Energy Regulator has said that our electricity network is not designed for large amounts of energy flowing back into the network. It should be. Ausgrid spends less than one per cent of its revenue on supporting rooftop solar. It and other electricity providers could do a whole lot more to ensure that the grid can accommodate 10 million electrified households.

We seriously and desperately need a review of energy market governance. It has to ensure that the appropriate technical standards are in place. It can be done, and it can be done relatively cheaply. These technical standards should be governed via a dedicated distributed energy resources authority—something like the Therapeutic Goods Administration and the way that it regulates medicines. I ask the government: aren't we better off giving low-cost loans or rebates on power bills to incentivise battery purchases or, even better, getting more Australians into EVs with bidirectional charging capacity than we are charging homeowners for putting electricity back into the grid?

Setting up the right regulations and governance structure will give confidence to the market that electrified households are central to Australia's net zero plan. Household electrification should be regarded as a national investment in important public infrastructure—as important as health or defence. This is something that the Net Zero Economy Authority needs to grapple with urgently. It should be part of our greenhouse gas emission reduction process and our transition to becoming a renewable green energy superpower.

Equity is important here. It's very important that every Australian household should have the same opportunity. It should be particularly important to the government that we make sure that these opportunities are available to renters, to people who live in smaller homes and to people who are otherwise economically disadvantaged. The government has to get the regulations right. It has to give households and small businesses help in their need to access cheap electricity. A battery here and a heat pump there might not sound as visionary as transforming big industry, but they could in the end be much more important in helping Australians make that net zero transition and in helping Australians reap the benefits of this new economy.

The cost of inaction is too great, both for the climate and for Australians struggling in a cost-of-living crisis. So I do hope that this authority can achieve its aims, and I'm very supportive of it, but at the moment it feels like, as a country, we're making lots of commitments and we're foreshadowing plans but without really firm timelines and without detailed commitments to change. As a country, we do know what we need to do, but we seem to be held back, whether that is by lack of vision or lack of commitment or by factional interests or debts to vested interests. We have a single shot at getting to net zero. We owe the next generation nothing less. We just need the political will and the courage to actually do that. I commend the bill to the House.

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

Establishing the Net Zero Economy Authority shows our government's strong commitment to ensuring that we do, in fact, transition to a net zero economy. As the world works to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, we must handle this change with careful planning and a clear vision. The Net Zero Economy Authority will be crucial to managing this transition. Its main goal will be to work alongside workers, industries and regional communities as our nation shifts from relying on fossil fuels to embracing renewable energy.

This change is not only about meeting environmental goals; it's about securing Australia's economic future, creating new jobs and building sustainable industries that will give Australia a global competitive advantage. We are fortunate to have a unique advantage as the world transitions away from fossil fuels: we have the critical minerals needed to decarbonise the world, we have plenty of sun and land for solar farms, and we have some of the world's best conditions for onshore and offshore wind.

Unlike the Liberals and Nationals, ours is a government that accepts and understands this reality. Ours is a government that will use these strengths to drive down emissions and to grow our local economy. We understand that we have the opportunity to become a global leader in renewable energy and that we have a competitive advantage to manufacture using cheap, emissions-free energy. Compare this understanding to that of those opposite. The Liberals are captured by climate denialists who oppose grid-scale solar projects, who ridicule battery storage, who ridicule electrification and who oppose wind farms and hydro. From them we have had over a decade of climate negligence, resulting in wasted time and wasted opportunities.

Our government was elected with a mandate to take real action on climate change. Communities like mine are sick of governments wasting time and politicising climate action. Bennelong is sick of the climate wars initiated by the Greens, from the Left, and the Liberals, from the Right. They want consensus and they want action. The establishment of the Net Zero Economy Authority through the passage of this bill is taking the action that Australians elected this government to take.

Countries across the globe are making the shift towards net zero. Australia under Labor is part of this global movement. This government, unlike the former, acknowledges the necessity of reducing our emissions. We have pledged to reduce net zero emissions by 2050, aligning ourselves with international efforts to reduce the impacts of climate change. Personally, I'd like to achieve that goal well before 2050 and I'll continue to work within the government to help achieve that.

Our 2030 and 2050 targets will require significant changes across all sectors of our economy, particularly in energy production, transportation and industry. As a nation whose economy has long relied heavily on fossil fuels, shifting to net zero presents challenges and opportunities. The potential implications for Australia are profound. Our fossil fuel based industries, including coal, oil and gas, have been major economic drivers and sources of employment. Transitioning away from these industries will have significant economic, employment and regional impacts. But if we fail to transition we know the catastrophic impacts we will face due to climate change.

According to the Climate Council, without significant emissions reductions Australia is likely to experience more frequent and intense extreme weather events, such as bushfires, floods and heatwaves. These events have already caused billions of dollars in damage and have devastated communities, and without meaningful climate action they'll get worse. Deloitte Access Economics warns that without adequate climate action Australia's GDP could be reduced by six per cent annually by 2070, amounting to $3.4 trillion in lost economic opportunities and 880,000 fewer jobs.

We are under no illusions here. The transition to net zero isn't going to be easy, but it must be done. It has been and will continue to be a complex and challenging path, but Labor understands it's a path we must tread. Transition is essential for our environment but also for our economic future. Our commitments to net zero mean that we are contributing to global climate efforts but also paving the way for a more resilient and sustainable Australian economy. We want to unlock our potential to be a renewable energy superpower, and to do that we need to bring communities, workers and industry along with us.

I cannot understate the potential Australia has with renewable energy. We have the critical minerals to decarbonise the world, we have the best solar conditions in the world and we have world-class onshore and offshore wind conditions as well. And we're getting there, Madam Deputy Speaker. According to the International Energy Agency, renewable electricity generation in Australia quadrupled in the 2000s, increasing from 17.6 terawatt hours to 70.3 terawatt hours. This remarkable growth has elevated the national share of renewables in electricity generation from eight per cent to nearly 30 per cent. And we learnt this year that we are on track to meet our 82 per cent renewable energy target by 2030 and meet our emissions reduction targets too. Furthermore, Australia leads the world in household solar photovoltaic installations, with one in three households having solar panels. This widespread adoption underscores our capacity to harness solar energy effectively. That's why we're investing $20 billion towards the Rewiring the Nation program and over a billion dollars to help households further electrify.

In addition to renewable energy, Australia is rich in critical minerals required for net zero technologies. We are among the top global producers of lithium, cobalt and rare-earth elements, which are vital for batteries, electric vehicles and other clean energy technologies. We're capitalising on this opportunity with a $15 billion package to support the critical minerals industry and promote renewable hydrogen production.

It's not just our government that understands Australia's potential to become a renewable energy superpower. Leading industry bodies and climate change organisations say we can do it too. The Climate Council emphasises the urgent need for Australia to capitalise on our resources, stating that our nation can lead the world in renewable energy production and innovation. Climate Council senior researcher Dr Carl Tidemann highlights:

Every step we take towards a grid powered by 100 percent renewable electricity is a step towards lower power bills for Australians, less harmful carbon pollution and more control over our own energy.

The Australian Energy Market Operator has outlined a comprehensive, integrated system plan that aims to transform our energy market into a low emissions grid. Greg Bourne, a former president of BP Australasia, underscores the feasibility of transitioning away from fossil fuels saying

Australia needs to phase out fossil fuels as quickly as possible and replace them with clean and affordable renewables and storage. It's the quickest path to a cheaper, cleaner, safer, and more reliable electricity system.

This transition is important and happening, and the Net Zero Economy Authority that this bill seeks to establish is such an important addition to our strategy to manage the transition to net zero. The authority's primary task is to implement the Energy Industry Jobs Plan. This plan is designed to assist employees affected by the closure of coal- and gas-fired power stations. It includes jobs and skills matching, training, career planning and financial advice. By facilitating redeployment arrangements, the plan ensures that workers can smoothly transition into new employment opportunities within the clean energy sector while ensuring that no worker and no region is left behind as we move towards a net zero future.

The Net Zero Economy Authority will also act as a catalyst for major project development and investment. It will facilitate public and private sector participation in emissions reduction and net zero transformation projects across Australia. This will include working with established investment funds and coordinating policy and program design to ensure an orderly, positive and swift economic transition. The authority's responsibilities include mobilising public and private financing support, addressing infrastructure needs and navigating tricky regulatory processes to bring these megaprojects to fruition. By working in a genuine partnership with businesses, unions and communities, we aim to ensure that the transition to net zero is inclusive, equitable and beneficial for all stakeholders involved.

This authority is pivotal in ensuring this just transition away from a fossil fuel based economy to a renewable energy powerhouse. This support is especially crucial for regions like Gladstone, the Hunter Valley, Latrobe Valley, Upper Spencer Gulf and the Pilbara. These regions historically dependent on fossil fuel industries are poised to become the economic powerhouses of Australia's future net zero economy.

The closure of major industries profoundly impacts communities. It sees workers lose their jobs and families facing significant economic and emotional hardships. Economies are disrupted, services are put under strain and it can leave a long-lasting mark on these communities. We can look to the shutdown of the BHP Newcastle steelworks in Newcastle in 1999 to see these real impacts. These steelworks once employed over 11,000 people and were a cornerstone of the local economy. However, with global steel demand collapsing and the plant closing, it resulted in the retrenchment of 2,000 workers and 1,000 contractors. Many workers had spent their entire careers in this plant, and the sudden loss of employment left families in financial distress. The ripple effects extended beyond direct employees, affecting local businesses and services. The experience of Newcastle underscores the critical need for our government's structured support during these important and necessary transitions.

That's what the Net Zero Economy Authority will do. It will ensure that, as we transition to the new economy, we support communities like the Hunter Valley and Newcastle, we support affected workers and communities and we provide them with opportunities in the new economy. It will ensure that communities and workers are prepared for the transition we need and that they have the opportunities to retrain and diversify, while ensuring that they avoid severe disruptions we've seen in the past.

Our government has a comprehensive strategy to drive Australia towards its 2050 net zero target. The government has committed to a suite of initiatives aimed at reducing emissions whilst helping grow new industries and ensuring a just transition for all. The establishment of this authority through the passage of this bill is a critical step in a broader strategy designed to guide Australia towards a sustainable future. This authority is integral not only for managing the transition but for ensuring that our workers and our regions are well supported throughout. From emissions reductions targets, the safeguard mechanisms, our Rewiring the Nation program, the Powering the Regions Gund, our capacity investment schemes, by helping households electrify, by investing in green hydrogen and critical minerals and much more, Australia needs to know that we have a committed and holistic approach to achieving net zero emissions.

Our shift away from fossil fuels will stimulate economic growth, create sustainable jobs and foster innovation across multiple sectors. The Net Zero Economy Authority will play a crucial role in coordinating all of these efforts, ensuring that investments are strategically directed and that the benefits of the transition are widely shared. Our government is committed to taking decisive action on climate change while ensuring that no-one is left behind. The Net Zero Economy Authority embodies this commitment, providing necessary support for workers and communities affected by the shift.

This legislation is crucial. Without it, the transition will proceed and potentially leave behind support for those who need it the most. I commend this bill to the House.

Kate Chaney (Curtin, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This bill sets up the Net Zero Economy Authority, outlines its functions and then gives it the ability to do some specific things. I'm going to talk about four topics here. They are why the intent of this bill is so important, how the functions of the authority fit with the intent of the bill, an example of transformation being done well in Western Australia and what's missing in the authority's real powers under this bill.

Firstly, on why the intent of this bill is important. The objects clause of this bill says it has three aims: to promote an orderly and positive transition to a decarbonised economy, to work towards our emissions reduction targets and to support workers and regions in the transition. I was elected because, in part, my community wanted to see more action on climate. Each of these three aims is essential if we want to see more action on climate.

Firstly, promoting an orderly and positive transition to a decarbonised economy. I'm fascinated by the research produced by the Investor Group on Climate Change which says the cost of an orderly transition is about one to two per cent of global GDP, the cost of a disorderly transition is about five per cent of global GDP and the cost of doing nothing is about a 10 per cent reduction in global GDP due to the impacts of climate change. An orderly transition will save money and can make us more of a leader than a laggard.

