Louise Miller-Frost (Boothby, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Two and a half years ago, when I was pre-selected for Boothby, we held a press conference outside Flinders Medical Centre. Among other things, I talked about what had motivated me to leave a very meaningful job delivering outcomes for those most in need across South Australia. It was a job that I loved and where I felt I was making a difference. One of the reasons I talked about was the complete lack of action by the former government on climate change. At that stage, we were seeing one-in-100-year floods happening seemingly monthly in the eastern states. We'd seen the Black Summer bushfires, and the firies and the scientists were telling us that fires had changed and that they were now fiercer and faster than in previous decades. We were seeing and we continue to see record-breaking heat, record-breaking cold and record-breaking storms. I was told a couple of months ago that the Mediterranean is now experiencing hurricane-like storms. Previously, due to the relatively small body of water that is the Mediterranean, there wasn't sufficient distance for low-pressure cells to gather that level of intensity. But now, with more energy in our atmosphere thanks to climate change, the storms are unlike anything that they've seen or that is on record.

Businesses knew that climate change was real. Ask any insurance company if they factor it into their risk assessment for policies. International capital was increasingly funding renewables and refusing to fund carbon based energy projects. Yet the previous Prime Minister, when he was Treasurer, brought a lump of coal into parliament and laughed at it. 'Don't be afraid,' he said. 'Don't be scared.' It probably depends on whether you're a short-term thinker or whether you really actually understand it in context. As a gesture, it very much demonstrated where the Liberal and the National parties were at, and I'm not sure much has changed.

The other frustration with the previous government and those opposite's steadfast refusal to engage meaningfully with climate change was the shortsightedness around the opportunities the energy transition brings. As a country with abundant natural resources—from the sun, wind and hydro to the abundant rare metals needed for the energy transition—the opportunities are calling out to us. We can transform our energy economy. We can become self-reliant for energy sources instead of being reliant on energy shipped in from overseas and having our backup reserves stored in another country and our own fossil fuel energy resources sold to Australian consumers at prices inflated by exposure to international markets. We can become the energy superpower powering other nations, but these opportunities won't seize themselves.

The target is clear: achieve net zero emissions by 2050 to avoid the most dangerous impacts of climate change. The pathway is clear: power our industries, light our homes and our businesses and fuel our transport with clean energy, renewable energy and the cheapest form of energy. This government is determined that Australian workers and Australian ingenuity will get us there. We are not the doubters on the other side. As the race to net zero accelerates—and it is a race—we must ensure Australia workers and communities are supported to play their part. There is a lot to be done; we should be much further along the track. We should have started a decade or more ago. And, of course, we did. But the unholy alliance of the Greens political party and the Liberal and National parties has instead positioned us clearly at the back of the pack. If the Greens and those opposite hadn't voted against the carbon pollution reduction scheme a decade and a half ago, Australia's carbon emissions would be 200 million tons lower and electricity would be more affordable. This really poor decision by those opposite enabled a decade of inaction, not just on climate change but on energy policy generally.

A mere two years ago, under those opposite, aided and abetted by the Greens, we were in a very different place. There was no legislated target for net zero, and the concept was still very much up for debate. It frankly still is in some quarters. There was no legislated target for emissions reduction, because it wasn't really a target at all. There was no settled approach to the energy transition. They had 22 energy policies, and not one stuck. They had no plan to bring our electricity grid into the 21st century and no policy to ensure replacement capacity of the 24 coal plants that had announced, under them, closure dates. Remember that these closures are driven by rational decision-making by the companies that own those plants. They're driven by return on investment predictions for shareholders, not ideology. But those opposite have their heads in the sand. One former Liberal Premier went so far as to describe it as 'a slow-moving train wreck'. Senator Anne Ruston said on TV last week that she thought we were transitioning to renewables too fast. No, Senator, we're a decade too late. We are definitely late to the party after a wasted decade and we need to catch up.

This government knows it must play a critical role in positioning Australia not only to take advantage of the opportunities renewable energy transition offers but also to ensure that communities, particularly those where fossil fuels are a major part of their economy and jobs, are not left behind. They need also to participate and benefit from the transition. They need to know they have jobs in the future and jobs for their children. Those jobs may be different, but they will be secure, well-paid jobs that support them and their families. This is what the Net Zero Economy Authority is about. It's about establishing the government's role in ensuring that the transition works, and that it works for Australians, for industry, for businesses, for workers and for families—for all Australians. It will better coordinate programs and policies to attract investors and help communities make the most of the transformation opportunities. It will engage major stakeholders in the decision-making and support structures. We will help deliver Australia's future as a renewable energy superpower.

But only by working together will we be able to grab the opportunities of the future. The government is establishing the new Net Zero Economy Authority because it wants Australia and its regions to prosper in the future. The shift to net zero is happening. Australia, along with the rest of the world, will be reducing greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by the middle of the century, because we have to. As a fossil-fuel-based economy, the economic, employment and regional implications for Australia of the world decarbonising without us could be significant if not managed. Its job is to ensure that we are looking after Australia's workers and regions as we transform from a fossil-fuel-based economy to a renewable energy superpower. This recognises that the way we navigate economic change is as important as reaching the destination of a net zero economy.

The authority will be a partner, on behalf of government, with industry and investors in getting big transformational projects happening—projects that decarbonise industrial facilities, build new industries and grow the future economic base for regions like Gladstone, the Hunter Valley, the Latrobe Valley, and the upper Spencer Gulf in South Australia. The authority will support workers through the change as Australia's ageing fleet of power stations retires. The authority will work with employers, unions and others to support workers into new opportunities. This is not just the right thing to do by workers; it also ensures we're making good use of the highly skilled workers we're going to need more of in the net zero economy.

