Patrick Gorman (Perth, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill and ask leave of the House to move government amendments (1) to (23), as circulated, together.

Leave granted.

I move:

(1) Clause 6, page 11 (lines 4 to 19), omit subclause (4), substitute:

(4) An employer is also a dependent employer if:

(a) the employer (the relevant employer) is a constitutional corporation; and

(b) the relevant employer:

(i) has a commercial relationship with another constitutional corporation that operates (whether alone or jointly) a coal mine; or

(ii) has a commercial relationship with an associated entity of another constitutional corporation, where the other constitutional corporation operates (whether alone or jointly) a coal mine; or

(iii) is an associated entity of another constitutional corporation, where the other constitutional corporation operates (whether alone or jointly) a coal mine;

where:

(iv) the coal from the coal mine is being, or is to be, supplied to a closing employer for use in generating electricity at the coal-fired power station concerned; and

(v) the other constitutional corporation will, or will be likely to, cease a substantial part of the business operations carried on by the other constitutional corporation in the same geographic area in which the coal-fired power station concerned is located as a direct result of the eventual closure of that power station; and

(c) the relevant employer employs employees to perform work in the business operations carried on at the coal mine.

(2) Clause 54, page 41, (lines 15 to 17), omit "If an employer contravenes a civil penalty provision, a court may order the payment of a civil penalty under the Regulatory Powers Act.", substitute "If an employer contravenes a civil penalty provision, a court may order the payment of a civil penalty under the Regulatory Powers Act and may order the awarding of compensation for loss that a person has suffered because of the contravention.".

(3) Clause 54, page 41 (after line 17), at the end of the clause, add:

A court can grant an injunction restraining a person from contravening a provision of this Part or requiring a person to comply with a provision of this Part.

(4) Clause 55, page 43 (lines 8 to 10), omit subclause (5), substitute:

(5) As part of the community of interest process, the CEO must consult:

(a) employers covered by paragraph (1)(a); and

(b) employers covered by paragraph (1)(b); and

(c) each employer organisation that is entitled to represent the industrial interests of an employer covered by paragraph (1)(a) or (b).

(5) Clause 56, page 44 (line 27), after "employment", insert ", including supports provided under relevant enterprise agreements or other industrial instruments".

(6) Clause 57, page 47 (line 2), after "employment", insert ", including supports provided under relevant enterprise agreements or other industrial instruments".

(7) Clause 58, page 49 (after line 10), after paragraph (1)(b), insert:

(ba) inform each transition employee of the employer that, if the employee becomes a participating employee of the employer, personal information about the employee may be given to the CEO under section 64 or disclosed by the CEO under section 66; and

(8) Clause 58, page 49 (after line 13), at the end of subclause (1), add:

Note: Australian Privacy Principle 6 in Schedule 1 to the Privacy Act 1988 has the effect that, if a closing employer or dependent employer is an APP entity (within the meaning of that Act) and holds personal information about a transition employee that was collected for a particular purpose, the employer must not use or disclose the information for another purpose unless:

(a) the employee has consented to the use or disclosure of the information; or

(b) the use or disclosure of the information is required or authorised by or under an Australian law or a court/tribunal order; or

(c) that use or disclosure is otherwise authorised by that Principle.

(9) Clause 58, page 49 (line 14), omit "Paragraphs (1)(a) and (b)", substitute "Paragraphs (1)(a), (b) and (ba)".

(10) Clause 59, page 49 (line 29), at the end of paragraph (1)(c), add ", including supports provided under those agreements or instruments".

(11) Clause 59, page 51 (after line 6), after subclause (9), insert:

Reasonable notice for time off work or access to flexible working arrangements

(9A) In any request of a transition employee of a closing employer or dependent employer for time off work, or access to flexible working arrangements, to receive career planning advice or financial advice arranged by the employee, the employee must give the employer reasonable notice of wanting that time off work or that access to flexible working arrangements.

(9B) In any request of a participating employee of a closing employer or dependent employer for time off work, or access to flexible working arrangements, to:

(a) undertake training to assist the employee to find other employment; or

(b) attend activities relating to the recruitment of the employee;

the employee must give the employer reasonable notice of wanting that time off work or that access to flexible working arrangements.

Evidence

(9C) If a closing employer or dependent employer has allowed a transition employee of the employer time off work, or access to flexible working arrangements, to receive career planning advice or financial advice arranged by the employee, the employee must, if required by the employer, give the employer evidence that would satisfy a reasonable person that the employee used the time off work or flexible working arrangements to receive that advice.

(9D) Before a closing employer or dependent employer makes a financial contribution towards the costs of career planning advice or financial advice arranged by a transition employee of the employer, the employee must, if required by the employer, give the employer evidence that would satisfy a reasonable person of the total cost of the advice.

(9E) If a closing employer or dependent employer has allowed a participating employee of the employer time off work, or access to flexible working arrangements, to:

(a) undertake training to assist the employee to find other employment; or

(b) attend activities relating to the recruitment of the employee;

the employee must, if required by the employer, give the employer evidence that would satisfy a reasonable person that the employee used the time off work or flexible working arrangements to undertake the training or to attend the activities.

(9F) Before a closing employer or dependent employer makes a financial contribution towards the costs of training to assist a participating employee of the employer to find other employment, the employee must, if required by the employer, give the employer evidence that would satisfy a reasonable person of the total cost of the training.

(12) Clause 60, page 52 (after line 34), at the end of subclause (5), add:

Note: See section 61A for the dealing with disputes.

(13) Clause 61, page 55 (after line 32), at the end of subclause (5), add:

Note: See section 61A for the dealing with disputes.

(14) Clause 61, page 56 (line 5), after "following conduct", insert ", including conduct to comply with obligations under relevant enterprise agreements or other industrial instruments,".

(15) Page 57 (after line 23), after clause 61, insert:

61A Dealing with disputes

Disputes dealt with by the Fair Work Commission

(1) If:

(a) a term referred to in paragraph 60(5)(d) or 61(5)(d) requires or allows the Fair Work Commission to deal with a dispute about any matter arising under a determination under subsection 60(5) or 61(5); and

(b) such a dispute arises; and

(c) a party to the dispute applies to the Fair Work Commission to deal with the dispute;

the Fair Work Commission may deal with the dispute.

(2) In dealing with the dispute, the Fair Work Commission must not exercise any powers limited by the term referred to in paragraph 60(5)(d) or 61(5)(d) (as the case requires).

(3) If, in accordance with that term, the parties to the dispute have agreed that the Fair Work Commission may arbitrate (however described) the dispute, the Fair Work Commission may do so.

(4) Division 3 of Part 5-1 of the Fair Work Act 2009 applies in relation to the Fair Work Commission dealing with the dispute in a corresponding way to the way in which that Division applies in relation to the dealing with a dispute covered by subsection 595(1) of that Act.

Disputes dealt with by persons other than the Fair Work Commission

(5) If a term referred to in paragraph 60(5)(d) or 61(5)(d) requires or allows a person other than the Fair Work Commission to deal with a dispute about any matter arising under a determination under subsection 60(5) or 61(5):

(a) the person, in dealing with the dispute, must not exercise any powers limited by the term; and

(b) if, in accordance with the term, the parties to the dispute have agreed that the person may arbitrate (however described) the dispute—the person may do so.

(16) Clause 62, page 59 (line 5), after "following conduct", insert ", including conduct to comply with obligations under relevant enterprise agreements or other industrial instruments,".