We can't rely entirely on market forces to drive this transition because we don't put a price on carbon. It's known as a negative externality in economics. We all pay for carbon pollution, but the producer of the pollution doesn't pay. Government is in the unique position to assist in the coordination and integration required across the economy and the community to transition to net zero. To diversify our economy away from mining and gas production and towards energy sources that are less damaging for the planet, we need to set up the right rules and frameworks to guide investment into low carbon industries and energy production. So the first purpose of driving an orderly transition is vital.

The second purpose of the bill is to work towards our emissions reduction targets. The objects clause doesn't specify which targets, but I hope it's applied flexibly so that any target—which I hope will become more ambitious over time—will guide the authority's activities. As the Business Council of Australia points out, the scale, breadth and complexity of the transition means that unnecessary delays in project implementation and deployment will be the difference between Australia meeting its nationally determined contributions between 2030 and 2050 in an orderly and positive way, versus sacrificing energy security, energy affordability, international competitiveness and real wages growth over the longer term. We are not going to meet our targets without some careful coordination, and only government—or entities established by government for this purpose—can play this role. The third purpose is supporting workers and regions in transition.

We currently face our current greatest economic challenge of this generation—shifting to a low-carbon economy—and like with any larger transition, people will need to change jobs. When cars became affordable, there were huge shifts in our economy. Roads suddenly needed to be smooth, horse-and-buggy drivers were out of jobs, no-one had the newly needed driving skills and people could live further from their workplaces. So much changed. We didn't resist cars because they would put the horse-and-buggy drivers out of a job; we navigated the transformation. Similarly, here, old jobs will disappear and new jobs will emerge, and we'll need to provide training and support to help minimise the impact and maximise the benefit of this transition.

Secondly, I want to talk about how the functions of the authority fit with the very necessary intent of the bill. The authority's functions include: consulting and cooperating with persons, organisations and governments to support Australia's transition to a net zero emissions economy; facilitating public and private sector participation and investment in net zero transformation initiatives; supporting workers in emissions-intensive industries to access new employment or improve their employment prospects; and supporting and delivering educational and promotional initiatives about the transition. These functions are pretty broad, but they're also soft—consulting, cooperating and facilitating. It does have a more active function in supporting workers, and the bill goes into some detail about what that support looks like—I'll talk about this more in a bit—but most of the functions are soft.

For me, there is an elephant in the room. I'm very interested to see what role the authority will play in relation to decisions made by government that are inconsistent with our path to decarbonisation. Getting off gas will be an essential part of how WA and the world decarbonise. A few weeks ago the government released its future gas strategy. Despite the fact that we know the world needs to use as little gas as possible for as short a time as possible, this future gas strategy reads like an expansion plan, not a transition plan. There's a jarring inconsistency between the future gas strategy and every other action the government is taking to decarbonise. Alan Kohler, as he so often does, applies a bit of commonsense and asks: what is the point of all the other work we are doing to reduce emissions when it's all undone by these huge gas projects?

So what will the authority do when it sees these inconsistencies? I suppose it will consult, cooperate and facilitate. It's going to take a lot of consulting, cooperating and facilitating to work through the mixed signals we're sending on gas. Without stronger functions in relation to these long-term planning inconsistencies, the government will have to be accountable for these decisions and mixed signals. I hope that the authority is able to speak independently and freely to the government and to the public about the difficulties we're creating for ourselves and the impact gas expansion will have on our ability to play our part globally and hit our emissions reduction targets.

Next I want to talk about the WA context and a positive example of how transition can be supported. As many of you know, my home state of Western Australia is a key piece of the net zero puzzle. We cannot decarbonise without Western Australia, and Australia will not reach its net zero goal by 2050 without WA. We have a challenge ahead in getting off gas, as I've mentioned, but in WA we do have a great example of how this might be done—by looking at how WA is getting off coal by retiring the WA state-owned coal-power stations in Collie, in our south-west, by 2030. Collie is home to 9,000 people and 1,250 jobs in the coalmining and coal-fired energy industry. In 2019 it was identified that, owing to the uptake in rooftop solar and renewables, Collie's power stations would close progressively between 2023 and 2029. This obviously had huge ramifications for the Collie economy and workforce. The WA state government has been working with Collie using the Just Transition framework, which focuses on supporting workers, industries and communities as the economy changes. An essential part of the Collie Just Transition Plan is deep and considered consultation with the community through working groups comprised of employers, employees and state and local governments. It involves strategic investment in diversifying the local economy. For Collie, this means a more than $662 million transition package with a focus on encouraging tourism to the town. It also means investment in skills, training and career advice for those workers preparing for the next employment opportunity. This plan is ongoing, so it's impossible to label it as a success or failure until the coal-fired power plants are all shut down. But in terms of community understanding and acceptance of the transition, Collie is tracking well. The Just Transition Working Group is crucial to the success of this plan, making sure that community, government, employees and employers are meeting in Collie regularly to make sure communication and education are prioritised. I think Collie is a great example of how government can have a positive impact by guiding big economic change.

Lastly, I want to talk but what's missing in the authority's real powers under this bill. The bill goes into a fair bit of detail in relation to how it can support workers in emissions-intensive industries to access new employment. The authority can enable workers to access new employment or other opportunities, or to acquire skills to improve their employment prospects. I welcome the amendments the government has made in response to the Business Council of Australia's concerns. However, I have two concerns about the scope of the Energy Industries Jobs Plan, which supports workers just like the Collie Just Transition Plan does. The authority's role is only triggered by the closing of a gas- or coal-fired power station, and support is only available for workers in these closing power plants. No other emissions-intensive project, like a mine or other extractive project, is covered by this plan unless there's a power plant associated with the project. My first concern about the scope is that this limitation might expose some workers who are outside the definition but who still will be required to transition to new employment when emissions-heavy industry transitions. My second concern is that there's an argument to broaden the scope so that the authority also has oversight of new transformation areas, particularly those in new renewable energy zones, that will require massive upskilling and diversification. An effective authority should focus on coordinating targeted areas in Australia where there are opportunities to build alternative cleaner energy industries and economic diversification. There's a perfect opportunity for the authority to apply similar leadership to what it will in assisting coal towns transition away from coal to assisting renewable-energy-zone towns to transition to new energy projects. For this reason I'll be supporting the member for Indi's amendments.

The broader issue with what's missing goes back to my point about the Future Gas Strategy. Should the authority be able to call out the government on decisions that make it very difficult for Australia, or the world, to meet our emissions reduction targets? If the authority is not going to do it, who will? Who will point out that it's pointless reducing our emissions in so many other areas if the emissions we avoid are dwarfed by the new emissions from gas extraction and use? Who will point out that approving new exploration licenses that won't be exploited for years sends signals to the gas industry that we're not serious about decarbonisation? Who will warn government of the stranded assets risk we face as our trading partners try their hardest to get off what we're selling them? Because climate is one of the biggest challenges we've ever faced, we don't have a legislative framework to make decisions that prioritise climate action, so we attempt to block massive gas projects by using the imperfect tools we have, such as environmental legislation focused on biodiversity. If the authority isn't going to be the voice of reason in our conflicting decisions about our future, who is?

In conclusion, I believe the Net Zero Economy Authority has the potential to make a positive difference to how Australia decarbonises, and I will be supporting it. But it would have a better chance of delivering on its lofty objects if it could support workers not only to transition out of a career but also into a new decarbonised industry. I will support the member for Indi's amendments on this topic. It would also have a better chance if it could support workers in all emissions-intensive industries and not just coal- or gas-fired power station closures, and, importantly, if it were required to give frank and fearless advice to the government—which includes challenging policies and approaches that are inconsistent with meeting our emissions targets, such as the Future Gas Strategy.

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

The shift to net zero is happening, and in Australia, along with the rest of the world, we're reducing greenhouse gas emissions so we reach net zero by the middle of the century. As a fossil fuel based economy, this is a big change. We see enormous opportunity in this change for jobs and for industry advantage. The Net Zero Economy Authority is to ensure that we're looking after Australia's workers and the regions as we transform from a fossil fuel based economy to a renewable energy superpower.

It's an economic change, but it will have social impacts. The way we navigate the change is just as important as the destination. The authority on behalf of government will partner with industry and investors in getting big transformational projects happening, projects that decarbonise our industrial facilities, that build new industries and grow the future economic base for regions like the Hunter and, of course, my neighbour Lithgow. The authority will support workers in these communities where ageing power stations will be retired through the change, especially where the change may be significant. Working with employers, unions and others, it will ensure that we are making good use of a highly skilled workers that we need more of in this net zero economy.

The Net Zero Economy Authority complements more than $40 billion in government initiatives to reduce emissions and become a renewable energy superpower. They are things like our Rewiring the Nation program to modernise the electricity grid so it can get renewables from where they are generated to our homes; the Powering the Regions Fund, which will help existing industries decarbonise and support the new clean energy industries; the Critical Minerals Facility, to grow that critical minerals production sector that is so crucial as we go forward; the Hydrogen Headstart program supporting development of large-scale renewable hydrogen projects; and of course the National Reconstruction Fund to diversify and transform our industries in this net zero economy.

These are all crucial steps, but you can't fully achieve net zero without workers. It's absolutely essential that we develop the clean energy workforce. The Albanese Labor government is investing $91 million over five years to help skill Australia's clean energy workforce. We announced that in the budget. That includes things like $50 million for a new capital and equipment investment fund for facility upgrades to expand clean energy training capacity across wind, solar, pumped hydro, grid battery storage, electricity networks and hydrogen, as well as key electrical and construction trades. Funding will be directed to facilities where lack of capacity is actually preventing people from entering apprenticeships. Regional, rural and remote communities experiencing workforce transitions will also be targeted. This ensures that the opportunities arising from the net zero transition are shared around the country.

Another of our initiatives—previous speakers have just talked about how important this workforce is—is $30 million to turbocharge the vocational education and training teacher, trainer and assessor workforce for clean energy. We need to make sure we have enough teachers to train that workforce. We will focus on making it easier for skilled professionals to move between working in industry and teaching at registered training organisations.

As we go through this transition we are also providing support for small and medium businesses taking on clean energy construction and manufacturing apprentices as priority occupations for access to the group training organisation services, with up to $1,500 in annual reimbursements over the apprenticeship. These small to medium organisations have a part to play.

This particular bill sits at the heart, but there is a suite of things that go with it as we move towards net zero. I've talked about the workforce, but what I really want to emphasise is the opportunities that this creates for young workers. The Net Zero Economy Authority will be really looking at the workers who transition from the old energy-heavy and energy-intense industries into the new energy ones. But there are also opportunities for young workers. The expansion of our Energy Apprenticeship Program will provide apprentices with up to $10,000 to help with the cost-of-living pressures they face. The expansion of this program means more clean energy apprentices can be in training to support the transition to net zero from 1 June this year. Young people around Australia will be encouraged to take up clean energy opportunities, helping them secure jobs of the future and support this transformation.

That is the people aspect—because none of it happens without the people—but then there are a whole lot of strategies that sit alongside this. In the past couple of weeks we launched the National Battery Strategy—again, one of the new areas where we know we can have an advantage. The National Battery Strategy is part of our Future Made in Australia plan and shores up our economic resilience and security. We know the global demand for batteries is going to quadruple by 2030 as the world transitions to net zero. The strategy maps a path for Australia to take advantage of this growth and to build a thriving battery industry. The strategy identifies four high-value strategic opportunities. One is around stationary storage. That is building the systems to firm renewable power generation in the grid and for communities, businesses and homes—the batteries that all look different but sit around our homes and bigger versions around our industries. We also have an opportunity to provide battery active materials to the world by upgrading raw minerals into processed battery components and to strengthen those supply chains. We can also leverage our world-leading know-how to build safer and more secure batteries that connect to the grid.