The authority will help communities navigate change, especially in those regions where change may be significant. This new authority, with its focus on managing economic change, compliments over $40 billion in government initiatives to reduce emissions and become a renewable energy superpower. This includes the $20 billion Rewiring the Nation program, which will modernise our electricity grid and infrastructure so it can support a renewable-energy-based energy system; the $1.9 billion Powering the Regions Fund, which will support the decarbonisation of existing industries and the creation of new clean energy industries; the $6 billion Critical Minerals Facility, which will grow our critical minerals production sector; the $2 billion Hydrogen Headstart program, which is supporting development of large-scale, renewable hydrogen projects; and the $15 billion National Reconstruction Fund, which will diversify and transform Australia's industry for a net zero economy. The Net Zero Economy Agency has undergone extensive consultations with groups all over Australia, both community groups and key organisations.

We know the task is to transition to a net zero economy and, as we heard from those opposite, change can be scary. But change is inevitable. The Darwinian principle is adapt or die. Change presents both opportunities and challenges. So what will the Net Zero Economy Authority actually do? The authority will have the following functions. It will promote coordination and consistency in the design and implementation of Australian government policies and programs and provide reports and advice to the minister. It will facilitate public- and private-sector participation and investment in greenhouse gas emissions reduction and net zero transformation initiatives across Australia. The authority will work with established specialist investment vehicles and will not have its own funding to invest in projects. It will support workers in emissions-intensive industries who are affected by the net zero transition to access new employment or acquire skills to improve their employment prospects. It will also implement the Energy Industry Jobs Plan. The authority will support Indigenous people and communities to participate in and benefit from the economic shift to net zero emissions. It will support, develop and deliver educational and promotional initiatives for the purpose of promoting an understanding of Australia's transition to a net zero emissions economy and support social licence for the transition. Importantly, in performing its functions, the authority will be expected to prioritise communities, regions, industries and workers that are or will be significantly affected by Australia's transition to a net zero emissions economy.

Climate change poses an existential threat to our way of living. We've already started to see this, with more frequent floods, fiercer and faster bushfires, more intense and frequent storms, and the beginning of sea-level rise. Responding to climate change is not only necessary to mitigate the impacts at a local level; we, along with the rest of the world, need to transition to a net zero economy if we're going to have any hope of holding the temperature rises to 1.5 degrees and limiting the impact of climate change. We need to undertake this energy transition quickly, but we also need to do it in a managed way that brings all Australians along with us, ensures energy security and maximises our opportunities and our natural assets to become a renewable energy superpower. That is what the Net Zero Economy Authority is about.

I commend the bill to the House.

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

I rise to speak on the Net Zero Economy Authority Bill 2024. We've heard a lot from those opposite: emotional hubris with nothing based on facts, plenty of noise and plenty of media spin. And now we're hearing about how the Net Zero Economy Authority will save regional towns and regional jobs. I just want this debate to be based on some facts, and here's one: China's increase in emissions in one year—just the increase, not its contribution—was bigger than this country's entire contribution for 12 months. It went up by the amount that we contribute as a whole in a year. I want our response to be proportionate to our contribution. I think it's incredibly important to talk about the impact that the policy of those opposite will have on the people that I represent and the people that the members for Flynn, Lyne and others represent, because this government's policies will put them out of a job—out of the high-paid, highly skilled jobs in regional areas which drive their local economies.

I wrote a piece a few weeks ago, and I want to put some of it on Hansard. It's about nuclear power. Nuclear works. It's reliable. It's technically feasible. Here are the things it doesn't need: it doesn't need 28,000 kilometres of transmission lines and it doesn't need to cover the country in a blanket of solar panels and windmills. It's zero emissions. Importantly for the regions most impacted by potential coal-fired power station closures, many skills employed in those coal-fired power stations transfer directly to nuclear power generation. Labor's green plan means job losses. The coalition's plan means job opportunities.

When you compare coal fired power to nuclear generated power, you see that it is virtually the same equipment from the moment that steam enters the steam pipe right through until it is electricity in a transmission line supplying the electrical energy that powers the nation. It needs specialists in turbines, generation, distribution, planning and maintenance engineers, administration, safety, specialist welders and condition monitoring. Nuclear power plants need them all and then some. Yes, you will lose coal-handling systems, conveyors and ash plants—they're not required—but you will need fuel rods, fuel management, condensate, waste and operations of the steam plant. They are highly paid, highly skilled jobs from the same regions that provide highly paid and highly skilled jobs in existing coal-fired power stations. They are a direct transition. If you are a steam turbine fitter in a coal-fired power station, you have the same job in a nuclear power station.

Let's compare this to Labor's intermittent wind and solar fantasy. As reported in the Australian by Geoff Chambers and Greg Brown:

The analysis shows across the renewable projects in Queensland, Victoria and NSW, around 5060 construction jobs will be created compared with 162 to 171 permanent and operational jobs when the turbines, solar panels and pumped hydro are installed.

…   …   …

… the wind, solar, hydro and battery projects … will cover … almost 102,000ha and generate up to 6387MW.

For those who don't know how big 102,000 hectares is, the entire Australian sugar industry is built off about 350,000 hectares.

Where regional coal-fired power plants have shut previously, the impact is devastating—it is devastating on the local economy and on the workforce. It destroys the butcher, the baker, the candlestick maker. It is not just the people who are employed directly in a coal-fired power station. It is the local economy. Regional centres, which for decades have built supply chains and logistics to support these massive investments, are virtually destroyed. And for those highly skilled individuals that have kept the lights on for their communities and for our country for decades, it's even worse news.