(17) Clause 64, page 63 (lines 4 and 5), omit ", within the period and in the manner specified in the notice,".

(18) Clause 64, page 63 (lines 18 and 19), omit subclause (3), substitute:

(3) The employer must give the information or produce the documents:

(a) in the manner specified in the notice under subsection (1); and

(b) before the end of the following period:

(i) the period specified in the notice (which must end at least 14 days after the day the notice is given), unless subparagraph (ii) applies;

(ii) if the CEO allows a longer period—that longer period.

(19) Clause 64, page 63 (line 31), omit paragraph (5)(b), substitute:

(b) the employer fails to give the information or produce the documents in accordance with this section.

(20) Clause 67, page 66 (line 28), at the end of subclause (4), add:

; (c) a court of a State or Territory that has jurisdiction in relation to the matter.

(21) Clause 67, page 66 (after line 28), at the end of the clause, add:

Pecuniary penalty orders

(5) Subsection 82(1) of the Regulatory Powers Act, to the extent that Part 4 of that Act relates to this Part, has effect as if an application made under that subsection were an application for an order that a person, who is alleged to have contravened a civil penalty provision, pay a pecuniary penalty.

(6) In relation to an application under subsection 82(1) of the Regulatory Powers Act, to the extent that Part 4 of that Act relates to this Part, if a court is satisfied that a person has contravened a civil penalty provision of this Act, then, despite subsection 82(3) of that Act, the court is empowered under subsection 82(3) of that Act to make an order:

(a) that the person pay a pecuniary penalty; and

(b) that the pecuniary penalty, or a part of the pecuniary penalty, be paid to the Commonwealth, a particular organisation (within the meaning of the Fair Work Act 2009) or a particular person.

(7) To the extent that the court orders that the pecuniary penalty, or a part of the pecuniary penalty, be paid to the Commonwealth, section 83 of the Regulatory Powers Act applies to the pecuniary penalty or the part of the pecuniary penalty.

(8) To the extent that the court orders that the pecuniary penalty, or a part of the pecuniary penalty, be paid to a particular organisation (within the meaning of the Fair Work Act 2009) or a particular person, the pecuniary penalty, or the part of the pecuniary penalty, may be recovered as a debt due to the organisation or person.

(22) Page 66 (after line 28), at the end of Division 6, add:

67A Compensation orders

In addition to the powers that a court has under Part 4 of the Regulatory Powers Act, to the extent that Part relates to this Part, the court may, if it is satisfied that a person has contravened a civil penalty provision of this Act, make an order under this section awarding compensation for loss that a person has suffered because of the contravention.

(23) Page 67 (before line 1), before Division 7, insert:

Division 6A — Injunctions

67B Injunctions

Enforceable provisions

(1) The provisions of this Part are enforceable under Part 7 of the Regulatory Powers Act.

Note: Part 7 of the Regulatory Powers Act creates a framework for using injunctions to enforce provisions.

Authorised person

(2) For the purposes of Part 7 of the Regulatory Powers Act, the CEO is an authorised person in relation to the provisions mentioned in subsection (1).

(3) For the purposes of Part 7 of the Regulatory Powers Act, each of the following is also an authorised person in relation to subsection 60(7), 61(9) or 62(9):

(a) a person that is an employee organisation that is entitled to represent the industrial interests of one or more of the transition employees of the closing employer or dependent employer that is alleged to have contravened that subsection;

(b) a transition employee of that closing employer or dependent employer.

Relevant court

(4) For the purposes of Part 7 of the Regulatory Powers Act, each of the following courts is a relevant court in relation to the provisions mentioned in subsection (1):

(a) the Federal Court of Australia;

(b) the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2);

(c) a court of a State or Territory that has jurisdiction in relation to the matter.

Division 6B — Costs

67C Costs

(1) A person (the first person) must bear the person's own costs in relation to:

(a) an application under subsection 82(1) of the Regulatory Powers Act, to the extent that Part 4 of that Act relates to this Part; or

(b) an application under subsection 121(1) or (2) of the Regulatory Powers Act, to the extent that Part 7 of that Act relates to this Part.

(2) However, the court hearing that application may make an order under this subsection that the first person bear some or all ofthe costs of another person in relation to the application if:

(a) the court is satisfied that the first person made the application, or the first person responded to the application, vexatiously or without reasonable cause; or

(b) the court is satisfied that the first person's unreasonable act or omission caused the other person to incur the costs; or

(c) the court is satisfied that it should have been reasonably apparent to the first person that the first person's application, or the first person's response to the application, had no reasonable prospect of success.

These amendments are largely technical in nature. They do not substantially change the intended operation of the Net Zero Economy Authority or the energy industry jobs plan it will administer. Rather, the amendments aim to clarify certain elements of the bill to address the concerns of some key stakeholders. The proposed technical amendments have been developed in consultation with the Australian Council of Trade Unions, the Australian Industry Group and the Business Council of Australia. They also take into account consideration of submissions and evidence given to the Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee's inquiry into the bill. Accordingly, I want to thank the BCA, the Ai Group and the ACTU for the positive manner in which they've engaged over the bill.

I also want to acknowledge the many organisations and individuals that took the time to make submissions as part of the Senate committee inquiry examining this bill. We have closely considered all of those submissions and several constructive proposals that came out of those inquiries, which are reflected in these government amendments. It is important to note that the vast majority of submissions to the Senate inquiry were highly supportive of the bill. This reflects the broad community support for the important role that the Net Zero Economy Authority will play as our economy decarbonises.

Turning to the specific amendments: a number of the amendments would improve alignment between the energy industry jobs plan contained in part 5 of the bill and the existing workplace relations framework under the Fair Work Act. These amendments reinforce the government's policy intent that the energy industry jobs plan is complementary to the existing workplace relations framework. Amendments in this category include aligning the judicial remedies for breach of a Fair Work Commission determination under part 5 of the bill in line with the standard approach under the Fair Work Act for breaches of awards, enterprise agreements and other industrial instruments; ensuring that there is an effective dispute resolution procedure involving the Fair Work Commission in relation to disputes concerning an employer's obligations arising under a determination made under part 5 of the bill; and clarifying the requirement that the authority's CEO and the Fair Work Commission must consider the existing supports contained in enterprise agreements and other industrial instruments in relation to both the community-of-interest process and the making of a Fair Work Commission determination under part 5 of the bill.

Other amendments would support employers to successfully engage with the framework. This includes in their interactions with the authority and their legislated obligations. Amendments in this category are based on recommendations from the Australian Industry Group and the Business Council of Australia. They include ensuring all relevant employers and employer representative bodies are adequately consulted throughout the energy industry jobs plan; clarifying how and when employers can provide information to the CEO and how the information gathered by the authority interacts with the Privacy Act; ensuring that employers are given proper notice for any paid time off work for training or career development purposes by their employees and are provided evidence of attendance if requested by the employer; and ensuring that the CEO has the discretion to grant additional time to employers where the authority has exercised its powers to require the provision of information from closing or dependent employers.

As noted when this bill was introduced, generations of Australians have powered our nation safely, reliably and with dignity. This bill will help ensure they continue to do so for generations to come. The government recognises that it has a critical role to play in supporting the communities in which the transition to net zero will be most concentrated. We must support these communities and all of those that live in them and the workers that work in these industries that this bill seeks to address. The authority will work with employers, unions and others to assist workers to engage in new opportunities. Workers in a closing facility will be supported to pursue opportunities for retraining, career mentoring and redeployment.