The fourth opportunity we have is building batteries for our transport manufacturing industry, including heavy vehicle manufacturing. We are a pioneer of battery technology but, over many decades, we have sent our know-how offshore and lost the jobs that they create. We really need to move beyond that dip-and-ship economy and become what we can be—that is, a key player in the market.

As we think about this move to an economy that is net zero, one of the key considerations we have is around consumers and how they will be protected. We are helping Australians by pushing bills down as we shift into delivering clean, cheap and reliable renewables. That is why we are extending energy bill relief. The $3.5 billion to do that recognises that our economy has not shifted enough into renewables, which are of course the cheapest form of energy. We are also looking at $47 million over four years for energy reforms that put consumers first, including things that allow consumers to switch to a cheaper energy deal. We are unlocking greater savings from Australia's world-leading uptake of consumer energy resources, such as rooftop solar, batteries and electric vehicles, which could avoid $10 billion in network costs alone for consumers as they switch. We are investing in the Australian Energy Regulator to boost capacity and information for households on what their energy choices are, as well as reviewing electricity market laws to ensure consumers can be protected from misconduct.

They are some of the initiatives that sit alongside a bill that creates an authority to oversee so much of this transition. But at the heart of the Net Zero Economy Authority are people. The sooner we invest in integrating our consumer energy resources like our batteries and our solar into the grid, the faster we will see the benefits. I should mention that the new vehicle efficiency standard is also going to save Australians $95 billion at the bowser and reduce transport emissions. These are all really key parts in this transition to a net zero economy, a transition that is happening now. It's not one that is coming but one that we are already in the process of making happen.

I am going to make one last point, and that is about the alternatives that have been brought up. When we look at this Net Zero Economy Authority, the one thing it won't be doing is looking at nuclear. The costings show us that nuclear is the most risky, most expensive option that we have. Instead, the Albanese government is getting on with the job, with record investments in renewables, batteries and large-scale storage and the most affordable options for Australians—clean, cheap, reliable, renewable energy to create a resilient system that Australians deserve.

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

On Saturday, I was travelling north, and a friend rang me up. He employs about 90 people. No, he's not a big-business man; he's a medium-business man. He's not the kind of businessman that those on the other side hang around with. He isn't Lindsay Fox or Twiggy Forrest. He only employs 90 people. But I'll tell you what, he does a pretty good job with those 90 people and he provides a great service to Australia. He said: 'Why is it? Why do governments hate people like me? Why do they keep loading me up with extra rigmarole, with red tape and with things I've got to fill out to justify the things that I've always done right? What is it they've got against us?' I find myself here today rising to speak on yet another one.

The Net Zero Economy Authority is another quango. It's another semi-government, at-arms-length body that will make life more difficult for those who create wealth in this country. These bodies are a way for governments to hide from their responsibility. If you want any proof of that, you only need to look at this chamber this week, where the minister for immigration has been hiding behind the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. 'It's not me! It's this body over here. It's this semi-independent body that we fund and I give the writing rules to. And they were only implementing the rules that I told them to implement. How could it possibly be my fault?' That's what happens with these bodies. This is a conversation I've had with my wife many times. Why on earth do governments keep divorcing themselves from the responsibilities that the people of Australia elect them to hold by forming new quasi-government bodies to get in the road.

Consider small business and the impositions that this government has already put on them. Have a look at the IR legislation, the casual conversion, the paid domestic violence leave—I said at the time that I wasn't against paid domestic violence leave; I was against the fact that companies and employers had to pay for it—more power for the Fair Work Commission, the right to disconnect and increased union access. Of course, now we've got the proposal for eight weeks of half-paid leave, which will leave huge holes in the workforce. Then we've got the safeguard mechanism. That's aimed at bigger business. This is about putting the pressure cooker on businesses over the next 30 years to get to zero emissions. Funny thing—that's what we're talking about at the moment. That is another stick already on the shelf that is belting businesses to say: 'This is what you have to do. If you can't meet these targets, then you're going to have to buy them off other people.'

Now we've got the scope 3 emissions raising their ugly head. That will flow down to smaller and medium-sized businesses. For them to meet their obligations, they will have to start putting the squeeze on their tertiary customers. The very small businesses will then have to employ accountants to work out what it is they are emitting and how they can meet those targets for the next people up the food chain. Just as a point of interest, because we've been talking about immigration in this place a lot lately, there were 4,000 accountants brought into Australia last year. I'll tell you what, Mr Deputy Speaker Buchholz? If all this stuff gets up, we'll need 40,000 for those small businesses to actually deal with what's coming down the pipeline at them.

So now we're getting the National Zero Economy Authority. I'll read this from the government's notes. It's intended to be a 'shopfront for industry and investors'. It will seek to 'work with project proponents, state governments and others to get projects to investment decision'. The authority will mobilise public moneys through vehicles like the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and the National Reconstruction Fund.

But, hang on! Isn't that what the Clean Energy Finance Corporation already does? On their website, they say their job is:

To facilitate increased flows of finance into the clean energy sector and to facilitate the achievement of Australia's greenhouse … targets.

Just in case you were thinking: 'Well, at least they are targeting private investment,' I can tell you that they distributed $30 billion of taxpayers' hard-earned money to reach that objective, and now they've got the Net Zero Economy Authority, which is going to assist them to do exactly what they were created to do. That's a handy thing to do in meeting that national greenhouse target!

Then we've got ARENA. Their job's pretty much the same thing as well, except they've got $16.2 billion over 10 years. Here we are with another organisation that is shovelling taxpayer subsidy to support what we are told is the cheapest form of energy. It really does test the imagination. If it's the cheapest form of energy, why on earth does it need to keep having all this money shuffled in its direction?

Before those over there start saying I'm a climate denier or whatever, I will say that I'm a great supporter of renewable energy. I'd love to get some of those wind farms on my property. They're worth about $15,000 or $20,000 a pop, and if I could host 10 or 20 of those—in fact, I've probably got enough room for a hundred of them, quite frankly—I'd be quite happy to do so.

But it's worth remembering that those wind farms are being built on another subsidy again, and this is a hidden one. This is one you can't see. This is a consumer subsidy. Consumers' retail bills are jacked up to pay the LRET and, now, the new government subsidy for construction of new generation. The retail part of your bill is jacked up, but you can't read it—it's not in there—so, when you compare the wholesale prices at any given moment of the day with your prices, you can't work out why on earth there's such a mark-up. One of the reasons for the mark-up is the hidden subsidies that have been built into that program.

In large, this new authority is just providing more red tape for Australia and duplicating jobs that are already being done by other government agencies. I just can't see how it contributes to national wealth or progress.

I've been a student of the national grid since the closure of the Northern Power Station at Port Augusta was proposed over a decade ago. I don't know whether you or anyone else in the chamber has this but I have a pocket NEM on my phone. It allows me to chip in there at any time of the day and have a look at what wholesale prices are doing. I noticed only last week that there was a warning from AEMO that said that the national grid—this is the eastern grid—was looking at the possibility of blackouts in coming summers.

I know that one of the most fragile parts of the year is autumn. I've been watching that pocket NEM pretty closely and seen that there have been many days when the wind is virtually not contributing at all to the network. I was writing something the other night and I flicked open my phone and had a look at the NEM. I know that South Australia has 2,742 megawatts of installed capacity of renewables. We were consuming around 1,800 megawatts at the time, but the renewables were generating 56—that's 56 out of 1,800, or three per cent of the demand, or about 1½ per cent of their full capacity—because there was no wind and it was dark. I don't know if you know about these meteorological things, Mr Deputy Speaker Buchholz, but if it's dark you don't get solar power. Now, that's not unusual.

We're told that batteries will fix this, and we've had some big investments in batteries in South Australia. They were contributing five gigawatts. Do you know why they were contributing five megawatts? It was because it had been calm for days, and the batteries were exhausted. This is not unexpected. It is not irregular. It happens at this time of year quite regularly. So we were keeping our lights on in South Australia by importing another 554 megawatts over the border from Victoria. I thought: 'That's pretty good. Perhaps I'll have a look at Victoria.' Well, they had the same problem. They had a bit more breeze over there—they were getting nine per cent of their electricity from their renewables and, to be fair, another eight per cent from their hydro facilities. But of course they are existing, old-money facilities that can't be expanded, so I think you can discount them largely. So 77 per cent of their load was coming from coal and gas.

It brings you to this question: what on earth are we going to do in the longer term about bridging this gap if we are to get to net zero by 2050? It's worth pointing out that in South Australia we lead the nation on renewables—71.5 per cent of our electricity over the last 12 months came from renewables. That's pretty impressive, I'd have to say. The next best is Victoria, with 36.8 per cent. So we're leading the race in South Australia, but it's not the only race we're winning. We're also winning the race to the highest average retail prices. According to Canstar Blue—and I'm told they are about the most reliable averager of these prices—we're paying 45.3c for a kilowatt hour in South Australia. The next highest is New South Wales, at 33.84c. For the record, Victoria is 30.42c. So South Australia has twice as much renewable energy as Victoria, per capita, and we pay 30 per cent more—for the cheapest form of energy in the world!

How on earth can this be? It takes a bit of getting your head around. But the answer lies in the fact that it's not available all the time, and the more you squeeze your reliable generators, your dispatchable generators, the baseload generators—they needn't be baseload; they could be gas peakers as well, but the more you squeeze them—and put them out of business because they can sell on fewer and fewer hours or days a year when they can make a profit, the more of them drop out, or you don't get reinvestment, and they wear out. The fact that you need them for fewer days a year only amplifies the fact that you need them ever more for the days of the year when you can't generate enough electricity out of the network.

The idea that Australia's power services can just go down and go black and we can have a blackout for a few days is just not entertainable in the modern world. We have to be much better than that. While those opposite will throw rocks at the proposal of nuclear energy—and that's all it is, a proposal—let's get the ban off talking about it. Let's get the ban off consideration. I'm not welded to nuclear. I think it's a good idea, and so do 16 other of the top 20 economies in the world. We are No. 13 on gross domestic product output in the world. There is one country above us, Germany, that does not have nuclear power. They decommissioned theirs three years ago. There are three countries below us that do not have nuclear power, and they're all building nuclear power. So we and Germany are the only ones that won't have nuclear power in five or 10 years time, or whenever it is that they come online.

Anyway, if it's not to be nuclear, what is it that is going to fill this gap that I can predict will happen pretty much in March, April and May every year because we are in that period of the year when it doesn't blow, and at night-time, surprisingly enough, the sun is not shining? What is it that's going to fill that gap? It's not going to be coal or gas, because no organisation in their right mind would build a new coal- or gas-fired power station in Australia while they've got a government that is completely hostile to them. These are long-time intergenerational, inter-decade investments. They need to have surety if they are to invest. The government underwrites new renewable energy but the government is not prepared to underwrite new fossil fuel industry or new dispatchable industry that is not renewable.

I'm open to anything that comes along technologically that can fill this gap. Batteries are part of it. The point I made when I was reading out those numbers is that once you get enough calm days, your batteries haven't got any kick in them either. So it doesn't matter what it is, you need to build an alternative power system capable of standing on its own two legs for basically weeks at a time, with very little renewable energy flowing into it, to sustain the electrical grid of Australia.

I'm out of options. I just go, 'What the hell is it?' If it's not going to be gas, it's not going to be coal and it's not going to be nuclear, what is it? Whatever it is hasn't been invented yet. So I'm concerned that there is so much energy being focused on what seems to be a goal that has a set of barriers placed around it that make it unachievable. If we want to get to net zero by 2050—and that's what this whole new organisation is about—we've got to get the regulation of it so we can do so.

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

I, too, rise in support today of the Net Zero Economy Authority Bill 2024 and its transitional provisions bill. I am very proud that this Labor government is getting on with the crucial job of transitioning our economy for a sustainable future. As the Prime Minister has said:

There is no nation on earth better placed than Australia to achieve the energy transition here at home and power it in the world.