I'm about to quote a story from the Conversationwould you believe?—in October 2023.

Incomes plummet by two-thirds

But workers made redundant in coal-fired power plants did much worse … They earned 69% less in the year after losing their jobs, earning a mere third of what they had.

Some of the loss would have been due to earning less in new jobs, and some of it would have been due to working fewer hours in new jobs …

And for workers who lost jobs in coal-fired power plants, the effects lingered.

Four years after being made redundant, the workers in coal-fired power plants earned 50% less. On average, across all industries, the workers made redundant earned only 29% less.

This is one reason we need to have a conversation with the Australian people about nuclear—a factual discussion without the frantic screeching of the socialist activists. The AUKUS defence agreement means we are getting a nuclear industry, regardless, including nuclear reactors on boats in Adelaide which produce high-level radioactive waste. We are getting them with the support of the Labor government. They have to deliver it. The coalition did the deal, the Labor government must deliver it, or at least they have made the solemn promise that they will.

If net zero is what floats your boat, nuclear power has to be in the mix—it has to be. Labor's green dream will sink without it on a sea of broken solar panels, thousands of wind turbines masts and tens of million of tonnes of nonrecyclable waste.

You don't have to take my word for it. I am one of three engineers, I believe, in the parliament, and I want to quote a couple of them—and I got preapproval from them to do so.

At a time when all mechanical engineering graduates at the Queensland University of Technology—where I graduated—were men in 1979, Karen Andrews, the member for McPherson now, enrolled. She was one of the first two women to ever graduate in mechanical engineering from QUT—coincidently they were both called Karen. Karen Andrews said, 'Nuclear generated electricity for Australia just makes sense economically, for reliability and from a skills point of view. Why lose generations of skilled workers and knowledge when we could actually expand Australia's technical capacity and invest in our own people?'

The other engineer I'm aware of is the member for Groom, Garth Hamilton. The member for Groom, a mining engineer, has got similar concerns. He said, 'Australia leads the world in mining technology. It has been safely producing uranium for the benefit of other nations for decades. Why wouldn't we use Australia's own uranium resources to benefit the Australian people?'

No matter how big a scare campaign the Labor camp plans to run, Labor are delivering the nuclear industry. They are delivering the nuclear industry, lock, stock and barrel. Can you imagine what the tactics of a nuclear style scare campaign would do to our relationship with our AUKUS partners? Can you imagine how that would be viewed in the United States and the United Kingdom? Imagine the damage it would inflict to confidence in our ability to deliver what our nation—in a rare show of bipartisanship, I've got to say—has said it would do for nuclear submarines.

Labor's proposition—this is straight from a Labor press release—going to the next election is: 'We can build a nuclear industry, with over 10,000 workers needed; we can install reactors in submarines, in Adelaide; we can deal with high-level nuclear waste; we can maintain confidentiality in what is critical technology; and we can put that technology into a submarine and put it 200 metres under the ocean; but we can't use all of that investment, all of that technology and all of those people to boil water, to make steam, to drive turbines, to generate affordable and reliable electricity on a block of concrete on one of the most geologically stable continents in the world.' If that is truly Labor's proposition, I look forward to the contest, because in this country facts still matter.

It was my great misfortune yesterday to catch Insiders, with commentary from David Speers and others, but the piece that I picked up was from James Massola. Mr Massola said that he'd been talking to Prime Minister Albanese, who's rubbing his hands together about a scare campaign over nuclear in this country at the next election. A comment that Mr Massola made was, 'It's about the three-eyed fish from The Simpsons.' Are you seriously proposing that we will have nuclear reactors in submarines—that will go to Brisbane, Adelaide, Sydney, Melbourne and Perth? There'll be no three-eyed fish there; that will only happen if we use nuclear to generate electricity. It is nonsensical that, apparently, you're going to run a scare campaign—not you, Madam Deputy Speaker; the Labor Party—and offer free iodine tablets within 100 kilometres of any proposed site for a nuclear reactor. I've got news for the member for Grayndler: he'd better start handing them out now; in fact, he should have started five decades ago. There has been a nuclear reactor in Sydney for more than 50 years. And I'm pretty confident it's within 100 kilometres of the member for Grayndler's electorate. I look forward to the offer of free iodine tables for the entire population of Sydney. If this is the scare campaign that's being proposed, it is absolutely ludicrous.

We can look at the proposals for green hydrogen—and the member for Flynn is sitting here next to me. I saw some commentary from a presentation in Gladstone about the green hydrogen proposal. You need to double the east coast's generation capacity. It's about 60 gigawatts now. You need 110 or 120 gigawatts of energy generated just for the green hydrogen proposal, just for Gladstone. You need 10,000 wind turbines. If I remember correctly, it's 2½ thousand square kilometres of solar panels. Madam Deputy Speaker, can you picture what this looks like? The Labor Party's proposal is to get the dozers out and clear and level 2½ thousand square kilometres of this country and then cover them with China-made solar panels—and somehow that is a good outcome for the environment. I just can't join the dots. I just don't see how this marries up. In fact, Labor's own talking points have referred to the fact that their proposal for wind and solar in this country will require nine times more resources to build than the equivalent in gas generation. Where are the Greens? Are they happy about this? You need nine times more mining, nine times more trucks, nine times more approvals and nine times more processing. Why wouldn't you just build the gas one? That makes sense. It works—it works all the time.