The proposed model reflects the outcomes of detailed consultations with unions and employer groups. It will support workers on the front line of the energy transition. At the same time, it will support businesses to access the skills and experience these workers possess. Establishing the Net Zero Economy Authority will help deliver better coordination of programs and policies. It will attract investors and help communities make the most of these transformation opportunities. By establishing the authority, we'll engage major stakeholders in the decision-making and support structures. We'll help deliver Australia's future as a renewable energy superpower. This bill will ensure we leave no-one behind in that transformation. I commend the bill and these amendments to the House.

Allegra Spender (Wentworth, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'd just like to make some brief comments in relation to the government's amendments, and I'll reserve some further remarks for the Net Zero Economy Authority Bill 2024 when I move my own amendments. The creation of the net zero authority is an unprecedented step to tackle the unprecedented challenge of climate change. We have a huge transition to manage and not very much time. So, whilst I am not normally supportive of government playing such an active role in affairs of private companies, I think in this case it's both appropriate and necessary. Ninety per cent of our coal-fired power stations are set to close in the next decade, and we won't be able to support workers through this transition without government stepping in.

This legislation and the amendments go to industrial relations, a topic that is close to my heart. I want to acknowledge the concerns raised by the Business Council of Australia and the Australian Industry Group into some aspects of this bill. The government amendments address several of the concerns raised by business groups, particularly in relation to the interaction between the activities of the authority and existing enterprise agreements and by clarifying notice requirements for employees when they take paid time off to undertake training for a new role. I'm also pleased to see a requirement for consultation with relevant employer groups before a community-of-interest application can be made.

We don't need more complexity in our industrial relations regime. We need less, and so I welcome the government working constructively with business and unions to address some of these issues. If a collaborative approach to streamlining and simplifying industrial relations laws can be taken in this bill, then I urge the government to do so across other areas of the economy.

Question agreed to.

Sophie Scamps (Mackellar, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2), as circulated in my name, together:

(1) Clause 5, page 6 (after line 23), after the definition of Finance Minister, insert:

former judge means:

(a) a former Justice of the High Court; or

(b) a former judge of the Federal Court of Australia; or

(c) a former judge of the Supreme Court of a State or Territory.

(2) Clause 22, page 23 (after line 18), at the end of the clause, add:

(4) A person must not be appointed as a Board member under this section unless:

(a) the selection of the person for the appointment is the result of a process that includes:

(i) public advertising of the selection criteria for the position for at least 10 consecutive days; and

(ii) assessment of applications against the selection criteria by an independent panel consisting of at least 3 members and chaired by a former judge; and

(iii) shortlisting of at least 3 persons for the appointment that are certified, in writing, by the panel to meet all of the selection criteria; and

(b) the person is one of the shortlisted candidates.

(5) Within 7 days after a person is appointed as a Board member, the Minister must cause a copy of the written certification for the person (referred to in subparagraph (4)(a)(iii)) to be:

(a) tabled in each House of the Parliament; or

(b) if a House is not sitting—presented to the Presiding Officer of that House for circulation to the members of that House.

One of the reasons the good people of Mackellar sent me to this place was to fight for stronger action on climate change. The most critical action required to do that, as every climate expert agrees, is to transition away from our reliance on fossil fuels to an economy powered by renewable energy. The Net Zero Economy Authority, to be established by this bill, seeks to support that transition. I am supportive of this bill but offer important amendments to improve the independence and integrity of the authority.

My amendments seek to inject into the Net Zero Economy Authority Bill a more robust and independent process for the appointment of members to its board. As currently drafted, the board of between five and nine members is to be appointed by the Prime Minister. The only requirement in relation to the appointment of board members is found in clause 22(1) of the bill:

The Board members are to be appointed by the Minister by written instrument.

The bill goes on to require that two of the board members have expertise or experience and professional credibility and significant standing in the trade union movement. Another two must satisfy those criteria in the business industry, finance or investment field. The rest must fulfil those experience and credibility requirements either in those fields already mentioned or in industrial relations, economics, decarbonisation policy, climate change policy, energy markets, regional development, First Nations engagement or governance or law. This is all well and good as far as it goes, but those requirements are not selection criteria. They do not constitute a process the Prime Minister must follow when deciding who to select. Most importantly they do not in any way guarantee any level of independence in those appointments. Independence and expertise are not the same thing.

Over the last decade the integrity of many institutions that underpin our democracy has taken a battering. One key reason for this has been the lack of independent appointment processes to major Commonwealth bodies. Over previous terms we witnessed the jobs-for-mates culture flourish here in Canberra, as rates of politically friendly appointments to important public boards and entities soared. One of those entities, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, was so heavily stacked with political appointees—at a rate of 40 per cent of appointments during the last parliamentary term—that the current Attorney-General has been forced to abolish it and create a new tribunal in its place. To the Attorney's credit, in establishing the new Administrative Review Tribunal he listed to the advocacy of myself and others and legislated for there to be a mandatory independent selection panel process for the appointment of new tribunal members. It will be a better institution because of that—less able to be compromised and co-opted for political purposes.

We must actively legislate to build integrity infrastructure into all the institutions that underpin our democracy and inform national policy, otherwise how can the Australian people trust the decisions that flow from these entities and institutions? The very best solution would be the enactment of comprehensive legislation that requires a transparent, accountable and independent process for all major Commonwealth public appointments, such as my private member's bill I introduced last year, 'ending jobs for mates'—a gold standard process developed in consultation with the Centre for Public Integrity which balances ministerial discretion with ensuring a candidate is independently selected based on their expertise, experience and integrity. Until that robust process becomes law, I have no choice but to introduce individual amendments to each bill that seeks to establish new bodies with major public appointments.

My amendments to this bill ensure that, in addition to experience and expertise, the board of the Net Zero Economy Authority is selected without undue political interference. After all, one can have proper experience but still take family holidays with the minister responsible for the appointment. Therefore, in the selection of members for the board of the Net Zero Economy Authority, my amendments require that the positions and selection criteria be publicly advertised for a minimum of 10 consecutive days; that the assessment of applications be undertaken by an independent selection panel with at least three members and a former superior court judge as chair; that the panel shortlist at least three candidates for each position and certify that they meet the selection criteria; that the minister chooses the successful candidate only from the shortlist; and that the certification of the successful candidate be tabled in parliament. I urge all members of this House to get on board with ending the jobs-for-mates culture in Canberra by supporting this amendment to the Net Zero Economy Authority bill.

Patrick Gorman (Perth, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just for the information of members of the House, the government won't be supporting this amendment. I just want to outline both how we expect the board to operate and the responsibilities which board members will have. The board will be appointed by the responsible minister. In making that appointment, the minister must be the satisfied board members collectively have the appropriate balance of expertise and experience in fields relevant to the functions of the authority. It's very clear in the bill, setting out some very direct expectations in those appointments. Two members must have experience in the work of trade unions or representation of working people. Two members must have experience in business, industry, finance or investment. We've also very clearly outlined the other expectations of what the minister would need to consider in making those appointments, having regard for experience in things such as industrial relations, labour market adjustment, economics, greenhouse gas emissions reduction pathways, technology or policy expertise, climate change policy, energy markets, regional development, First Nations engagement, advocacy work, community leadership, public or corporate governance and/or the law. These board members are expected to make a serious commitment to the Net Zero Economy Authority. Their appointments are to be part time. They are not full-time statutory office holders. They're put up for five years and are eligible for reappointment.