This bill establishes the Net Zero Economy Authority and outlines its key functions, powers and governance arrangements. The Net Zero Economy Authority will promote orderly and positive economic transformation as the world decarbonises. This bill is essential for Australia to embrace our potential as a renewable energy superpower—an opportunity that Australia cannot afford to miss. This new authority will be crucial to ensuring that hardworking Australians in industries such as coal- or gas-fired power stations aren't left behind in the transition and can use their skills in our new renewable industries.

As we know, our economy is undergoing the biggest transformation it has undergone since the Industrial Revolution. It is a huge task and it's also a task that we must see through. There is no room for equivocation or delay. We must transition as quickly as possible. But we can't allow for anyone to be left behind. The government understands that workers in closing industries must be supported through the transition, and Australia is well-placed for this task. Regions like Gladstone, the Hunter Valley, the Latrobe Valley and others have powered our nation for decades and they will continue to do so. Our abundance of renewable energy sources and of every metal and critical minimal essential to net zero technologies can be found in these regions, so it's important that when old industries close, that the employees are empowered to work in the new industries taking their place. That's why this bill will also set up a legislative framework to enable the authority to establish pooled redeployment arrangements to support employees in closing coal and gas stations and dependent employers to transition directly to new jobs at receiving employers.

The authority will be required to undertake a community-of-interest process to identify closing, dependent and receiving employers when a coal- or gas-fired power station announces its closure. The Fair Work Commission will make a community-of-interest determination based on an application from the authority's CEO. There will be obligations on closing and dependent employers to facilitate participation of their employees in the redeployment plan and to provide access to advice and training. While participation by receiving employers would be entirely voluntary, the government will use financial and other incentives to attract the interest of receiving employers. Unions will also have standing to make submissions to the Fair Work Commission regarding the composition of the community of interest, and will have an ongoing role of representing workers during the process.

A strong transition plan such as provided for in this bill is incredibly important. When I was a university student I did my honours thesis on the closure of the Newcastle steelworks and how government, the community, unions and employers came together to ensure the smoothest possible transition of the closure of that iconic steelworks, which employed so many in that community. Many people had worked there their whole lives. For many, three generations of family had worked there. The importance of getting that right for those workers and their families, for the region and for our whole economy was critical. From that, there were many good examples of how this was done, including BHP's response, which was an exemplar of how to manage a closure. There was a significant lead time, and they offered people support in choosing a career path for them after working at the steelworks. They were supportive of a range of different options and were as open as they could be about what people might like to pursue.

There were also some important examples where they matched people's skills to needs in the economy and community. One really good example of that was that, after working in the steelworks, the employees had a high level of technological skill, and there was also at the time a shortage of technology teachers, so BHP supported employees who wanted to take up the option to study to become teachers while still working at the steelworks and then placed them in employment in the New South Wales education system. That's just one example.

Overall, the Newcastle economy transitioned well through that process to different industries that were there. It certainly shows that, when you put in the time to work together with the employees who are facing this who are really at the forefront of the transition—the ones who will be personally affected—it is so important that they are not left behind. We are transitioning to a sustainable net zero economy, which, as I've said, is the biggest change that our economy will ever have seen and one that we must get right, and that's why this bill is so important.

This new authority, with its focus on managing economic change, complements the over $40 billion in government initiatives before the last budget to reduce emissions and become a renewable energy superpower. These investments include the $20 billion Rewiring the Nation program to modernise our electricity grid and in to support a renewables based energy system, the $1.9 billion Powering the Regions Fund to support the decarbonisation of existing industries and the creation of new clean-energy industries, the $6 billion critical minerals facility to grow our critical minerals production sector, the $2 billion Hydrogen Headstart program supporting development of large-scale renewable hydrogen projects and the $15 billion National Reconstruction Fund to deliver and transform Australia's industry for a net zero economy.

Of course, that's not it. In this year's budget, the Treasurer announced $1.7 billion for the Future Made in Australia innovation fund to unlock private capital across new industries such as green metals and low-carbon liquid fuels, $1.5 billion to build capability in solar and battery manufacturing and to strengthen supply chain resilience and $1.9 billion to recharge ARENA's core mission: commercialising and developing new renewable energy technologies.

This bill today builds on this proud record in just our first term. The Net Zero Economy Authority will be a partner on behalf of government with industry investors in getting big, transformational projects underway. They're projects that decarbonise industrial facilities, that build new industries and that grow the future economic base of our country and especially our regions. These are the projects that are powering our transition to a cleaner future. These are projects like the Royalla solar farm, in the ACT, which was opened in 2014 just a short drive from this place. At its time, it was the largest solar farm in the country and was key to helping us here in Canberra get to 100 per cent renewable energy. These are projects like the Star of the South offshore wind farm, 10 kilometres off the coast of Gippsland, which when built has the potential to supply up to 20 per cent of Victoria's electricity needs—20 per cent in just one project.

In fact, since coming to government, we've already approved 46 renewable energy projects, with another 130 in the pipeline. As a result of the Albanese government, we've seen a 25 per cent increase in renewable energy in the National Electricity Market. That's even more incredible when you consider the incredibly low base we are starting from after a decade of inaction from those opposite. The New Zero Economy Authority will supercharge this important work.

On Tuesday, the Prime Minister and the Minister for Climate Change and Energy announced that the inaugural Chair of the Net Zero Economy Authority would be Dr Iain Ross. As the Prime Minister and Minister Bowen said, Dr Ross brings with him a wealth of experience and a deep understanding of labour markets and economics. Previously, he has served as the President of the Fair Work Commission and as a judge in the Supreme Court of Victoria. Dr Ross, on his appointment, said:

The task ahead is monumental, but I am confident that with our collective efforts, we can turn this challenge into an opportunity for Australia. We have the potential to not only achieve net zero emissions by 2050 but also to establish the nation as a leader in renewable energy.

I have full confidence that this new Net Zero Economy Authority will guide us, and Australian workers, through the biggest change to our economy since the Industrial Revolution.

In his speech in the second reading debate, the Prime Minister said, 'We want to create a new generation of economic growth and prosperity for this nation.' The reality is that the world is moving on and so are we. Nations representing 92 per cent of the global economy have signed up to the Paris Agreement commitment to net zero, and 97 per cent of our trading partners have. It's happening, and this government wants Australia to reap the benefits, not get left behind as those opposite would have it. That's why one of our first actions in government was to legislate our net zero target. It's why we've implemented the safeguard mechanism to spur the move to a cleaner future. It's why, just a few weeks ago, we legislated our new vehicle emissions standard to ensure that the cars Australians are driving are cleaner and cheaper to run. And it's why we've put so much work into rebuilding our international relationships after the disaster that was the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison climate denial diplomacy. Who could forget the empty room in Glasgow as former prime minister Morrison preached about technology, not taxes, and getting to net zero in the so-called Australian way? We are working hard to reset these relationships and our place on the world stage.

When you change the government, you change the nation. The election of the Albanese Labor government in 2022 jump started this country into climate action. We're on track to reach 82 per cent renewable energy by 2030 and net zero emissions by 2050. This bill helps us to do that, and I commend it to the House.

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

Mr Deputy Speaker, it's a cult, isn't it? Their whole approach to how they're doing this has gone from reasonable to cult-like. Like all cults, it's all smiles when you meet them but it's misery when you're inside. Like a cult, you can't argue with them. You're either a denier, if you don't agree with them, or you're a believer. 'Don't you believe? Are you going to deny?' It's absolutism. There is zero opportunity for you to question them, and then they always put at the end the imminent calamity, the end of the world. You've got to sit inside the vestibule, inside the cult, to save yourself and be part of the virtuous.

It also has a lack of meaningful disclosure and explanation of the finances. You never quite get to the bottom of who's making the money and where it's going. There's always a select group of people who do make the money, and they make a lot of it. And it's in their interests not to let people see the darker side of how the cult works.

The cult work with a nomenclature that's benevolent. They talk about things such as wind farms. What fruit doth grow from this tree? Apples? Pears? What grows from it? Spuds? Nothing. It's not a farm. Of course, here you see the absolute attachment to it. They call them 'renewables'. There's nothing renewable. It's an intermittent power source. They become landfill. Bisphenol, which is part of the blades, is highly toxic. You can't do anything with the blades except bury them. Wind towers are future obsolete trash that is parked on the Australian landscape, and for what? It's because someone is making a buck. Someone is making a big buck, and I'll go through some of that a little later on.

We have to ask ourselves a question: what is the biggest threat? Are you going to go to war against warm weather? Is that what you think will take away your house, threaten your children, take away all your freedoms and take away your property? Is that what you think the threat is? Or could the threat possibly be a totalitarian superpower that has the capacity to remove the ownership of your house, to remove your rights, to basically make your children part of a vassal state? For us to stand up against that, we must become as powerful as possible as quickly as possible. It is our only alternative. It is the only thing we should be focused on. Going down this path is not going to allow you to do that.

If you want to know how it is going, I can tell you. Name me one global manufacturer who wants to move to Australia—just one. They're all running for the door—aluminium, steel, plastics, oil refining, manufacturing, even food processing now with Cadbury. They are leaving us. They are going because we are taking this economy nose first into the dirt by having this cultish attachment. Then we have the Peter Pan platitudes that rein out as they read the dot points and the speaking notes from the guru—'These are the notes that you will follow.' The recipe for what we're doing now is seen in the cake we are having to eat. People cannot afford their power bills. That is the reality. Pensioners and people who were doing it tough and are now poor. There are people in my area who are off the grid. They just cannot afford their power bill. They cannot pay it. We are doing this to them.

We hear these mythical statements about the jobs of the future—the renewable jobs of the future. I will run you through some coal towns. There is Biloela, Gladstone, Muswellbrook, Gunnedah, Singleton, the Port of Newcastle, Lithgow—just to name a few. Where is the renewable town? Where is this town with all these magical jobs that people are doing? It must be there somewhere? There must be one of them. We are told about all these jobs. Where are they?

In my electorate there is a town that had over $2 billion spent on swindle farms. Let's call them for what they are: swindle factories. where they just rip you off. That's all they are doing—and, if you are dumb enough and gullible enough to be ripped off, you should get ripped off! The population of Glen Innes has gone up by two people. That's pretty good for $2 billion. It is $1 billion a person. What an absolutely remarkable return for that investment! But we continue down this road. So much of what people have said is completely incorrect. This is mad! It is the tulip mania of 2024, where everyone is in the 'south sea bubble', everybody is so enthralled and everybody has drunk the Kool-Aid—but no-one seems to have the ticker to say, 'Hang on; I'm going to look a bit closer into some of this.'

So how does this work? Let's see how these swindle factories get around it. They have secret agreements. Minister Bowen said, 'Oh, we can't tell you what they are getting'—these swindle factories—'because it is commercial in confidence.' It is the taxpayers' money, for goodness sake! We're entitled to know what they are getting. We hear that they get underwritten for their capital. Even if they produce fairy floss, they get paid. Who pays? The little old taxpayer and the pensioner. The retailer just puts it on your power bill. We have renewable energy credits. We just hand them money. They sell power in five-minute blocks. Imagine if we sold oxygen in five-minute blocks. There would be times in the day when you would be willing to pay a lot of money for that air if you did not have it, and the price of air would go through the roof.

Imagine if you did something reasonable and said, 'If you want to go into this market, you've got to supply power for 24 hours, or for a week,' then all these swindle factories would be out of business because they can't do it. It's intermittent power, it's not renewables. You're forced to buy the product—you have to buy it. There's a quota—you have to buy this product, and whether you like it or not, it's going to be rammed down your throat. And then they come out and the taxpayer pays again. Are they going to pay for 28,000 kilometres of poles and wires? Is there any more featherbedding you can give to these swindle factories?