We have the uranium and the technology. This country is delivering a nuclear industry. It is supported by the Labor government because, without it, we are not delivering AUKUS. We've seen over $3 billion committed into the UK to build a reactor in the United Kingdom to train the people of the United Kingdom—the trainees and technical professionals of the United Kingdom—to build a reactor for Australia's submarines. I want to see that investment made and that technical capability built in this country. The proposal under the Net Zero Economy Authority Bill is that you're going to lose your job but it's okay for us to invest in another country. We can build that technical capacity somewhere else, even though it is this country's asset. The people in those regions—those highly skilled individuals that make these power stations run, and I've been in any number of them—are good people. They're in good jobs. They've spent their lifetimes training to make these things run at incredibly high standards of reliability. It is exactly the same job in a nuclear power station because there is no difference: it is steam sent into a turbine to turn a generator to deliver, for the Australian people, electricity that is affordable and reliable and has a tiny footprint. We are seeing thousands of hectares of koala habitat being damaged and destroyed by the installation of wind turbines and solar panels. That is absolutely true. I see the minister at the table, the member for Burt, complaining. You only have to look at the environmental plan for the Clarke Creek wind farm. It says that 3½ thousand hectares of koala habitat are impacted. You only have to look at the pictures. In Queensland, in fact, they have development legislation around vegetation management and reef regulation, but it doesn't apply to wind turbines and solar panels. It'll apply if you're trying to run cattle or grow sugar cane or produce avocados, but it doesn't apply to those other industries.

This is not happening by accident and it is not happening without significant taxpayer funding. I had some work done by the Parliamentary Library, and the numbers associated with the Renewable Energy Target alone are just ridiculous. If you assume a price of $40 per certificate, it is $26 billion that electricity consumers in this country have contributed towards this type of energy. It costs a fortune. It doesn't work. It will cover huge swathes of this country in manufactured panels from China which can be destroyed in a hailstorm, a cyclone or a bushfire. Guess what? In this country we have those challenges.

I want to see a nation which has energy security. I want our country to be stronger, not weaker. I want us to be self-reliant when it comes energy. I want us to be able to deliver affordable, reliable energy that makes all our businesses competitive, not just the ones that elected the Labor government, the ones they picked out for their 'Made in Australia / Made in America' fund. We want every business in this country to be competitive, and we want those people who have jobs right now to keep them. Labor's proposal is for those jobs to be lost; the coalition's proposal is for those opportunities to be maintained.

Colin Boyce (Flynn, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Net Zero Economy Authority Bill 2024 and the Net Zero Economy Authority (Transitional Provisions) Bill 2024. In the two years of this Labor government, we have seen attack after attack on the industries that have built and powered this nation. Let me be clear: this legislation is another attack on the hardworking men and women of this country, especially anyone who lives in Central Queensland.

Under the legislation, the authority's functions would be to co-ordinate 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. There are two broad aspects to this legislation, which operationalises the authority's power. The first is to facilitate new investment in net zero transition. It's intended that the authority will be the shopfront for industry and investors. It will seek to work with project proponents and state governments to get renewables projects to investment decision. The authority will also mobilise public moneys through vehicles like the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and the National Reconstruction Fund. With private financing support, it will address enabling infrastructure needs and navigate regulatory processes.

The second responsibility of the authority is to assist impacted workers in the transitioning areas through the Energy Industry Jobs Plan. The Energy Industry Jobs Plan would 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 employees—for example, in coalmines that are aligned to these closing power stations. The plan does not specify or anticipate the types of employment that workers may transition to.

In terms of jobs, the Labor government claims it will support the jobs transition of highly paid, highly skilled people who have become redundant in both the traditional power generation sector and the mining and resources sector. The government needs to explain how thousands of well-paid jobs will become available in the renewable energy sector. Furthermore, what support is offered to existing businesses and communities? For example, if the Callide Power Station in Biloela is to close in the future and some 250 jobs leave that economy, that means less children at the school. It means less groceries are sold at the store. It means less beer gets drunk at the pub. It means less rate base for the local government authority. The list goes on and on. Furthermore, research has found that workers who lose their jobs when a coal-fired power plant closes are earning only half their pre-redundancy income years after being laid off.

It becomes clear that this government is all politics and no plan. The detrimental effects to the economy and the general cost of living, reliability of power generation and the cost to heavy industry and manufacturers have not been clearly understood. For example, does the committee really believe that the alumina industry in Gladstone can exist and be competitive on the world stage if they are to rely solely on power generation from wind, solar and batteries? What guarantees can the government offer that heavy industry will exist in the future with such energy policy?

The Labor government passed the safeguard mechanism last year. Mr Bowen announced in Gladstone that 215 of Australia's largest emitters would be required to cut emissions by 4.9 per cent each year through to 2030 to help reach its emissions targets. Of the 215 industrial facilities, 28 operate in the Capricornia electorate, and 18 operate in the Flynn electorate in Central Queensland. That means 30 per cent of the top 215 companies set to be taxed are in Central Queensland, and we all know that Central Queensland is the economic engine room of Australia. The legislation will have a larger effect on our region than any other region in Australia. Labor's safeguard mechanism targets facilities that emit more than 100,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide a year. If facilities go over this amount, the businesses will need to buy carbon credits or carbon offsets. As these credits cost money, this is just a new cost impost on job-creating industries.