I want to note in these debates when we're talking about the appointment of board members of a statutory authority such as the one we are seeking to legislate it's important that there are very clear legal obligations on any board member that is appointed, including that they must declare and manage all conflicts of interest. That's an essential part of the appointment process. In doing their duties, they must act in the best interests of the authority and not in the interests of any other organisation. They must recuse themselves from decision-making where they face conflicts.

The role of the board is in determining the broader policies and strategies of the authority. It is a governing board and it's been clearly outlined as such, meaning it has responsibility for the authority's strategy, governance and performance, including financial performance and spending of public money. In addition, it has some very clear responsibilities under the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act, which again places very high expectations on anyone who takes on a role on a government statutory board such as this, including promoting the purpose of the entity and defining strategy, ensuring systems and policies for the proper use of public resources, systems performance measurement, reporting and accountability, systems and policies for risk management and internal controls and establishing a committee.

The board also has the role of recommending CEO candidates for appointment by the minister. The reason I raise that in terms of the power of the board is to also talk about how, when it comes to CEO appointments, the provisions of the bill are supported by the merit and transparency policy which has been in place for the Commonwealth since 2008. That policy does require a merit based and transparent process be used for the appointment of agency heads and will apply to the CEO position of the Net Zero Economy Authority. It puts out requirements and guidelines, including selection criteria, the requirement of advertising of the position and the use of the selection panel. Appointments that the minister makes are also bound by general government policies on board appointments as contained in the Cabinet Handbook,which is publicly available for anyone interested in the work of the cabinet or, indeed, this particular authority. It also includes a range of expectations around the diversity on boards.

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

The question before the House is that the amendments moved by the honourable member for Mackellar be agreed to.

Allegra Spender (Wentworth, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move the amendment circulated in my name:

(1) Page 79 (after line 7), after clause 80, insert:

80A Review of the operation of this Act

(1) Every 4 years, the Minister must cause an independent review to be conducted of the operation of this Act.

(2) Without limiting subsection (1), the review must:

(a) examine the effectiveness of the Authority in performing its functions, including against the object of this Act in section 3; and

(b) having regard to the object of this Act, examine the appropriateness of the following definitions in section 5:

(i) closing employer;

(ii) dependent employer;

(iii) receiving employer; and

(c) make provision for public consultation.

(3) The first review must commence as soon as practicable after the end of the period of 4 years after the day this Act commences.

(4) The persons who conduct the review must give the Minister a written report of the review as soon as practicable and, in any event, not later than 9 months after commencement of the review.

(5) The Minister must cause a copy of the report to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the report is given to the Minister.

All the indicators are flashing red when it comes to the climate crisis. The year 2023 was the hottest year on record, and this record already looks like being broken in 2024. Climate scientists are telling us we're going to blast past 2.5 degrees, and the Great Barrier Reef is experiencing yet another mass bleaching event. To avert the worst impacts of global heating, we need to rapidly accelerate the transition. We need to get off fossil fuels, build the green industries of the future and help workers and communities through the process.

The clean energy transition will be a big challenge for the Australian economy. We'll need to shift people and resources out of coal and gas, massively ramp up renewable energy and develop the workforce to power the industries of the future. It's a transition that won't happen overnight, won't always be easy to manage and won't succeed without proper coordination, and that's what this bill is all about.

The aim of the Net Zero Economy Authority is to help facilitate investment, coordinate policy and help workers and communities through the transition from fossil fuels to the industries of the future. It's vital we get this right. If we don't, regional communities will be left behind, support for the transition will be fatally undermined and we'll miss out on a huge economic opportunity. The new authority has big responsibilities: keeping communities together, ensuring the benefits of the transition are shared, and listening to and learning from communities when we don't get things right. This is what the authority and this legislation must deliver.

This is a good bill and it has broad support from the climate movement, business groups and unions. That's a great place to start. But there is no doubt this bill could be improved, and my amendment seeks to do this. In particular, I'm concerned the authority's scope is too narrow, focusing exclusively on coal-fired power station workers and the mines that supply them. With 90 per cent of coal going offline in the next decade, it's right that these workers are the first priority for support. But for the authority to have enduring impact it will need to work across a broader range of industries over time and adapt its activities as our economy transitions. For example, we know that, as the world economy decarbonises, demand for our fossil fuel exports will reduce; yet, as currently drafted, this legislation precludes the authority from supporting people working in coal and gas mining for exports. A worker in the Hunter Valley at a coalmine associated with a power station would be eligible for support, but a worker in the same region at an exporting coalmine would not. That's despite those two people doing the same job, facing the challenges if their mines close, and perhaps even living next door to each other. The government should have drafted legislation that was broader in the scope of industries the authority could support and mandated an annual plan to ensure focus of the authority's activities from year to year.

If this can't be done right now, the government should at least be open to revisiting the scope of the authority's activities in future. My amendment helps to achieve this by inserting a review clause into the legislation. The review would require periodic assessment of whether the scope of industries supported is appropriate and whether the broader objectives set out in the legislation are being achieved. The first review would take place after four years, enabling the authority to support several coal closures before looking at how things could be done better.

I understand that the government won't be supporting this amendment, but the reasons for this are unclear. I know the bill requires the CEO to conduct a narrowly focused internal review of the Energy Industry Jobs Plan within 12 months, but this is not the kind of substantive, independent review that also looks at the scope of activities and whether the authority is delivering results, so I encourage the government to think again and support this commonsense amendment.

Kylea Tink (North Sydney, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise in support of the amendment moved by the member for Wentworth because I think it is infinitely reasonable. If there's one thing we know, it's that the people of Australia are looking to this government and this parliament to move faster when it comes to climate action. The introduction of the Net Zero Economy Authority is something that many see as a really positive step. But it is bamboozling for many to try to get their heads around why you would limit the potential of this authority to guide us through this transition period. We all know that to hit net zero by 2050 we're going to have to tackle every single part of our economy. If this is to be the organisation that sets due north for our society, our economy, our communities—really importantly, our regional communities, who are looking to their future—why would we not make the scope of this authority broader?

I commend the member's amendment and seek the same clarification she seeks from the minister: why not step into this in a bold way, rather than a contained way that's like a whimper?

Patrick Gorman (Perth, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I welcome the comments from the member for Wentworth, who emphasised the importance of listening and learning as we go through this global transition and the unique way that Australia will experience it. I also want to thank the member for North Sydney, who rightly pointed out that many see this bill as a really positive step.

I want to address where the government has already committed to reviews of the work of the authority. They include a statutory review of the Energy Industry Jobs Plan framework, which will be completed within 12 months of the establishment of the authority. We've said very clearly that we hope the authority will be established by 1 July. That would see that work being done by the middle of next year. That would allow us to assess the plan. It would allow early engagement with regional employers to see how that piece of the legislation is working and allow us to talk to communities and unions. Further, I think it's important for the House to be aware that there will also be a review of the authority conducted in accordance with the Commonwealth Governance Structures Policy. That requires that there be a review at least every 10 years—and I note that it can be done more regularly—to ensure flexibility of the functions that are set out in the bill and that there is opportunity for further engagement.

Of course, it is always up to the parliament—this House and the Senate—to engage on legislation that's passed at any point in time. In terms of the authority's engagement with the parliament, each year a corporate plan will be tabled, setting out objectives, priorities and the intended work plan, in accordance with the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act. We would expect there to be thorough examination of the work of the authority by senators, and indeed that questions, either in question time or on notice, would be asked.