I want to quickly run through some of these people—these benevolent, environmentally conscience people. Apparently, these people are worried. I just want you to ask yourself the question: do you think these people are worried about the environment or do you think that they think you're a sucker and you need to be ripped off? They're going to take the money out of your pocket. In my area, the Northern Tablelands Wind Farm—7,586 hectares—is owned by Origin, but you've got to remember that Origin is going to be bought out by Brookfield of Canada and EIG Partners in the US. Stringybark Solar Farm is owned by Saudi Arabia; Armidale BESS by GMR Energy and Gore Street Capital, which are Chinese companies; Doughboy Wind Farm is Korean; Bendemeer Renewable Energy Hub is Singaporean; Ben Lomond is Meridian Energy from New Zealand; Infrastructure Capital Group—now Foresight—is from London; the Dungowan Hydro Battery is French; White Rock Renewables is Chinese—Goldwind Science & Technology; Thunderbolt Energy Hub is French; Metsolar is from Saudi Arabia, Abdul Latif Jameel Energy; a company in Inverell is Canadian; and at Loomberah-Timbumburi we have Switzerland and Turkiye. Obviously, people in Turkiye are very worried about Australia these days and cannot get to sleep in Istanbul worrying about the environment in Australia! Then we have Merriwa—well, that's the Maoneng Group in China. I'm sure that in China and Beijing they're up all night, going: 'Gosh! We've got to look after Australia! We're worried about global warming in Australia! We have to help them out!' Or are they thinking, 'These guys down there are complete fools and we're going to take them on.' Hills of Gold Wind Farm is French.

This one's a good one: Calala. Calala is Equis Energy. This was owned by a Nigerian billionaire. He hopped into it and then sold it off to BlackRock in the USA. I'm sure he would have woken up in Nigeria, and said: 'I must help! I must be involved in this gargantuan, titanic struggle to help out Australians in the New England to get renewables! It is my life calling!' I think he probably had some good accountants and they said: 'Mate, we're onto it! These clowns will do it and the money just flows out. They underwrite what you earn, subsidise everything you do. You have to buy your product and then you just flip the deal, mate. You just flip the deal and put the balance in your pocket!'

I could go on. You see what it is—we have the Danish, French and the Philippines, with Newman Solar—all of this virtue. These will be obsolete pieces of trash—and that's what they are, static capital in an advanced market. Nuclear will come in, whether you like it or not—it will be like trying to ban mobile phones or colour televisions. It's coming. Then they will be obsolete and, if it's so virtuous, who do you think would be responsible for dismantling them? If it's so virtuous to stick them up, surely the government should think about what they're going to do when it comes to pulling them down? Guess who's responsible for that? The cockie! The good old farmer. Their own ombudsman, Andrew Dyer, says it's $600,000 a pop to dismantle one! Which farmer do you think is going to have $600,000 per tower? None!

Right now we have banks going out and saying, 'Mate, we're worried about your security.' We had a person in our area who died, tragically. When they went to sell his place, bingo! Caveats on it—they can't just straight sell it. These problems all turn out because they had really good solicitors. These swindle factories have really good accountants and really good solicitors, and suckers for a government. And the government have great advisers. They're in here with the lanyards on, 'Budget time; come on!' They sweet-talk the fourth estate and they drink the Kool Aid—they're in here as well. So much for the ABC and Four Corners. When it really does require investigative reporting, no, they won't touch it because they've got you worked out too. The Nigerians, the French and the Chinese—they've got your number. You total and utter suckers.

If you want zero emissions, then you can only go nuclear. If you said to me, 'What's your alternative?' I don't know. Look at Snowy 2.0. I was sitting at the table when they said it was going to cost $2 billion and I thought that was too much. Then it turned to $4 billion, then $6 billion, then $8 billion and now it's $12 billion. It's heading to $20 billion—for 2,000 megawatts for 10 days? Liddell did 2,000 megawatts 24/7, 365 days a year, and you blew it up. You shut it down. You've got Bundamba. I think that's going to be $14 billion and is going to provide 2,000 megawatts for a day. This is insane.

Do you realise how this cult has worked—how you've fallen into the trap? Do you sit back and just stare and go, 'Hang on, that can't be right—what we're doing there'? But it is happening.

In closing, you're going to hear Minister Bowen—he used a quote today, and I've got no idea where it's come from but I'm checking it out. You ask, 'Do I believe Minister Bowen? Is it a bird. Is it a plane?' No, it's 'Super-swindle-man'. Do you believe him? Maybe you don't believe me. Maybe you don't believe him. I'll tell you what you should believe: believe your power bill. Believe that letter with the little plastic window that turns up. Believe your power bill; it does not lie. Your power bill is going through the roof because your government is a total and absolute sucker.

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

Reducing emissions is at the centre of the Albanese government's plan to boost renewable energy. One of the essential components of that plan will be the Net Zero Economy Authority. It's why I stand today in support of these bills, the Net Zero Economy Authority Bill 2024 and the Net Zero Economy Authority (Transitional Provisions) Bill 2024.

The Net Zero Economy Authority will be a new agency to oversee our nation's transition to net zero emissions by 2050. Its function will be to coordinate policy and planning, facilitate public and private participation—and, importantly, investment—support affected workers, support First Nations Australians to participate in our renewable transition, and deliver educational and promotional initiatives as Australia transitions to a net zero emissions economy.

Our government recognises the importance of a swift transition to net zero. It's why we've put Australia on the path to becoming a renewable energy superpower, with over $40 billion invested across the nation. This includes the $20 billion Rewiring the Nation program to modernise our electricity grid and infrastructure so it can support a renewable energy based system; the $1.9 billion Powering the Regions Fund to support the decarbonisation of existing industries and the creation of new clean energy industries; the $4 billion Critical Minerals Facility to grow our critical minerals production sector; the $2 billion Hydrogen Headstart program supporting development of large-scale renewable hydrogen projects; and the $15 billion National Reconstruction Fund to diversify and transform Australia's industry for a net zero economy. We have also supported Australian industries, workers and communities to participate in that shift to net zero, and our government is actively looking at ways to decarbonise existing industries and develop new green production opportunities.

All of this ambitious action requires a need for coordination, which is one of the functions of the new Net Zero Economy Authority. This authority will be objective driven. It will use resources efficiently to achieve outcomes that drive emissions down, support decarbonisation of industry and, importantly, create new jobs in our new clean energy industries. The authority won't take on the roles of existing government agencies; it will complement, co-ordinate, identify gaps and contribute to policy development. It will also work with government at state and territory levels to achieve investment in renewables to support our nation's transition to a renewable energy superpower.

Throughout this process of our transition away from fossil fuels and towards renewables, it's critical that we support workers and communities. The authority will play an important role in supporting community to understand the transition to a net zero economy, ensuring Australians are both engaged in the process and confident in its outcomes. We will also ensure that workers are not left behind as we build the industries and jobs that underpin our future prosperity. The authority will ensure workers receive the support they need. It will work with employers, unions and others to help workers engage in new opportunities.

This bill will also establish the legislative framework for an Energy Industry Jobs Plan. Administered by the authority, the plan will enable the use of pooled redeployment arrangements for workers. As coal-fired power stations and gas plants close, there will be a plan to help workers transition directly to a new job. Workers in a closing facility will have opportunities to be redeployed into a new job with another employer in the same or a similar industry. Those businesses on the supply chain will be encouraged to participate voluntarily in the redeployment scheme. We do expect many of our largest coal-fired power stations to put their hands up to participate in our federal government's Energy Industry Jobs Plan as they prepare for closure.

Stakeholder support for our Net Zero Economy Authority is strong. Jennifer Westacott, the former Business Council chief executive, described it as 'an opportunity for better jobs and better living standards', and Steve Murphy, National Secretary of the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union, explained, 'It delivers on the promise'. That is what this government has done and what this bill will do. It will ensure our local communities are able to enjoy the opportunities of a clean energy future.

These bills, along with our work on the transition to renewables, is an approach embraced by many, many people in my electorate of Corangamite. Since coming to office, our government has given the green light to a historic 46 renewable energy projects, with another 130 in the pipeline. As a result, we have seen a 25 per cent increase in renewable energy in the National Electricity Market. This is important progress, but there is so much more to do, and that's what these bills are all about. These bills signal that Australia has an eye on the future. My community has acknowledged this as a welcome change—a climate change policy that is actually reducing emissions and creating clean energy jobs.

This is in stark contrast to the former coalition government. The Liberals and the Nationals had no legislated target for net zero, no legislated target for emissions reduction, no settled approach to the energy transition, no plan to bring our electricity grid into the 21st century and no policy to ensure replacement capacity of the 24 coal plants that have announced closure dates. Back then, the coalition could not even agree on a long-term energy policy. One former Liberal Premier went so far as to describe it as a 'slow-moving train wreck'. And now, after all this time, the energy policy they've almost settled on is nuclear power, although it's worth noting that they seem to be divided on this policy as well.

This announcement was coming in weeks, then it was coming in before the budget and now they claim it's coming before the election. Australians know why this announcement has been delayed; they know this will cost taxpayers a fortune and they know it will mean more coal for longer. And they know that the Leader of the Opposition has considered putting a reactor on the Surf Coast. Imagine driving down the Great Ocean Road, the most iconic tourism location in Victoria, passing by Bells Beach, only to be greeted with looming nuclear stacks as you approach the quaint seaside village of Anglesea. Anglesea had a coalmine; it's no longer in use. It has been named in the past, and I know that the people of my electorate beyond and in Anglesea are very anxious about this proposal that had been given in the past. We will wait and see what the announcement brings. I do hope for the people of Anglesea that the local member listens and that this would not be a place for such a reactor. Our energy policy and commitment to renewable energy stands in stark contrast. It offers outcomes rooted in reality, not fantasy. It offers a cleaner net zero future, with lower power prices for all Australians, and the Net Zero Economy Authority will play a significant role in this future.

In closing, this is a future that will see Australian workers and communities continue to play a central role in our energy industry. As we transition to net zero, more opportunities for these workers and our communities will emerge. This is an exciting transition. It is one my community embraces, and I stand with them in moving forward to become a renewable superpower. The transition to net zero will push us through the doors of opportunity and create renewable jobs and a cleaner, greener future for our nation.

Aaron Violi (Casey, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before I get into my speech, I was listening to be member Corangamite. She did mention Anglesea. I would just like to reference an interview that the member for Wannon gave on 24 May this year, when asked about the nuclear industry. When asked whether there would be a reactor in Anglesea, he said:

No. Anglesea was ruled out last year, so there will not be a nuclear fired power plant in Anglesea.

So there we go; that was very clear from the member for Wannon. It's a bit disappointing when we talk about the most challenging transition that this country is undergoing, that those opposite choose to engage in scare campaigns. They're not prepared to have a debate on the merits, nor to listen to people like the former chief scientist Alan Finkel, who has debated the merits of nuclear. They want to engage in scare campaigns. I think it's very important that we correct the record and answer that for those residents in Anglesea and Corangamite, and have the absolute clarity, as the member for Wannon said, that there will not be a nuclear power plant in Anglesea.

While the Net Zero Economy Authority Bill 2024, that we're here to debate, has been called that, it's actually an industrial relations bill. It has little, if anything, to do with the pathway to net zero. What this legislation is looking to do, is to move the current Net Zero Economy Agency, which is already an executive agency within the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, to a standalone authority called the Net Zero Economy Authority. Let's look at what the functions are going to be, because that's a really important part of this new authority. Their functions will be to coordinate net zero policy and planning across government; facilitate both government and private participation and investment; support affected workers; support First Nations Australians to participate in the transition; and deliver educational and promotional initiatives as Australia transitions to a net zero emissions economy.

The coalition will be opposing this bill for many reasons. It's bureaucratic waste and duplication. It's a top-down, Canberra centric approach which is set to fail on delivering on the unique needs of the regions. It imposes new obligations on small, medium and large businesses. And it is another example of Labor's haphazard approach to industry policy, which delivers no guarantees for local workers.

As I said previously, the transition to net zero represents one of the most profound and challenging shifts in human history. It encompasses not only technological but economic change, and it's going to have deep social implications. But it is crucial that, as we transition, we ensure we have cheap and reliable energy. Cheap and reliable energy is what has lifted people in Australia and around the world out of poverty. It is the cornerstone of economic growth, and it allows businesses and communities to grow. When we look at this transition, the most challenging transition, any government and any person genuinely serious about engaging in this discussion must be and should be technology agnostic. You should be prepared to look at any technology that will transition us to net zero as quick as possible while ensuring we have cheap and reliable power.