Facilities to be taxed in the Flynn electorate include the APLNG facility, Batchfire Resources, Blackwater mine, Boyne Smelters, Curragh mine, Curtis Island LNG plant, Dawson mine, Ensham mine, Fishermans Landing Cement Australia, Jellinbah mine, Kestrel mine, Oaky Creek mine, Queensland Alumina Ltd refinery, Queensland Curtis Island LNG plant, Rio Tinto Yarwun, Rolleston coal mine, Yarrabee coal mine and Yarwun nitrates. In 2021, Rio owned the Yarwun refinery in Gladstone that purported to employ 700 people, a majority of whom were living in the local region. About 500 contractors were employed for the annual shutdowns and other activities. Yarwun refinery's annual production exceeds three million tonnes of alumina. Queensland Alumina Ltd in 2020 paid $983 million in contributions to the economy, including salaries, partnerships, in-kind support, taxes and total national supply spend. QAL sends alumina to locations such as Tasmania, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, China, New Zealand and Russia, as well as Queensland manufacturing businesses.

However, it was announced last year that Rio Tinto has slashed US$1.2 billion from the value of its Australian alumina assets on the back of the federal government's safeguard mechanism, writing off the value of its Yarwun alumina refinery completely due to the need to buy carbon offsets as an asset. Rio Tinto also slashed US$227 million from the value of its share in Queensland Alumina Ltd. Since Labor's safeguard mechanism was announced, I've called it an attack on heavy industry and the thousands of workers that work in this sector, and it has proven to be exactly that. While Labor claims to be a friend of the working man and woman, it is happy to shut down these industries that employ them. You simply cannot trust the Labor Party with your job.

Many in this House would not be aware that, without the mining and resources sector, Australia would not be the prosperous nation that it is today. Queensland Resources Council presented a fact sheet for the Flynn electorate for the 2021-22 financial year. The total economic contribution for the mining and resources sector in Flynn was $17.7 billion of gross regional product and supports 50,942 local jobs. Central Highlands Development Corporation produced a fact sheet for the Central Highlands region, which has Australia's largest coal reserve and 12 operating coalmines. The region produces more than 62 million tonnes of coal, which represents 28 per cent of Queensland's total production. Mining is the largest employer in Central Queensland, with a direct workforce exceeding 6,000 people. Fifty-five per cent of those workers are nonresidents commuting by road or air from Rockhampton, Mackay and South East Queensland. Ninety per cent of non-resident workers stay in accommodation villages and 10 per cent in other accommodations such as motels, hotels and caravan parks. In the local Central Highlands economy, over $790 million is spent on local goods and services, which is estimated to be 30 per cent of the total spend. Astonishingly, the Central Highlands has an output of $9.4 billion. These export dollars are helping to pay for our schools, hospitals, roads, emergency services and so forth.

Has the federal Labor government assessed what this proposed legislation means for these mining communities? What the government has failed to work out is how their policies and taxes on the industry are forcing up the cost of everything. Australians know that, despite the Treasury's spin, prices have increased by nearly 10 per cent, with increases for many essential items well beyond that. Housing is up 12 per cent, rents up 12 per cent, insurance up 26 per cent, electricity 18 per cent and gas up 25 per cent. And of course these prices are still going up when the government is putting taxes on critical industries and slapping cash on unreliable ones.

Earlier in my speech, I spoke about how the Labor government is taxing 18 of the industries in the Flynn electorate—industries that make alumina and cement and get gas to market. No wonder we have seen these increases in the cost of everything, including housing and energy. To make matters worse, we see this government throwing money at a proposal of 58 million solar panels, almost 3,500 wind turbines and 28,000 kilometres of new transmission poles and wires. The level of duplication of the proposed Net Zero Economy Authority's responsibility to promote new investment in net zero transition and existing Commonwealth entities is beyond a joke. How many federal agencies tasked with renewable financing does the Commonwealth require?

This approach focusing on facilitating investment consistent with net zero ambitions also leans into the government's preference for picking winners rather than genuine investment facilitation and job creation. A national body risks a top-down, Canberra-centric approach which does not fully consider the regional needs and priorities. It is also likely that, once established, the Labor government will continue to add additional powers and responsibilities to the authority to support its net zero and climate change ambitions. Will the government rule out giving this net zero authority new powers to streamline and/or expedite regulatory approvals or financing the transformational green energy projects? In the targeting of Labor's 2024-25 budget, the funding for the authority and its related activities is budget to be $399.1 million from 2023-24 to 2026-27 alone, with further funding totalling $1.1 billion over the medium term. This is on top of 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. Over $13 billion in taxpayer funded subsidies for big businesses doesn't address the source of Labor's cost-of-living crisis. Labor's focus should be on dealing with energy costs, high inflation and out-of-control red tape. Instead, Labor continuously fails to address these fundamental realities facing most Australian businesses.

With insolvencies at record highs and more businesses going offshore, supporting a small number of big businesses is irresponsible and a slap in the face for small business desperately seeking answers from this government on how to survive. The level of duplication between the Net Zero Economy Authority, the existing Commonwealth institutions demonstrates a complete waste of over $1 billion of federal government funds over the forward estimates.

While the bill will require employers to offer workers retraining opportunities in an attempt to match employees with new jobs in the green economy, it is unlikely to benefit older, experienced workers approaching retirement or workers with highly specific skill sets. There is concern about the scope of the legislation, particularly for smaller, independent employers. The explanatory memorandum provides an example of a local cleaning service with a commercial relationship with a closing generator being classified as an independent employer. It is not clear what liability or obligations a cleaning service would be expected to adopt under the energy industry jobs plan. It would be up to the FWC to determine this. There are no carve-outs or exclusions for small business in the legislation. These organisations are unlikely to have the resources or the capacity to administer the services outlined in the bill. It is also unclear whether this plan will apply only to permanent employees of closing generators or whether casual employees will also be captured.