Finally, I want to note that the powers that are in this bill, outside of the energy industry jobs plan, are very broad. The bill gives power to a new authority that can coordinate across government to lower emissions and to support the net zero transition. It can facilitate public and private investment in transformational net zero initiatives not just in the regions but anywhere in Australia where it is in our national interest to do so. It ensures that communities will better understand and be able to participate in this economic transformation, and, again, the authority has the powers to do that. There's specific mention in the objects of the bill to ensure Indigenous Australians participate in and benefit from this transition to net zero, and this amendment seeks, as indeed does the government, a real focus on ensuring workers in emissions-intensive industries can access new skills and new employment opportunities that come with net zero. In saying that, the government doesn't support this amendment, as we believe that both the powers in the bill as it stands and the existing review mechanisms are adequate.

Helen Haines (Indi, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have a question for the minister with regard to a 10-year review period. This is a wide-ranging Net Zero Economy Authority undertaking expertise and transformation across a range of technologies, as you say, and those technologies change rapidly. Ten years seems like an extraordinary length of time before the authority has a solid look at itself. If we're talking about communities participating or giving feedback or if we're talking about what works and what doesn't, it seems extraordinary to me that the review period, as the minister just described, would be after 10 years. Could I ask the minister to expand on that and give me and, I'm sure, other people some assurance that there would be periods before 10 years when the authority actually makes changes, iterations or adjustments?

Patrick Gorman (Perth, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I welcome the opportunity to outline that, in the first 365 days of the operation of the authority, there will be the review of one large component of the authority's work. That's a review of the energy industry jobs plan framework. With regard to my reference to the Commonwealth's governance structures policy, which requires a review every 10 years, that's 'at least' every 10 years; it can be done earlier and, indeed, it could be done much earlier, but I'm not in a position to say when that would be. Obviously, it requires the parliament to legislate for the authority to be enacted in the first place.

We do recognise that it is both a long-term transition and also something with some very-fast-moving changes in technology and something where some communities can experience what the change means to local communities, local employment and local economies very quickly. We do believe that this gets the balance right in addition to all those standard parliamentary accountability mechanisms, including the annual tabling of the corporate plan.

Allegra Spender (Wentworth, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Minister, for your comments. You refer to the energy industry jobs plan review, which would be undertaken within the first year. However, my understanding is that it does not go to scope and so, therefore, is not relevant to the question that I raised in my speech, which was basically that a significant group of workers would not be included as part of that internal review and, therefore, that review doesn't go to the core question that I'm raising in my amendment.

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

The question before the House is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Wentworth be agreed to.

Helen Haines (Indi, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move amendments (1) to (8), (14) and (15) on the sheet revised 29 May 2024, as circulated in my name, together:

(1) Clause 3, page 2 (line 16), omit "ensure Australia's regions and workers", substitute "ensure Australia's communities and workers, especially in regional, rural and remote Australia,".

(2) Clause 3, page 2 (line 18), at the end of the clause, add:

; and (d) facilitate community leadership of economic diversification in response to Australia's transition to a net zero emissions economy, in order to maximise outcomes for communities.

(3) Clause 5, page 5 (after line 23), after the definition of Commonwealth entity, insert:

community benefit plan means a plan made under subsection 68CB(3).

(4) Clause 5, page 6 (after line 6), after the definition of dependent employer, insert:

developer, of a net zero transformation initiative, includes a proponent and an operator of the project or initiative.

(5) Clause 5, page 7 (after line 21), after the definition of Kyoto Protocol, insert:

large renewable energy project has the meaning given by subsection 68AE(2).

(6) Clause 5, page 7 (after line 24), after the definition of likely to prejudice national security, insert:

local energy hub means a hub referred to in subparagraph 16(1)(db)(i) (see also Part 5B).

(7) Clause 16, page 17 (after line 24), after paragraph (1)(d), insert:

(da) to support communities that are hosting net zero transformation initiatives, especially those communities in areas where there has historically been agriculture and other forms of primary production;

(db) to:

(i) establish and maintain one or more local energy hubs in each region affected by Australia's transition to a net zero emissions economy; and

(ii) develop community benefit plans for communities in each region affected by a net zero transformation initiative; and

(iii) assist with planning and coordinating other transitional measures to improve and embed sustainable local infrastructure and services that enhance wellbeing in each region affected by Australia's transition to a net zero emissions economy;

(dc) to facilitate community leadership of economic diversification in response to Australia's transition to a net zero emissions economy, in order to maximise outcomes for communities;

(8) Clause 16, page 18 (after line 2), at the end of the subclause (1), add:

Note 3: For subparagraph (db)(ii), a community benefit plan for a community affected by a net zero transformation initiative could include benefits such as:

(a) jobs in the initiative; or

(b) childcare services; or

(c) health services; or

(d) roads, bridges and other transport infrastructure; or

(e) public infrastructure; or

(f) cheap and reliable energy, including energy security during emergencies; or

(g) affordable housing; or

(h) communications services; or

(i) a community benefit fund.

(14) Page 67 (after line 27), after Part 5, insert:

Part 5A — Developers of net zero transformation initiatives

Division 1 — Preliminary

68AA Simplified outline of this Part

Before facilitating the participation of or investment by a developer from the private sector in a net zero transformation initiative as described in paragraph 16(1)(b), the Authority must ensure that:

(a) the developer has a high rating under the scheme mentioned in Division 2; and

(b) if applicable, the developer has allowed for community investment in the initiative under the scheme mentioned in Division 3.

Note: This Part only applies to a developer of a net zero transformation initiative to the extent that the Authority is performing the Authority's function under paragraph 16(1)(b) in circumstances permitted by subsection 16(4).

68AB Concurrent operation of State and Territory laws

It is the Parliament's intention that a law of a State or Territory should be able to operate concurrently with this Part unless the law is directly inconsistent with this Part.

Division 2 — Developer rating scheme

68AC Facilitating public and private sector participant and investment

Before facilitating the participation of or investment by a developer from the private sector in a net zero transformation initiative as described in paragraph 16(1)(b), the Authority must ensure that the developer has a high rating under the scheme prescribed for the purposes of section 68AD.

68AD Developer rating scheme

(1) The rules must prescribe a voluntary scheme for rating developers of net zero transformation initiatives in Australia.

(2) For the purposes of (but without limiting) subsection (1), the scheme must:

(a) empower the Authority to rate a developer's or potential developer's past or potential performance on:

(i) engagement relating to net zero transformation initiatives; and

(ii) providing benefits to communities affected by net zero transformation initiatives; and

(iii) locating infrastructure involved with net zero transformation initiatives; and

(iv) other specified matters relating to net zero transformation initiatives; and

(b) be designed to motivate developers to continuously improve on such matters; and

(c) provide for the criteria by which the Authority determines such ratings; and

(d) provide for how a developer or potential developer may apply for such a rating, which may include requiring applications to be made in a manner and form approved by the Authority; and

(e) provide for the regular review and updating by the Authority of:

(i) such ratings; and

(ii) the criteria for determining them; and

(f) provide that applications may be made to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for review of decisions by the Authority under the scheme; and

(g) provide for the establishment and maintenance of a public register that records such ratings and the criteria for determining them.

Note: The scheme may provide for other matters.

(3) In designing the scheme, the Minister must have regard to consultation conducted by the Authority with:

(a) the Commonwealth, the States, the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory; and

(b) peak bodies for local governments, industry and Indigenous persons; and

(c) representative community groups.