There are two broad aspects to this legislation that operationalise the authority's power. The first is facilitating the new investment in the net zero transition. The authority intends to be a shopfront for industry and investors. It will seek to work with project proponents and state governments to get renewable projects to investment decisions. The authority will also look to mobilise public money—through vehicles like the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and the National Reconstruction Fund—with private finance and support, address and enable infrastructure needs and navigate the regulatory processes.

This is just another example of the hypocrisy of this government when it comes to the discussion around nuclear energy and the transition to net zero. The Prime Minister, the minister and those opposite are very quick to criticise nuclear and talk about whether any public money and any taxpayer money will be used for nuclear energy as part of our mix moving forward. They criticise nuclear and say, 'We can't use taxpayer money for nuclear energy,' but they're very happy to spend billions of taxpayer dollars on renewable energy. So the real question is: why is it okay to support one form of zero emissions energy but not another—an energy source that provides baseload zero emissions energy, so crucial to our economy? The government can't answer that because the reason is not science; it's ideology. The government are putting their ideological beliefs above the needs of the Australian people. They're putting their ideological beliefs above the needs of Australian communities—Australian coal communities, Australian farming communities, Australian businesses. They're not prepared to engage in a mature conversation on nuclear energy. All we hear from the minister responsible, the Minister for Climate Change and Energy in this country, are insults are jokes when we're trying to have a mature discussion about the most challenging transition in our country. His transition is already off track. The numbers are showing that he's not going to hit his 42 per cent target. They're not going to deliver their renewables-only approach, and he won't have a conversation about why not. They're not even prepared to take off the moratorium on nuclear and let business decide if it stacks up. Business cannot invest the money in a business case on nuclear, because it's banned in the country. Well, take the moratorium away and let business have a look at whether it stacks up. In only 19 G20 countries is business investing in nuclear, for those opposite.

Let's be clear. Let's look at the science. Those opposite are very quick to talk to the science. Nuclear energy is the only zero-emissions, scalable base load power option that exists. It is the only option around the globe. Renewables are not base load. The batteries are not proven as scalable. And they won't even have a conversation about it. They're not even prepared to put all options on the table.

The second responsibility of the authority is assisting the impacted workers in the transition area through the Energy Industry Jobs Plan. That plan's going to allow the authority to utilise the industrial relations system to manage the redeployment of workers in closing coal-fired and gas-fired power stations and their dependent employers. But the plan does not specify or anticipate the types of employment that workers may transition into. In his address to the National Press Club earlier this year, the current Net Zero Economy Agency chair, Greg Combet, could not give a guarantee on the transition of coal power station workers to green jobs in the renewables sector. There is a genuine and real risk that these workers will be left with fewer employment opportunities and lower rates of pay.

Again, we look at nuclear as a discussion. As the Leader of the Opposition and many experts have said, one of the benefits of nuclear is that it can go in existing coal power station sites. Not only does that reduce the cost through existing transmission lines—the environmental cost of 28,000 kilometres of new transmission lines, the money of installing those, the access to workers—by utilising those already there; it also creates genuine, long-term jobs in the coal communities that are losing their current coal plants. It can create some different jobs with nuclear technicians, no doubt, but those that have the cleaning contracts for a coal power plant can also have the cleaning contracts for a nuclear plant in the same location. Those that go to the local footy club, the grocery store—all those secondary jobs that are created for an industry like this—would continue to exist. It's nice to say that you've got an authority that's going to find jobs for workers, but, if there are no businesses, there's no work for them. Again, that is another one of the opportunities and advantages of nuclear that those opposite, this government, aren't even prepared to have a conversation about.

Now, this authority is full of duplication and full of waste. The investment facilitation aspects of the proposed authority duplicate the role of existing funding agencies such as the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and the Australian Renewable Energy Agency and the role of existing mechanisms such as the Major Projects Facilitation Agency. The level of duplication of the proposed Net Zero Economy Authority's responsibilities to promote new investment in the net zero transition and existing Commonwealth entities is just beyond a joke. It's creating another level of bureaucracy that's already there. It's money that's being spent in a top-down approach, with a Canberra-centric focus. Over a billion dollars of federal funds in the forward estimates have been put forward to duplicate projects and initiatives that are already there. For example, there are regional planning initiatives that already exist through the New South Wales government's Hunter Regional Plan and the Victorian government's Latrobe Valley authority transition plan. So you've got plans in these communities that are going to be duplicated by a federal plan—waste. The new authority would also cut across the work and vision of the existing Regional Development Australia committees, which recognise that there is no one-size-fits-all approach to creating vibrant regions.

This legislation is going to drive bureaucratic duplication and it's also going to negatively impact small and family businesses. It's important to note that the larger risk in this legislation is not for the large energy-generating companies, but rather for small businesses who supply goods and services to a closing power station, who may be caught up in this energy industry job plan process. These businesses don't have HR or internal workplace lawyers and are unlikely to have any line of sight of what's coming. It's so important that we continue to protect these small businesses, and there's no carve out for them.

The coalition will oppose the Net Zero Economy Authority Bill because it's bureaucratic waste and duplication, and it's a top-down, Canberra-centric approach, which is set to fail on delivering on the unique needs of the regions. It imposes new obligations on small, medium and large businesses, and the fact is that it's another example of Labor's haphazard approach on industry policy, which delivers no guarantees for local workers.

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

I welcome this critical step forward in Australia's transition towards net zero, which itself is necessary to tackle dangerous climate change. It's also necessary to ensure that Australia derives the greatest possible benefits from a global energy, technology and industrial transformation that is moving substantially and moving quickly. We can't afford to be left behind in that transformation. We've known for a long time, based on expert scientific advice and economic analysis, that making a swift, fair and well-planned transition will deliver the best economic outcomes, not to mention the best social and environmental outcomes. That's what this bill helps to deliver through the Net Zero Economy Authority.

It's a statement of the obvious to say that leading Australia through the global energy transformation requires serious, careful and comprehensive good management—an approach that was completely absent during the lost decade of coalition mismanagement, especially when it comes to energy policy. It wasn't just a complete policy vacuum, as the minister mentioned earlier today, there were 22 different draft energy policies, none of which ever landed. But it was often also an exercise in policy and program vandalism, and Australians shouldn't forget that in addition to never managing to land a single national energy policy, the coalition also tried to get rid of the foundational building blocks of clean energy transformation that Labor created during the Rudd-Gillard government, namely the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and the Australian Renewable Energy Agency. The member for Casey before was talking about these things in a way that suggested he understood their value. He wasn't in the parliament when his colleagues on that side sought to defund them and get rid of them altogether.

Thankfully, the Albanese government is once again taking on the responsibility of leading Australia through the circumstances of a global transition that does present enormous opportunities, not least because we're a country that's blessed with the right critical minerals and the best renewable energy resources. We've got the chance before us—and, I would say, the obligation upon us—to set up Australia for a bright and sustainable future and for a future that is made in Australia by Australians for Australians. That's 100 per cent our focus. We're seeking to do that through a consultative and constructive approach. We'd love that to be constructive as far as the parliament as a whole. Clearly the coalition is continuing on with saying: 'We've got no ideas. We'll accept no reform. We'll accept no change. We're not interested in anything positive. We're not interested in anything constructive.' That's a shame.

At the heart of our approach is a set of arrangements developed in consultation with unions, industry and employers that in turn have shaped what is in effect a tripartite approach that will guide us along the best path as older industries are transformed and new enterprises emerge. This tripartite approach of government working collaboratively with unions and with industry and employers will mean that the changes we need to make will happen through a process that is open, consultative and fair. We'll ensure that workers and households in affected communities, especially rural and regional communities, where a lot of this transition will occur, have a clear voice in shaping that change.

On that point, I do want to acknowledge the strong and sustained advocacy, the unstinting and focused advocacy, of the labour movement with respect to the value of a tripartite approach, especially the AMWU's Steve Murphy and, from my home state of Western Australia, Steve McCartney; my very good friend, the ETU's Michael Wright; and, of course, the mighty ASU, AWU and MEU.

As I've said, the Net Zero Economy Authority, which this bill advances, will make a massive positive difference in shaping the transition that is already well underway. The need for this kind of coordination, advice, leadership and oversight has been understood for some time. Indeed, when the global community settled the Paris climate agreement back in 2016, the need to guide and manage the transition—what was described as a just transition—to net zero was set out clearly with expectations that signatory nations would put in place exactly what we are discussing today: an authority that can help guide the best form of the transition in all the sensible ways that will logically occur. That's what this authority will do.

It will provide leadership to ensure coordination and consistency in the design and implementation of policies and programs across a range of areas. As part of that, it will provide advice and reports on progress to the minister. It will facilitate and promote public and private sector investment in emission reduction and the full range of net zero transformation initiatives, harnessing what the CEFC has delivered—not taxpayer dollars going into initiatives but funds that are lent on a commercial basis and have delivered a very healthy return to government whilst enabling investment in and the development of these kinds of new initiatives.

The authority will support workers in affected industries, including with job matching and skills development through the implementation of the Energy Industry Jobs Plan, a task that needs to occur as we see some industries shift and change—coal-fired power, for example, which won't be a big part of Australia's future, while at the same time we see offshore wind and billions of dollars of work in the decommissioning of oil and gas as another offshore industry.

The authority will make sure that communities benefit from the transition and that they not just see these things occur but actually take up the opportunity to benefit directly from that transition, with a particular focus on First Nations communities. That is hugely welcome. The authority will also take on the broad work of raising awareness about what's involved in and promoting active engagement in various parts of our shift to net zero, helping people to understand the options, opportunities and benefits.

I'm sure that people in the community who hear about all those aspects of the Net Zero Economy Authority would think to themselves: 'Surely this is a no-brainer. Surely this is something we would have known was going to be necessary some time ago and we would have put in place as soon as possible.' Perhaps even on that basis, people might wonder, 'Has this kind of authority, this kind of function, occurred anywhere else?' The answer is: of course. In the United States, they have the American Jobs Plan, which was created back in 2021. In the United Kingdom, they have the UK Green Jobs Taskforce, which was launched back in 2020. Both of those had very similar functions in looking at the transformation that occurs when saying: 'This kind of activity will decrease and these other kinds of activities will increase. What workers are there in an area that is going to decrease? What are their opportunities in new initiatives? How do the skills that they have match?' In many cases, the analysis that was done that underpinned both the American jobs and the UK jobs taskforces said there was quite a large overlap between the skills in some of the industries that we will see less of as we get out of fossil fuels and those we'll need as we move towards a net zero economy. Some of the skills transferred very well into emerging industries like offshore wind, large-scale solar and storage and the decommissioning task in relation to offshore oil and gas that I have described.

Rick Wilson (O'Connor, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

An offshore wind farm right off Fremantle?

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

Wherever it helps, just to answer the member for O'Connor. There's a famous wind farm in my electorate at Rottnest. I remember former prime minister Tony Abbott coming over and almost suggesting he was going to knock down that wind turbine which helps Rottnest Island and its park have energy self-sufficiency. We have no problem with wind in my community—don't worry about that—and I expect there's no problem in your community either. There is already one there, Member for O'Connor. What there won't be is a fantasy in the form of a small modular reactor.

We haven't had the benefit of the work I've described because the coalition simply failed to care about responding to climate change and failed to put in place the arrangements to guide our transition to a net zero economy and to carry out our role as a renewable energy superpower. We are taking a different approach. We are not going to be derelict in our obligation to show leadership and effective management as an Australian government. The Australian community deserves to have in this place, in the parliament, and as a government an outfit that sees the challenges and doesn't bury its head in the sand and doesn't entertain some of the fantasies that the member for Casey was talking about before.