The coalition will oppose the Net Zero Economy Authority Bill 2024 and the Net Zero Economy Authority (Transitional Provisions) Bill 2024. This is due to bureaucratic waste and duplication, with a top-down, Canberra-centric approach that is set to fail on delivering the unique needs of the regions, the imposition of new obligations on small, medium and large businesses and the fact that this is another example of Labour's haphazard approach on industry policy which delivers no guarantees for local workers. I urge all members to vote this bill down.

Darren Chester (Gippsland, National Party, Shadow Minister for Regional Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate on the Net Zero Economy Authority Bill 2024 and related bill because this is a critical issue. It is a critical issue because there is obviously a direct correlation between our national security and our energy security. We need to get the settings right. We need to be rational and balanced. We need to get the right policy settings for the longer term in this place.

Sadly, the bills before the House today reveal the heart and soul of the modern Labor Party. This was once a party with connections to blue-collar workers and hardworking Australian families. Now it's a party which is being driven by left-wing ideologues and a weird and quite absurd belief that Canberra knows best. I have a little warning for those opposite: you simply can't out-green the Greens. No matter how hard you try, they will never be satisfied. Just listen to the extremist language from the Greens over the last couple of years. The unhinged rhetoric, like that the planet is boiling, is only adding to the climate anxiety which exists among many young people in Australia today. A balanced debate is needed.

A little reality check is important as well: there is no Australian solution to what is undoubtedly a global challenge. We need to be taking action from a position of national strength. In the rush to secure some sort of political advantage, we have seen extreme and outrageous claims often being made in this debate when all Australians want are facts. They want us to get on with the job of practical action and to provide reliable, affordable and sustainable energy at the least cost to the environment.

To manage a problem, first of all, you have to measure it and understand your capacity as a nation to actually respond. I asked the federal Parliamentary Library to research Australia's percentage of contribution to global greenhouse gas emissions. It advised me that currently we are the world's 14th largest emitter, with 1.3 per cent of the total emissions. The remaining three coal-fired power stations in my electorate of Gippsland make up 7.8 per cent of that 1.3 per cent total, and they still provide more than 60 per cent of Victoria's energy needs. Those three power stations have underpinned the growth of Victoria and the ability of the national electricity market because of the reliability and affordability offered by coal-fired power. I have said many times that the Latrobe Valley can be very proud of its contribution to our nation, and the power station workers and their families should be respected as a transition to alternative energy sources occurs over the next 20 years. But there is no Gippsland solution. There is no Latrobe Valley solution. There is no Australian solution to this global challenge. That's why we need a balanced approach which is synchronised with international commitments. Decisions which undermine our energy security will impact on our national security, so it's critical we get the policy settings right.

The member for Flynn was right; the level of duplication of the proposed Net Zero Economy Authority's responsibility to promote new investment in the net zero transition and existing Commonwealth entities is beyond a joke and will not be supported by those on the side of the House. He quite rightly asked, 'How many federal agencies tasked with renewable financing does the Commonwealth actually require?' This approach—the Labor Party's approach, backed by the Greens, focused on facilitating investment consistent with net zero ambitions—also leans on this government's preference for trying to pick winners with its Canberra-knows-best mentality rather than genuine investment facilitation and jobs creation. It is a top-down approach which has been proven to fail on many occasions.

You have to ask: when was the last time Canberra picked a winner that didn't involve regional Australia losing out? When Canberra starts picking winners based on political science, the regions always suffer. It's extremely disappointing to me that we now see in the Latrobe Valley the Japanese government and industry leaders demonstrating more support for the Latrobe Valley based hydrogen energy sector than our own Prime Minister. Despite the success of the Hydrogen Energy Supply Chain Pilot program, which attracted seed funding in its initial stages from the former coalition government and the state Labor Party, today's Labor Party is openly hostile to any alternative uses for the brown coal in the Latrobe Valley. This is an incredible natural resource and we should be open minded to alternative uses in the future as technology develops, not allowing Canberra to dictate to the people of Latrobe Valley what their future jobs might look like. Producing hydrogen for transport needs can help reduce global emissions, and it's Japan taking the lead; it's Japan taking the HESC project to the next stage.

Instead of supporting this innovative approach, the Prime Minister has buckled to the demands from the Greens and turned his back on the hardworking families looking for energy and job security in the Latrobe Valley. In a deal with the Greens, the Albanese government has specifically ruled out coal, gas and native timber projects receiving any funding support under the $15 billion National Reconstruction Fund. This fund was meant to help diversify regional economies and is designed to attract private investment to make it easier to commercialise innovation and technology. But the modern Labor Party, driven by those left-wing ideologues, has ruled out projects which involve coal.

It's also ruled out projects which involve investment in the native timber sector. Even the United Nations, the Australian Forest Products Association and many other organisations acknowledge that sustainable harvesting of hardwood timber is a way to sequester carbon; it's actually good for the planet because it's the ultimate renewable resource. Just last weekend I had the pleasure of being in St Kilda, and I checked out the $53 million St Kilda Pier redevelopment. It's a great project, a fabulous project. But imagine my disgust and dismay on finding out that the hardwood timber which is going to feature on the decking and be quite an iconic part of this magnificent part of the St Kilda foreshore is going to be Darwin stringybark sourced from Queensland. Timber is going to travel at least 2,000 kilometres to make it to Melbourne to be included in this project, yet just down the road, in Gippsland, the Allan government and the Andrews government banned the harvesting of all native hardwood timber—but they are still quite happy to take hardwood timber from other states. What we're doing in Victoria is not using less timber—we're still using hardwood timber—but taking it from other places. That's the problem with timber: you use either your own or someone else's, and 'someone else's' in this case is timber from Tasmania, New South Wales, Queensland and a whole host of countries with lower environmental protocols than our own state.