Division 3 — Community investment in large renewable energy projects

68AE Authority must ensure that developers of large renewable energy projects allow for community investment

(1) Before facilitating the participation of or investment by a developer from the private sector in a large renewable energy project as described in paragraph 16(1)(b), the Authority must ensure that the developer has complied with the scheme prescribed for the purposes of section 68AF.

(2) A large renewable energy project is a project or initiative that:

(a) is a net zero transformation initiative; and

(b) involves constructing, modifying or expanding a renewable energy generation facility in Australia having a maximum capacity of 10 MW or more; and

(c) starts on or after the commencement of this Act.

68AF Scheme for community investment in large renewable energy projects

(1) The rules must prescribe a voluntary scheme under which the developer of a large renewable energy project engages with all individuals living within 30 km of the project (the locals) and gives the locals a reasonable opportunity to invest in the project.

(2) For the purposes of (but without limiting) subsection (1), the scheme must ensure that this opportunity involves:

(a) rights to at least 20% of the profits from the project being offered to the locals; and

(b) the locals having been given a reasonable opportunity to consider and respond to the offer; and

(c) the consideration (if any) payable in exchange for the rights being reasonable, having regard to the market value of the rights; and

(d) the offer being structured in a way that is intended to ensure that the rights are acquired by a large number of locals rather than by just a few individuals.

(3) Subsection (2) does not prevent the rights mentioned in paragraph (2)(a) from being offered to anyone else, after the offer mentioned in that subsection closes, to the extent that the locals do not accept the offer.

(4) In designing the scheme, the Minister must have regard to consultation conducted by the Authority with:

(a) the Commonwealth, the States, the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory; and

(b) peak bodies for local governments, industry and Indigenous persons; and

(c) representative community groups.

(15) Page 68 (before line 1), before Part 6, insert:

Part 5B — Local energy hubs

68BA Simplified outline of this Part

Local energy hubs are to provide support for regions affected by Australia's transition to a net zero emissions economy.

68BB Local energy hubs

(1) When establishing and maintaining a local energy hub in a region affected by Australia's transition to a net zero emissions economy (see subparagraph 16(1)(db)(i)), the Authority must ensure that the local energy hub is staffed by local outreach officers who are trained to support communities.

(2) To support the local energy hubs in a region that is also a region referred to in subsection 16(2), the Authority must establish and maintain an office in that region.

68BC Functions of local energy hubs

The functions of a local energy hub for a region are:

(a) to support each of the region's communities, including as follows:

(i) engaging with developers of large-scale net zero transformation initiatives proposed in or near the community;

(ii) facilitating an understanding of net zero transformation initiatives proposed in or near the community, including concerns regarding fire risk, insurance premium increases and biosecurity risks;

(iii) communicating locally informed, clear expectations to industry on how the community would like to be engaged and participate in project plans for large-scale net zero transformation initiatives proposed in or near the community;

(iv) facilitating energy literacy programs targeted at low-income households to reduce energy costs;

(v) advising on household energy efficiency, electrification and bill savings;

(vi) assisting with accessing government grants and subsidies relating to Australia's transition to a net zero emissions economy;

(vii) advising on the feasibility of community energy projects;

(viii) advising agricultural businesses looking to utilise clean energy technologies; and

(b) to assist with developing, and monitoring compliance with, community benefit plans relating to the region (see Part 5C); and

(c) to make recommendations to the Authority on the region's needs and priorities; and

(d) any other functions conferred on the local energy hub by the Authority.

Note: A reference in this section to a net zero transformation initiative could include a renewable energy project or a project relating to transmission lines.

Part 5C — Community benefit plans

68CA Simplified outline of this Part

The Authority may work with:

(a) a developer of a net zero transformation initiative; and

(b) the communities, landholders, groups or individuals affected by that initiative;

to develop a community benefit plan.

The developer must comply with the plan.

68CB Identifying affected communities and making plans to benefit them

(1) The Authority must make reasonable efforts to identify the communities, landholders, groups or individuals (the affected entities) affected by each net zero transformation initiative.

(2) The Authority must make reasonable efforts to work with each developer of the initiative, and the affected entities, to identify ways how the developer can:

(a) engage with the affected entities; and

(b) provide benefits related to the initiative to those affected entities.

(3) The Authority may make a written plan requiring the developer of the initiative to:

(a) engage in one or more specified ways with the affected entities specified in the plan; and

(b) provide one or more specified benefits to those affected entities.

Note: For examples of benefits, see note 3 to subsection 16(1).

(4) The Authority must give a copy of the plan to:

(a) the developer of the initiative; and

(b) each of the affected entities or to their representatives.

68CC Compliance with community benefit plans

A person contravenes this section if:

(a) the person is a developer of a net zero transformation initiative; and

(b) the person is given a copy of a community benefit plan for the initiative; and

(c) the person fails to comply with the plan.

Civil penalty: 600 penalty units.

68CD Internal review of community benefit plans

(1) If the Authority decides to make a community benefit plan (the original decision), the Authority must give written notice of the original decision to the persons whose interests it affects. The notice must include a statement to the effect that such a person may, if the person is dissatisfied with the decision, apply to the Authority for an internal review of the original decision.

(2) Such an application by a person for an internal review of the original decision must:

(a) set out the reasons for the application; and

(b) be made within 28 days after the day the person is informed of the decision.

(3) Upon receiving such an application, the Authority must:

(a) reconsider the original decision; and

(b) decide to affirm, vary or revoke the original decision.

(4) This Act, other than subsections (1) and (2), applies to the decision under paragraph (3)(b) (the internal review decision) as if it were the original decision.

(5) The Authority must give written notice of the internal review decision to the applicant. The notice must include a statement to the effect that the applicant may, if the applicant is dissatisfied with the internal review decision, apply to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal in accordance with the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 for review of the internal review decision.

(6) Failure to comply with this subsection (1) or (5) does not affect the validity of a decision.

68CE Review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal

Applications may be made to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for review of a decision of the Authority under paragraph 68CD(3)(b).

68CF Involving local energy hubs

The Authority is to involve the relevant local energy hub when:

(a) acting under section 68CB in relation to a net zero transformation initiative; and

(b) monitoring compliance with a community benefit plan.

These amendments are about realising community engagement and benefit in the net zero economy. They're about showing regional Australia the pathway to a prosperous economy for future generations as we transition to a clean economy. The government says this bill is about promoting orderly and positive economic transformation associated with achieving net zero emissions. Unfortunately, though, the bill as currently drafted seems to only set out how to achieve this for communities transitioning out of fossil fuel industries. It does nothing for the communities in my electorate and across regional Australia that are transitioning into renewable energy for the very first time. Unless these communities are included in the bill, I truly struggle to see how a positive and orderly net zero economy will be realised. I truly do.

In Indi, farming communities are being approached to host massive solar farms and battery energy storage systems—key projects to get us to the government's net zero target. But right now, let me tell you, some in these communities are fighting to prevent these projects getting off the ground. There are two reasons for this. They don't feel like they are being fairly and respectfully engaged by project developers. Their questions are not answered in a way that relieves their worries about the impact on their insurance, their farms and the beautiful natural environment that surrounds them—the beautiful natural environment that they know is at peril from climate change but that they see changing in front of their very eyes, without any engagement that satisfies them. Second, the communities expected to host the large-scale renewable projects can't see how this will bring long-term prosperity to the whole community.