My God, on this rubbish about having a mature conversation about nuclear, people should wake up. We have talked about nuclear in a mature, sensible, consistent, comprehensive, in-depth, exhaustive way for years and years. The former government says there's this proposition that needs to occur to remove the moratorium on large-scale nuclear. Who created that? Who put that there? That was put there by the Howard government. In 10 years of the previous government they not once considered removing that moratorium. When the current energy spokesperson on the other side chaired the environment and energy committee inquiry into nuclear energy, it concluded that there was no case for removing the moratorium for large-scale nuclear. So this is a fantasy grasping at straws about nuclear energy when every bit of evidence in every inquiry over a long period of time has shown that it is absolutely not in Australia's interest. It just goes to show the poverty of common sense, policy development and leadership on that side. Fortunately, we don't have to worry about the things they are not going to do. We have a government that is squarely taking on the task that faces the global community—tackling climate change and managing the transition to a net zero economy. We are doing that, and this bill is a big step in that direction.

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

I rise today to speak on the Net Zero Economy Authority Bill 2024 and related bill. I will not be supporting this ludicrous legislation. Like many communities right across the country, my electorate of Capricornia is experiencing the full brunt of this government's ideological push for irresponsible net zero target. In the Rockhampton region alone, the numerous wind farms are scarring the landscape of untouched remnant vegetation and prime agricultural land, while in the north of the electorate locals in the Eungella region are facing a David-and-Goliath battle to stop the state Labor government's attempt to build what they are describing as the world's largest pumped hydro scheme. Community groups already navigating a complex array of departmental regulation to oppose industrial-scale renewable energy projects near their homes now face increased government pressure favouring companies investing in renewable energy in the form of this Net Zero Economy Authority.

The Net Zero Economy Authority's primary purpose is to facilitate new investment in the net zero transition. It aims to serve as a shopfront for industry and investors and to work closely with project proponents and state governments to advance renewable projects to the investment decision stage. Additionally, the authority will mobilise public funds through the likes of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and the National Reconstruction Fund. To note just how well this government's National Reconstruction Fund is performing, to date not one cent has been spent from the $15 billion intended to assist industries.

The Net Zero Economy Authority aims to expediate the development of green energy projects, leveraging public investments to attract further private sector involvement and hasten progress towards net zero emissions at a rushed pace. I am witnessing firsthand the significant impact of this rushed approach towards achieving 82 per cent renewable energy by 2030. This hasty push will have long-lasting consequences for generations of Australians. One major concern is the loss of prime agricultural land which has been converted for large-scale industrial renewable energy projects. This not only threatens our agriculture output and food security but also disrupts the livelihoods of many rural communities.

Moreover, the substantial financial burden on the public purse cannot be ignored. The aggressive drive for renewable energy is leading to enormous public expenditures which may not be sustainable in the long term. The reckless pace of this transition risks prioritising short-term gains over thoughtful strategic planning, ultimately jeopardising both our economy and our environment. Generations of Australians will feel the repercussions of this approach, facing both the economic impacts and the challenges of adapting to a transformed landscape.

I ask those opposite: how many have sat on the verandah of a local grazier's home and met with people who are being directly impacted by this rush for unrealistic renewable energy targets? How many have sat with a farmer with a young family, who intended to pass his hard work and investment on to his children, only for it to be ripped away in the name of renewable energy targets? I have, and I must say that it is heartbreaking to see how these communities in regional Australia are being bulldozed away to make sure those who live in the city can feel good when they turn on a light. The human impact, the toll it is taking on regional Australia, is immeasurable.

The legislation put forward is another nail in the coffin for these communities to fight back against renewable energy projects which are being placed in irresponsible locations. The Pioneer-Burdekin Pumped Hydro Project is a prime example of a renewable energy project which will destroy one of Australia's most pristine natural wilderness areas. Initially estimated at a cost of $12 billion, this project has already blown out enormously to an astonishing $18 billion. If the Pioneer-Burdekin Pumped Hydro Project is to be anything like the Snowy 2.0 shambles, which has been propped up by extensive federal funding, it is a dire sign of taxpayer money being spent with abandon to achieve net zero dreams.

This legislation before us is problematic for several reasons. Firstly, it contributes to bureaucratic waste and duplication, adding unnecessary layers of administration without tangible benefits. The approach being proposed is top-down and centred in Canberra, which makes it ill suited to addressing the unique needs of regional areas. The centralised method is bound to fail in effectively serving the diverse parts of different communities. Additionally, the legislation imposes new obligations on businesses of all sizes: small, medium and large. These added responsibilities could hinder business operations and growth, creating more challenges than solutions for the business sector. Moreover, this proposal exemplifies Labor's inconsistent and erratic approach to industry policy. It lacks clear guarantees for local workers, leaving their employment and wellbeing uncertain.

On top of the significant flaws in this piece of legislation, we found out in the budget that the government has doubled the authority's budget to $399.1 million from 2023-24 to 2026-27, with further funding to total $1.1 billion over the medium term. The federal government cannot afford to waste over $1 billion on Canberra bureaucrats across the Net Zero Economy Authority, the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations, and the Fair Work Commission, especially when it has been unable to detail the actions this authority will perform that are not already being done. The potential for bureaucratic inefficiency, the one-size-fits-all strategy, the burdens on businesses and the absence of assured benefits for local workers make it a flawed proposal. The significant increase in the authority's budget, amounting to over $1 billion, is an unjustifiable expenditure given the lack of clear, additional benefits it would provide.

The Net Zero Economy Authority is weaving a tangled web of bureaucratic confusion, with the facility largely duplicating the responsibilities already managed by the existing federal and state agencies. The authority is explicitly tasked with:

… facilitating public and private sector participation and investment in greenhouse gas emissions reduction and net zero transformation initiatives in Australia, including in new industries …

This mandate aims to drive significant engagement and funding towards reducing emissions and fostering new industries geared towards a net zero economy. However, this role appears to closely mirror the Clean Energy Finance Corporation's legislated responsibility, which is:

To facilitate increased flows of finance into the clean energy sector and to facilitate the achievement of Australia's greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets.

The overlap in responsibilities raises concerns about the necessity and efficiency of the new authority, given that similar functions are already being performed by existing agencies.

How many federal agencies tasked with renewable financing does the Commonwealth require? The abundance of such agencies raises questions about efficiency and necessity, as overlapping responsibilities can lead to bureaucratic redundancy and wasted resources. This approach, focused on facilitating investment consistent with net zero ambitions, also leans into the government's preference for picking winners rather than fostering genuine investment facilitation and job creation. By selectively supporting certain initiatives, the government risks neglecting broader, potentially more impactful opportunities. It is also likely that, once established, the federal government will continue to add additional powers and responsibilities to the authority to support its net zero and climate ambitions. This potential for expanded authority raises the question: will the government rule out giving this Net Zero Economy Authority new powers to streamline and expedite regulatory approvals or financing for transformational green energy projects?

As I said previously, the funding for this authority and its related activities is budgeted at $399.1 million from 2023-24 to 2026-27, with further funding totalling $1.1 billion over the medium term. This substantial allocation is on top of the billions of dollars of additional funding being channelled into the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, the Australian Renewable Energy Agency and the newly branded Future Made in Australia initiative. Despite these significant investments, over $13 billion in taxpayer funded subsidies for big businesses do not address the root causes of Labor's cost-of-living crisis. Green hydrogen and critical minerals being pushed by billionaires should stand up on their own merit without the need for taxpayers' money. Labor's focus should be on addressing energy costs, high inflation and out-of-control red tape. Instead, Labor continuously fails to tackle the fundamental issues facing most Australian businesses.

With insolvencies at record highs and more businesses moving offshore, supporting a small number of big businesses is irresponsible and a slap in the face to small businesses desperately seeking answers from this government to survive. The duplication of efforts between the Net Zero Economy Authority and existing Commonwealth institutions highlights a complete waste of over $1 billion of federal government funds over the forward estimates. The Net Zero Economy Authority Bill represents another pie-in-the-sky, rushed piece of legislation that will not help my constituents in Capricornia. The promise of local jobs for local people within the renewable energy sector remains unfulfilled, further illustrating the disconnect between the government's ambitious plans and the practical needs of the community.

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

It's with enormous pride that I rise to make a contribution on the Net Zero Economy Authority Bill 2024. This is an incredibly important bill not just for Australia as a whole but, in particular, for my region, the mighty Hunter and Central Coast region.

I'm proud of the contribution my region makes to our nation. We provide fully 25 per cent of the nation's electricity. We've got Vales Point Power Station in my electorate. We've got Colongra gas station in my electorate, which is the largest gas-fired power station in New South Wales. Over the other side of the lake, we've got Eraring Power Station, which is the largest power station in the country, and up the valley we've got Bayswater. We've also got the proud contribution that Lake Munmorah and Wangi power stations made in their day.

We truly powered this nation. We industrialised this nation during a period of cheap coal-fired electricity in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s and running into the 1980s. That is the contribution that the Hunter made historically, and we continue to make a contribution that is massive in its proportion today. But the truth is that those power stations have either been retired or will soon be retired due to the age of the plant. Vales Point Power Station was built in the late 1960s, Eraring in the early 1980s and Bayswater in the late 1970s. We have already had Lake Munmorah Power Station close down. These power stations are reaching the end of their technical lives not because of government policy but because of base engineering. So the question is: what do we, as a government and as a nation, do to honour the commitment of the workers, and the communities based upon them, and to look after them?

The truth is that we had thousands of megawatts of coal-fired electricity close down under the last government without adequate support. The most stark example of that was Hazelwood Power Station, which closed with less than five months notice, throwing out hundreds of workers and contractors without adequate support. An activist Victorian government intervened to look after some of them, but the truth is that we should have—and could have—done much more. That's what this bill is all about, and that's why I'm so proud of it.

At the heart of this bill is the pooled redundancy model for displaced power station workers and workers in captured coalmines associated with those power stations. We've got choices here. We can repeat the errors of the past in Australia. We can go down the route that we've seen in other countries—for example, what happened to coalmining in places like Appalachia in the United States—or we can be much more progressive and much more interventionist, recognising the structural inequity and the challenges that face regions like mine when we see mass redundancy events. I for one am all for intervention to support my community. I have looked at the model that German governments, both Left and Right, Christian Democrats and Social Democrats, participated in over the course of 40 years in the German coalmining industry. They went from having hundreds of thousands of employees in coalmining in the 1950s to ending black-coal mining a couple of years ago without a single forced redundancy.

That's why the pooled redundancy aspect of this legislation is so important. The legislation gives the authority roles around bringing forward the Energy Industry Jobs Plan, which involves meeting with workers on the ground to understand their needs; connecting them with training, financial advice and other individual supports; helping their transition to alternative jobs; and offering participation in the redeployment scheme. This is critical to giving workers associated with these power stations opportunities when the power stations close down because of the commercial decisions of the power station owners—not because of governments but because of the commercial decisions of the owners of those power stations. That is an incredibly important role for this authority.

I pay tribute to the Mining and Energy Union for their leadership on this issue for decades, and I'll return to that shortly. Their leadership has driven this process, and I'm proud of the small role that I was privileged to play in the design of some of these policies when I had some of the shadow ministerial responsibilities. That's one aspect of this bill that is so critical.

The other aspect of this bill that is critical is the future economic opportunities. How do we grow more manufacturing jobs in this country? Just as this country industrialised on the back of cheap coal-fired power in the 1950s and 1960s, we can grow even more manufacturing jobs on the basis of cheap renewable energy in the next few decades. That could drive a new generation of manufacturing. It is a fact that over 90 per cent of the world's photovoltaic cells are based on technology developed at the world's best research institution for PV, which is the University of New South Wales—in my mate the member for Kingsford Smith's electorate. It's great, world-leading research that is on roofs around the world. But the truth is that we got zero manufacturing jobs out of that because the Howard government allowed that technology to be sent overseas without any attempts to commercialise it here and generate a world-scale manufacturing industry. That cannot be allowed to happen again as we look to the next generation of renewable energy industries.