It's the same—and this is the broader debate about net zero and caring for the environment—with the new vehicle efficiency standards, which are part of the government's plan to reduce emissions. Most of the costs will be borne by regional people. This government, this Prime Minister, came to power promising openness and transparency. Then we saw the tactic, in the last sitting period, of muzzling all debate in the House of Representatives on the vehicle efficiency standards legislation. This is the car and ute tax which all Australians will be forced to pay under this government. Instead of hearing the concerns and suggestions from the opposition, the government acted like some sort of tinpot dictatorship and silenced all its critics in this chamber.

Australians have a right to know what the impacts will be on them under this Labor-Greens plan to introduce a new tax on cars and utes. There have been estimates that, for some of Australia's most popular cars—the highest selling vehicles in this nation—their sticker price, when you drive them out of the yard, will increase by tens of thousands, certainly thousands, of dollars. In the middle of a cost-of-living crisis, that makes no sense whatsoever.

Who are the people that are buying these four-wheel drives, SUVs and people movers? Well, they're my people. They're the people in Gippsland with little choice but to buy those types of vehicles because they don't have the luxury of taxpayer funded trams, buses and trains for their transport. They rely on their personal vehicles, and their vehicles are critical. The choices they make are critical, whether they are about their workplace, if they're tradespeople, or their source or recreation, if they want to tow a boat of a horse float. The way they stay connected to their families and friends is through these larger vehicles, and they are the ones who will be paying more under this vehicle efficiency standard.

But the minister and the Prime Minister refuse to release any modelling. They refuse to tell the truth to the Australian people about what the actual cost will be to the sticker price when you drive out the gate in those vehicles. Everyday Australians just want the minister to be honest. Just be honest and tell us how much more we will pay. In the middle of a cost-of-living crisis, how much more will I pay for my SUV, for my people mover, for my tools of trades as a tradesperson in regional Australia. By hiding the modelling, what are they actually hiding from Australian families?

Madam Deputy Speaker Vamvakinou, let me assure you that regional Australians hate this policy. They hate this policy. They understand that they're going to pay more for their family vehicles, and they don't want to do that in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis. They don't have the inner-city privilege of public transport. They rely entirely on their own private transport, and they know they're going to pay more for those vehicles in the future under this government. Families who are already struggling with a cost-of-living crisis don't want to see an additional tax on their favourite vehicles, but they do want the Prime Minister and the minister to be open and transparent with them. Tell them the truth. Tell them how much it's going to actually cost them when they drive those vehicles out the gate.

The absolute worst part of this policy is the way it does actively discriminate against the people that are represented in this place. It's designed—it's a deliberate design measure—to target regional Australians and their way of life, and, quite fairly, they are furious about the position they're being placed in by this government.

I believe the vast majority of Australians accept the science around climate change. I also believe that those in my community and those throughout many other regional communities respect the natural environment. They are actually the ones who join Landcare and Coastcare and do the practical work, the practical action, to look after the environment of that area, and they believe our nation has to do its share of the heavy lifting. But when we continue to have those opposite and those on the crossbench making ridiculous claims and political points that nothing has been done on climate change for the past decade, it does create anxiety. It's unnecessary, and it's actually dividing our nation in a way which is not required, when we understand that the vast majority do want to see action on reducing our emissions.

The previous government had a proud record in terms of practical action to support the environment. The previous government supported investment in major renewable energy projects like Snowy 2.0 and put in place the Technology Investment Roadmap, with $22 billion for new energy technologies. It's also important to note that we, as a nation, have continued to meet and exceed our global emissions reductions target. Australians can be proud of that; Australians should be proud of that. We have reduced our emissions faster than comparable economies like Canada, Japan and New Zealand. It is simply ridiculous to suggest there was a decade of inaction when we continued to meet our international obligations. The previous government worked with states and communities to see Australian become a massive investor in household solar and large-scale renewables, and this was all done without economy- and job-destroying taxes.

Unfortunately, it's the same with the current debate on nuclear energy. The government, the Greens and the teals would rather yell and scream and make outrageous claims to silence their critics than actually engage in a rational conversation with the Australian people. From my perspective, I have an open mind when it comes to this public debate regarding nuclear energy in Australia. I think it's time for a calm and rational conversation with the Australian people which is based on facts, on technology, on environmental science—not on hyperbole, not on feud campaigns and not on political science. My region of Gippsland has a proud heritage as an energy-producing region, has a high level of what I'd call energy literacy in the community. People understand what is a complex energy trifecta of affordability, reliability and environmental sustainability. They want to be trusted with the information and trusted with the facts. They want to make their own decisions on what is the best way forward not only for our committee but also for our nation.

Just as we are considering large-scale renewable projects with offshore wind farms, energy from waste in Maryvale, the coal-to-hydrogen project and the potential recycling of coal-fired power station biofuels, we need to take a pragmatic approach to this nuclear debate. If there's bipartisan support—which there is—for nuclear-powered submarines as part of the AUKUS agreement, we should be able to have a rational debate in this place and in the committee about the merits of nuclear technology to help meet our future energy needs in Australia. There are dozens of advanced countries throughout the world which utilise nuclear technology already, and Australia remains the third-largest exporter of uranium to help power those economies.