My amendments offer practical ways for the government to ensure that renewable energy developers meaningfully engage with communities, they do it early, they do it often and they do it in a respectful way. My amendments would give powers for the authority to develop and implement local energy hubs. The minister says, quite clearly, that the authority will be the shopfront for industry and investors. But I ask: Where is the community? What about community members and landholders who want to know more about what this industry is planning in their region? A local energy hub would be the shopfront for local communities situated in towns across regional, rural and remote Australia, staffed by trusted, reliable people who know the community and can assist them with understanding the renewable energy being built, how developers should engage with them and what benefit they and the wider community can receive from the project.

My amendments also allow for a developer rating scheme. This is a recommendation of Professor Andrew Dyer's Community Engagement Review, accepted in principle by the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Chris Bowen. A developer rating scheme would show the public a developer's track record on things like community engagement so that, when a landholder receives a letter in the mail or a knock on the door from a developer or prospector for the next solar farm, that landholder can assess whether that developer is in fact trusted and reputable.

Critically, my amendments create pathways for communities to achieve regional prosperity, and they do this by creating powers for the authority to administer community benefit plans. Like the energy industry jobs plan already in the bill, a community benefit plan would demonstrate tangible benefits to communities that find themselves at the forefront of energy generation, storage or transmission for the very first time. I'm talking about things as tangible as a share in the project itself or lower power bills for homes and businesses near the development. It could be skilling up workers for long-term jobs or investment in roads and affordable housing. It could be providing public transport or building a new mobile phone tower to improve telecommunications in a country town—true long-term, game-changing benefits, real benefits that developers can provide. If for-profit renewable energy developers want communities to host their projects, they must show what's in it for the communities. But government tell me now that they won't be supporting these amendments, because right now they want to focus on the communities transitioning out of coal- and gas-fired power stations. But surely this government can walk and chew gum at the same time. They can support the communities to transition while supporting communities experiencing a transition—communities who are not moving from coal and gas but communities who are now being asked to host large-scale grid developments. We need to think about all of them.

Patrick Gorman (Perth, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member Indi, who I would hope almost all in this place would acknowledge does engage deeply with her community, brings their voice here, acts in their interest and engages deeply in these complex questions of the energy transition—not just the questions that are in front of us in this bill but also the questions that are in front of us across a range of pieces of work of government. The member Indi stole my line, which is that the government will not be supporting these amendments, but we are committed, and I want to emphasise the government's commitment to ensuring communities impacted by the rollout of major infrastructure are properly consulted and to ensuring community expectations surrounding engagement, planning and community benefits are met.

We welcome the advocacy, but it is the government's view that the Australian Energy Infrastructure Commissioner—not the Net Zero Economy Authority—is the best place for this work to be done. That's why in the 2024-25 budget we included $18.2 million to enhance the role of the Australian Energy Infrastructure Commissioner, including implementing recommendations of the recent community engagement review. I emphasise that because it shows that much of that work—particularly on community consultation for new infrastructure—is already under way. That work and that review includes establishing and developing a ratings scheme and fast-tracking the delivery of direct bill relief and other community benefits to regions most affected by renewable infrastructure developments. This is one of the many reasons the government is not supporting these amendments.

Helen Haines (Indi, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have a question for the minister. I am really pleased that the government undertook the Dyer review, and I was very pleased to work with Professor Dyer as he undertook a series of forums right across rural and regional Australia, including in my electorate of Indi. Many people from my community who are being directly affected by the energy transition came to those forums and gave their views to Professor Dyer. I was very pleased to see the nine recommendations that came through that review, and I'm very pleased that in the budget the government recognised that this is work that needs to be done. My question to the minister would be: in regard to the Energy Infrastructure Commissioner, has the government considered placing that commission in the Net Zero Economy Authority?

Patrick Gorman (Perth, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's not in the bill that's before us—it's not the government's view at this time that that's the path we will take.

Helen Haines (Indi, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I put it to the minister that ensuring that the work of the Net Zero Economy Authority actually achieves its purpose in communities broader than the communities transitioning out of fossil fuel energy generation means there needs to be surety that the Energy Infrastructure Commission can have the grunt that it needs to do its work. It makes complete sense to me that there needs to be strong consideration about how it will actually achieve community benefit outside of the communities that this current bill is focusing on. In regard to things like review of the commission or the authority, things like understanding whether true community benefit—and I describe community benefit as being true regional development—is actually going to be achieved by this authority if we don't have it in the legislation, there needs to be coherent, consistent, neutral advice, such as the Energy Infrastructure Commissioner has been able to give to people who have concerns, and I put it to the minister that these local energy hubs could achieve that as well. I'm not really convinced in any way that the Net Zero Economy Authority has within its legislative framework the capacity to achieve this in regional Australia. I would ask that the minister does give real consideration as to exactly how this is going to happen, because it certainly looks pretty vague on reading of this legislation, and I say that as someone who does wish to engage in good faith on this.

I have deep concerns that the Net Zero Economy Authority will not achieve its aim beyond the communities that you're focusing on if we don't get this right. We've got to stop thinking about just our social licence in regional communities; we've got to think about true long-term regional development. That's what I'd put to the minister to consider.

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

The question before the House is that the amendments moved by the honourable member for Indi be agreed to.

Helen Haines (Indi, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move amendments (12) and (13) on the sheet revised 29 May 2024, as circulated in my name, together:

(12) Clause 23, page 24 (lines 11 to 13), omit paragraph (2)(d), substitute:

(d) 1 other Board member with expertise or experience, professional credibility and significant standing in the field mentioned in paragraph (3)(h); and

(e) up to 3 other Board members with expertise or experience, professional credibility and significant standing in any of the fields mentioned in subsection (3).

(13) Clause 23, page 24 (lines 14 and 15), omit "Paragraphs (b) and (c) do not by implication limit paragraph (a) or (d).", substitute "Paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) do not by implication limit paragraph (a) or (e).".

These amendments would ensure the board, which provides advice to the authority, includes a member with expertise or experience, professional credibility and significant standing in regional development. These amendments are an obvious improvement to the bill. Without these amendments, having a board member with regional development credentials would only be optional. But regional development experience on the board is vital to the success of the authority; it shouldn't be optional. To properly support regional communities, the authority must actually hear from a member from these communities. The authority must work with communities to determine what they need and want from the net zero energy transformation, and having somebody on the board who comes from the regions will help achieve this.

It's not just living in the regions that will make this board member valuable; it's about having experience in regional development too. When I talk about regional development, I'm talking about thriving, prosperous communities. I want to see this board member advocate for the transformational opportunity the net zero economy presents for regional communities—things like quality health care, available child care and well-paid, long-term jobs. I'm also talking about stable phone and internet connections, roads that aren't riddled with potholes and a cheap, reliable source of energy that's shared locally. This is what regional communities must expect from the net zero transformation, but it's not being shown to them right now. A board member with regional development expertise is a step towards realising prosperous livelihoods in the regions in a net zero economy.

I don't want to steal the minister's thunder here, but I think I'm going to do it again because it's important I say this: I understand the government will support these amendments, and I'm pleased that they will, of course. I thank the Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister himself for meeting with me and discussing what is something I feel very passionate about. I want to emphasise—and I really want you to listen carefully to this—that having a regional member on the board of the authority will only be as useful as the authority itself. A regional board member must not be there to only support the regional communities transitioning out of fossil fuel industries. At the same time, the board and the authority must direct its work to the regional communities transitioning into renewable energy; I'm going to keep saying it because it's critical. I'm talking about the regional communities that are being told they are in renewable energy zones but don't know what this means. These are communities that are suddenly being told that they are in 'ideal' locations for grid-scale solar farms with turbines and large battery storage systems—told, not invited to plan and participate in this massive transformation. Communities are not being given the opportunity to plan their futures right now. To achieve net zero with these communities, we must reframe the question from, 'How do we gain their social licence?' to 'How do we achieve regional development and prosperity for them?' I'm going to keep saying that too, because it's just so critical.