That is why our policies are so important. We have 50 per cent of the worlds lithium resources but we export it mostly in a raw form overseas. We need to be transforming it in this country, value adding and growing more manufacturing jobs. That is why this new authority, with its focus on managing economic change, complements the $40 billion in government initiatives to reduce emissions and become a renewable energy superpower. They include the $20 billion Rewiring the Nation program to modernise the electricity grid; the $1.9 billion Powering the Regions Fund; and a $6 billion critical minerals facility.

I'm particularly passionate about the green hydrogen opportunities. We should be the best place in the world to make green hydrogen and we should be the best place in the world to combine that green hydrogen with our great iron ore resources and make green steel. I want to see the Hunter Valley and Newcastle in particular making steel for decades to come. The Grattan Institute's report into green steel a few years ago demonstrated the opportunities in this area where we can compete and win green steel opportunities.

The truth is that these new opportunities will not be generated in places like North Sydney or Southbank; they will be generated in our regions. Projects that decarbonise industrial facilities and build new industries will grow the future economic base of regions like my own Hunter Valley, the Gladstone region, the Latrobe Valley and the Upper Spencer Gulf. I was so proud to be at the old Liddell power station site last month for the launch of our Solar SunShot program, which focuses on building manufacturing jobs and building solar photovoltaic cells. One company there that we are partnering with will employ more people at that site than the Liddell power station employed at its prime. So that is incredibly important for our community.

We must seize these economic opportunities. We have a great opportunity right now to harness this clean energy industrial revolution. We need to learn the lessons from past industrial revolutions. You do need an interventionist government to drive this process. You cannot leave it to the market unaided, because all the technology will be shipped offshore and we will lose the critical competitive advantages we have. That is why this bill is so critical to a region like mine and it is why I am profoundly proud of it.

In conclusion, I want to pay tribute to a couple of actors in the process. I've already thanked the Mining and Energy Union but, in particular, I want to call out Tony Maher, a person who has committed decades of service to fighting for his workers both in the mining industry—the coalmining industry in particular—and the energy sector. This bill is his legacy. This bill shows his pragmatism and his commitment to looking after his members and his community. I pay tribute to him and all the other activists in the MEU for their role in driving this conversation and this achievement. I also want to pay tribute to my mentor Greg Combet, in his role as the first chair of the Net Zero Economy Authority. He set the groundwork for this. He did great work on this. This topped off decades of contribution in fighting for workers in our country, particularly in regions like mine. I want to thank Greg Combet for his service in this role and wish the best of luck in his future role with the future fund. This bill is incredibly important to our nation and incredibly important to our region, and I commend it to the House.

While I'm talking about jobs and services in my community, I want to quickly express my disappointment in Australia Post, closing down the licensed office at Windale. This was a voluntary process through the Australia Post buyback process, but I am concerned about the loss of postal services in my community. I've met with the Minister for Communications, and we're working very hard to maintain postal services in Windale, which is a beautiful part of my community.

Gavin Pearce (Braddon, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Health, Aged Care and Indigenous Health Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Deputy Speaker Vasta, I'm sure that you've been around this place long enough to have heard a lot of things. We hear a lot here. There is one thing I don't hear when I'm down in my region in the great state of Tasmania, at the epicentre of small business in the north-west, on the west coast and in King Island. Constituents just don't come up to me and say things like, 'Gav, I wish we had more bureaucrats.' I've never heard it. They never say things like, 'This Canberra-centric approach is really working for me and my business, and it's making my life that much easier.' I've never heard that. They never say things like, 'Don't worry, Gav, Canberra will look after us. If you can't trust the government, who can you trust?' I've never heard that either—not once, not ever, nil, nada, zip, zero. And, frankly, I'm not holding my breath.

When we think about this legislation, the Net Zero Economy Authority Bill 2024 and the Net Zero Economy Authority (Transitional Provisions) Bill 2024, we just need to cast our minds back to Labor's failed Voice referendum. There are a lot of lessons that we should all have gleaned from that process. There was something in that for all of us. But one in particular was that people living in the regions are sick and tired of city based bureaucrats telling them how they should think, what they should think about and how they should feel. It offends them. It offends them deeply, because bureaucrats rarely understand what it's like on the ground, and they rarely understand what it's like to run a business, to borrow money, to employ people, to take risks, to work 24/7, to give to your employees before you take for yourself.

I've run a lot of businesses in my time, and I would literally, genuinely and faithfully feed and give to my employees before I took for myself. The mark of a leader—and I learnt this in the military—is that leaders eat last. It's no different in small business. I'm sick of the stories that come up from time to time in this place hammering employers because they are apparently taking the mickey out of their employees. Well, that rarely happens. It might happen in occasional cases, in exceptions to the norm, but, 99 times out of 100, most small-business operators think the world of their people. They're the livelihood of their business. It's time that this government understood that it is impossible to understand the unique needs of regional Australia when you're sitting behind a desk in Canberra. Unfortunately, it is blatantly clear that Labor has not learnt or continues to refuse to listen, and these bills before us today are a clear reminder of that.

Business is doing it damn tough. Small and medium-sized businesses have done it tough for the last two years. It's a sad indictment of the government that one of the only things that they've managed to deliver is an insolvency crisis across the Australian economy of small and medium-sized businesses. According to data recently released by ASIC, insolvencies across construction have already exceeded the annual 2022-23 figures. Small and medium-sized manufacturing business insolvencies are set to exceed the 2022-23 figures by the end of this month. Insolvencies across the whole economy are already three times higher than under the last year of the coalition's government.

If your business has managed to stay afloat, the situation is dire. I don't mean to be a pessimist, but it is. One in five small businesses are now struggling to pay their energy bills. Nearly half of all small businesses are concerned about their ability to pay future energy bills. More than one in three small to medium-sized enterprises have experienced energy hardships during the past 12 months, and rising energy costs are cited as the No. 1 factor. Labor's focus should be on supporting small and medium-size business enterprises and working with employers to navigate the processes that they need to run their businesses. They should be dealing with the crisis that they made, implementing strategies to combat rising energy costs, high inflation and out-of-control red and green tape.

This legislation imposes little risk on the large players in the energy market, by the way—companies like AGL, Origin and EnergyAustralia. The total risk of this legislation will be borne by smaller business operators, by the subcontractors who supply the goods and services in the shutdown and closing down power stations. These businesses don't have an HR department. They don't have a department that deals with red and green tape. They don't have accountants doing their taxes. They're probably mum-and-dad businesses that work hand in hand to keep their heads above water on a daily basis. These businesses don't have internal workplace lawyers—and I'm grateful for that, I can tell you. These businesses don't have the capacity to administer the services outlined in this bill. In large part, these businesses have absolutely no idea what's coming down the pipeline for them and won't until it's too late. The imposition of the new obligations contained within this legislation will simply send more businesses to the wall, and I can never support that.

It's never the right time for government to waste taxpayers' money subsidising big business, but it is unforgivable during a cost-of-living crisis of their making. It's unforgivable that the Albanese government is heading down this path while small and medium businesses are forced into insolvency at record numbers, as I've already stated. In the 2024-25 budget, this authority and related activities are funded at $399.1 million from 2023-24 to 2026-27. Add to that a further $1.1 billion over the medium term. This is on top of the billions of dollars of additional funding being moved into the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, the Australian Renewable Energy Agency and the newly badged Future Made in Australia.

And what do you get for this investment? That's what most businesspeople ask. What do you get for this investment of your hard-earned taxpayer dollars? You get an authority that duplicates what other agencies are already doing. We've got the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. We've got the Australian Renewable Energy Agency and the role of existing mechanisms such as the Major Projects Facilitation Agency. And there are also the state based duplications such as the New South Wales government's Hunter Regional Plan, the Victorian government's Latrobe Valley Authority transitional plan and the work and vision of existing Regional Development Australian committees, which recognise that there is no one-size-fits-all approach to creating vibrant regions. This is like the start of a bad joke. It's like an episode of Utopia, fair dinkum. How many federal agencies does it take for the government to deliver renewable financing?

Our pathway to decarbonise the Australian economy must be ambitious, optimistic and aspirational, but it also needs to be practical and it needs to be achievable. Practical Australians out there, like the ones running the businesses in the great state of Tasmania, share a common goal as we make our transition towards net zero. It's simple. This is Humphrey B Bear stuff. Australians want clean power that's reliable and affordable at the same time. It needs to be achievable.

When the Albanese government took charge of our renewable energy transition, they enshrined in law the emissions reduction target of 43 per cent from 2005 levels by 2030. A key assumption of this target was that Australia will generate 82 per cent of electricity from renewable sources by that time. There was a lot of work to do; I admit that. To meet the 43 per cent reduction target, the speed and the scale of this transition will need to be unprecedented. It is estimated that, for Labor to meet that 2030 target over the next seven years, they will need to do the following: install 22,000 solar panels every single day, build 40 wind turbines every single month, lay more than 28,000 kilometres of transmission lines and, estimates also assume, have no increase to the demand for energy over that time. We all know that is a pipe dream. In fact, their entire energy policy was a pipe dream, and it is unravelling very quickly before everyone's eyes, particularly those small business operators that are just shaking their heads in disbelief. Under Labor's watch we are now paying amongst the highest prices for electricity in the developed world. Our electricity grid is now vulnerable, and emissions are increasing not decreasing. That is a fact.

It's not inner-city Melbourne or Sydney and it's not Canberra that's feeling the impact of Labor's uncoordinated and ad hoc push towards this emissions reduction target. It's regional Australia that's being burnt—it's the bush. It's the people that can't afford it, the people that are trying to earn a living, the people that are growing food and the real people doing real jobs that matter—and they're feeling it worse. The challenges faced by them are not uniform across each rural electorate or community. Each region has its own unique set of circumstances. As such, each region will require local understanding and community driven solutions. Heaven forbid, what an idea!

Never, ever can this be done by adding yet another layer of Canberra bureaucracy into the mix. Solutions driven by highly paid public servants who think that they know best will always fail. I've seen it before. I firmly believe in small government and free enterprise. I believe our nation's energy transition is best left to the free market, unencumbered by government intervention. Government inserting itself simply produces a false market. This authority is being set up for exactly that purpose: to pick winners and to dictate preferred technologies. All that this will result in is a complete market distortion.

Every decision Labor has made recently in relation to our energy market is only putting Australia and its energy security at risk. I cannot in good conscience support this bill.

Tania Lawrence (Hasluck, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Net Zero Economy Authority is a critical initiative that stands at the forefront of our nation's journey towards a lower carbon future. The Net Zero Economy Authority forms part of our government's bigger, bolder, more prosperous vision for Australia's future. It's a vision that sees our country with more secure and fulfilling jobs in industries that will transform our economy, our energy production and our exports. It's a vision of leadership in the transition as we support the decarbonisation of the major nations in our region with our exports of green energy.

All of this presents massive opportunities for Australia. As Assistant Minister Gorman stated on the introduction of the bill, 'The opportunities will not seize themselves,' and so we here are charged with doing what we can to ensure that Australia seizes the opportunities that are open to us.

I've had a few conversations with people recently where I've had to stress that the transition—being the green energy transition or the transition to net zero—doesn't happen all of a sudden. It's not about bringing our existing economic activity to a halt without having something ready to replace it with. The very word 'transition' denotes some sort of orderly, stepped process.

We've had an orderly process so far, legislatively speaking. We legislated the net zero and 43 per cent by 2030 targets and we adopted the 82 per cent renewables by 2030 target. We embarked upon targeted policies that are intended, both by carrot and stick, to ensure that those targets are met—the safeguard mechanism, the National Reconstruction Fund, the Rewiring the Nation project, the Hydrogen Headstart program, the Powering the Regions Fund—as well as pulling the levers to ensure over time that the requisite workers are available and trained with the skills they need, as many will be through our massive targeted fee-free TAFE policy.

The core mission of the Net Zero Economy Authority is to facilitate the transition of workers from emissions intensive sectors to new sustainable job opportunities. This is not merely a matter of economic adjustment; it is about ensuring that those who have powered our industries for decades are not left behind as we embrace cleaner technologies and methods.