It's premature to be ruling regions in or out as potential locations for a nuclear power station, because there is simply no proposal on the table right now. But as a matter of principle, I would say this: you would need to be able to demonstrate to a potential host community—including Gippsland—that any safety concerns can be ameliorated and that there were direct social and economic benefits to that community. We are continuing to have this conversation in my community. We recognise that the Latrobe Valley has some strategic advantages owing to our existing transmission infrastructure and our skilled local workforce, but if we're going to host a large-scale energy infrastructure in the future—whether it's nuclear, renewables or biofuels—there has to be respect shown to local communities and direct economic benefits for the region. I urge those opposite to engage in a constructive, rational and sensible way on the energy debate.

Cameron Caldwell (Fadden, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise this afternoon to speak to Labor's superfluous bureaucratic proposal for a Net Zero Economy Authority. This Labor government's obsessions with big government and renewables have combined in what is potentially the most senseless proposal to take care of the unions, Canberra-centric public servants and their big corporate mates. The legislation before the House will transition the current net zero economy agency from an executive agency within the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet to a new standalone statutory authority.

By examining the detail, we can see with the Albanese Labor government's priorities lie. The authority's intended functions are described as follows: coordinate net zero policy across government, facilitate government and private participation, support affected workers, support First Nations Australians and deliver educational incentives around the transition. The first question that popped into my mind was, 'I wonder whether there will actually be a net reduction in bureaucrats within the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet or not?' We will see. It also flags, in the priorities, that the whole process of this race to net zero in world-record time is clearly going to require support for affected workers. It is inherent that the way in which Labor are approaching this that they will be causing harm. We know from experience with this underwhelming government what this bill will translate into in reality: a bureaucratic waste of an agency that will be over-resourced and that will, ultimately, underdeliver.

There are two broad aspect of this legislation that operationalise the authority's powers. The first is facilitating the new investment in the net zero transition. The authority intends to be a so-called shopfront for industry and investors. It will seek to work with projects proponents and state governments to get renewable projects to investment decision. The authority will also mobilise public moneys through vehicles like the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and the National Reconstruction Fund, with private financing support; address enabling infrastructure needs; and navigate regulatory processes. The second responsibility of the authority is the aim of assisting the impacted workers in that transition area through the Energy Industry Jobs Plan. The Energy Industry Jobs Plan would 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.

The plan fails to specify or anticipate the types of employment that workers may transition into. This is essentially an IR bill disguised as a bill for the regions and the transition. The coalition will oppose this bill because, ultimately, it's bureaucratic waste and duplication, because it has a top-down, Canberra-centric approach which is set to fail on delivering for the unique needs of regional Queensland and Australia, because of the imposition of new obligations on small, medium and large businesses and because of the fact that it is another example of Labor's haphazard approach on industry policy which delivers actually no guarantees for local workers.

Further evidence of the politically motivated 'jobs for the boys' agenda was announced in the budget, with the government doubling the authority's budget to nearly $400 million from 2023-24 to 2026-27 alone, with further funding to total $1.1 billion over the medium term. The federal government cannot afford to waste $1 billion on Canberra bureaucrats across the Net Zero Economy Authority, the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations and the Fair Work Commission when it has been unable to detail the actions that this authority would perform that are not already been done. Put simply, the case has not been made as to why this change is needed.

Unlike the Labor government, who have already added more than 36,000 public servants since coming to power, the coalition does not believe that the answer to every problem is more money and more bureaucracy. As others on this side of the chamber have rightly noted, this proposal is a bureaucratic waste which largely mirrors the responsibilities of existing federal and state agencies. The aspects which relate to investment in projects to facilitate the transition to a cleaner economy are already provided for through the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, CEFC, and the Australian Renewable Energy Agency, ARENA, and the role of existing mechanisms such as the Major Projects Facilitation Agency. It strikes me that this whole area of chasing net zero is a pit of acronyms—acronyms that most of us, quite frankly, don't care for. The acronyms that Australians know and are dealing with at the moment are things like HPB. And, no, that doesn't mean 'happy birthday'. That's what Australians call higher power bills. Or there's WAM—'What about me?' That's what they say in relation to this Labor government.

The new authority claims to facilitate public and private sector participation and investment in greenhouse gas emissions reduction and net zero transformation initiatives in Australia, including in new industries. This is almost copied and pasted from the Clean Energy Finance Corporation's legislated role to 'facilitate increased flows of finance into the clean energy sector and to facilitate the achievement of Australia's greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets'. It would seem, on any reading, that this is duplication. Likewise, the role of Arena is to 'improve the competitiveness of renewable energy technologies and increase the supply of renewable energy in Australia and facilitate the achievement of Australia's greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets'. The level of duplication of the proposed Net Zero Economy Authority's responsibility to promote new investment in the net zero transition and the existing Commonwealth entities is quite frankly beyond a joke. Australians deserve better than to have the same thing being done three or four times over at their expense. How many federal agencies tasked with renewable financing does this Labor government actually require?

As I highlighted earlier, we know that the proposed national body will be Canberra-centric, which poses additional risks of a top-down approach. After two years of a Labor government that has repeatedly failed to deliver for rural towns and regional cities, such as the Gold Coast, why am I not surprised to see it double-down on this backwards approach to governing? 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 climate ambitions. So, in speaking to this today, I say it's not about the ambition; it's about the way in which this terrible Labor government is yet again putting bureaucracy first and Australians last.

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

It being 1:30 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. If the member's speech was interrupted, he will be granted leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.