My other amendments to this bill provide the pathways towards showing regional development—not merely writing it down in words but actually showing it. They're about action. I'm disappointed that the government is not supporting them at this time, but I look forward to continued discussions with the government, including with the Prime Minister and the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, about how this can be realised. A board member with regional development experience is a good start, but we have a long way to go to ensure that their expertise is going to be utilised. I will be watching this very, very closely.

Patrick Gorman (Perth, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Indi, not just for moving these amendments but also for separating them from her other amendments so that, as she foreshadowed, in very kind terms, the government is prepared to agree to these amendments. We have already indicated that to the member for Indi in conversations between myself, the Prime Minister and the member.

We agree that there's benefit in requiring that one member of the authority has significant expertise in regional development. We see that this will ensure that the board—and we've already outlined those broad areas we want—has the right skills mix. I of course note that the government's obligations that will apply to this member of the board will be exactly the same as for all other members of the board. We do recognise that an important piece of the work of this authority will be to prioritise communities in regions that are, or will be, significantly affected by Australia's transition to a net zero economy.

I thank the member for Indi for her engagement on this and for outlining her reasons for these particular amendments, effectively persuading the Prime Minister and others in the government. We're pleased to support these amendments.

Allegra Spender (Wentworth, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise in support of the work of the member for Indi on this, and also for all the amendments that she has put forward on this bill. I represent a community which is, physically, one of the smallest communities in the country, and probably one of the least rural or regional in the country. But what my community constantly tells me is that they care about regional Australia and that they care about rural Australia. They don't only care about their own patch. Across this parliament, we always need to be looking just outside our own patches and making sure that we don't try to create divisions between different parts of the country, but use opportunities to bring these together. I think that the work the member for Indi is doing in this is excellent, because what she's doing is saying, 'This transition will benefit the whole country.'

In my area, we don't have the capacity for the solar farms and the other changes required to power my area. We will get benefit from this, but we want to make sure that regional communities get benefits too. Otherwise, it will fall down. This is beyond asking for social licence; it's saying, 'Let's use this as an opportunity to bring real benefit to our communities and to build the next evolution of our thriving regional communities.'

I thank the government for supporting these amendments and I urge it to consider the other very useful amendments the member has put forward, because I think this is about building community engagement across the country in this absolutely vital change.

Question agreed to.

Helen Haines (Indi, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move:

(9) Clause 16, page 18 (lines 3 to 6), omit subclause (2), substitute:

(2) In performing the Authority's functions, the Authority should prioritise communities, regions, industries and workers that are or will be:

(a) in areas recognised by the Australian Energy Market Operator as renewable energy zones; or

(b) otherwise significantly affected by Australia's transition to a net zero emissions economy.

(10) Page 21 (after line 28), after clause 19, insert:

19A Board must prepare annual work plan

(1) The Board must prepare and give to the Minister a work plan, in writing, for each financial year beginning on or after the commencement of this Act.

(2) The work plan for a financial year must set out:

(a) the main activities proposed to be undertaken by the Authority and the Board for the financial year and for the following 2 financial years, including activities relating to:

(i) the scheme prescribed for the purposes of section 68AD (the developer rating scheme); and

(ii) local energy hubs (see Part 5B); and

(iii) community benefit plans (see Part 5C);

(b) how those activities are proposed to be undertaken.

Note: For example, the work plan could include the following activities relating to Australia's transition to a net zero emissions economy:

(a) capacity building in regions to guide future economic development;

(b) working with State-based regional transition authorities on particular activities;

(c) funding and facilitating the development and delivery of regional strategies to improve economic diversification.

Consultation on a draft work plan

(3) Before giving the Minister a work plan for a financial year, the Board must:

(a) prepare a draft of the work plan and give it to the Minister, the States, the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory; and

(b) cause the draft work plan to be published on the Department's website; and

(c) invite all interested bodies or persons to give the Authority written comments on the draft work plan within:

(i) 90 days after the invitation is given; or

(ii) such longer period as advised by the Authority.

The Board may also consult with any other person that the Board considers appropriate about the draft work plan.

(4) In preparing a work plan for a financial year, the Board must have regard to any comments given under paragraph (3)(c) in relation to the draft of the work plan.

Tabling and publishing a work plan

(5) The Minister must table each work plan in each House of the Parliament within 7 sitting days of that House after receiving the work plan under subsection (1).

(6) The Board must cause each work plan to be published on the Department's website as soon as practicable after giving it to the Minister.

(7) A work plan prepared under subsection (1) is not a legislative instrument.

(11) Clause 20, page 22 (after line 16), at the end of the clause, add:

(5) A direction under subsection (1) must be consistent with this Act (including the object of this Act), with the Board's functions and with the Authority's functions.

(16) Clause 69, page 68 (line 5), after "including", insert "the Authority's budget".

(17) Page 69 (before line 2), before clause 70, insert:

69A Minimum 10-year budget for the Authority

(1) If, by the end of the 6-month period beginning on the day this Act commences, no Commonwealth law sets out a budget for the Authority for each of the first 10 financial years starting on or after that commencement, the Minister must cause to be prepared a written report explaining the reasons why.

(2) The Minister must table the report in each House of the Parliament within 7 sitting days of that House after the end of that 6-month period.

These amendments really should be noncontroversial. These amendments are housekeeping, actually. They require the authority to undertake an annual work plan. That's good practice. These are sensible, non-controversial amendments. It's what the government 's owner Jobs and Skills Australia does so the public knows what the work is that this taxpayer funded body actually does.

These amendments require a long-term budget for the authority. Again, this isn't a first-time idea. The Australian Renewable Energy Agency, the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and the National Reconstruction Fund all have legislated budgets. I would argue that, if the authority is such an important pillar in our transition to net zero, it should be guaranteed funding for 10 years. I understand that this government has a strong ambition for the Net Zero Economy Authority. We're coming into an election period. Who's to say who will be the next government? I would say to this government: Lock it in. Make sure that the Net Zero Economy Authority is set up to succeed, whoever is sitting in that chair.

These amendments would also ensure that the authority supports communities in renewable energy zones. This really is just so obvious to me. If we have a renewable energy zone determined in an area, this bill should apply to people in that area. It's a really obvious but important amendment. The government like to talk about these renewable energy zones. They talk about them frequently. These are the areas across regional Australia that the Australian Energy Market Operator has identified as renewable-rich areas with the right infrastructure and transmission. There are two of them in my electorate. But residents in my electorate and others like it are not having a REZ explained to them at all. I really can't believe there's not one mention of renewable energy zones in a bill whose objects include 'facilitating the achievement of Australia's greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets' and 'ensuring Australia's regions and workers are supported in relation to, and benefit from, Australia's transition to a net zero emissions economy'. If REZs aren't in the bill, then I ask the government: what do you think their role is in the net zero economy? I ask that with great conviction.

My amendments add a provision which ensures that the minister's directions to the authority must not contradict the objects of the bill. Again, this is really tight housekeeping that future-proofs and protects this bill. It feels like an obvious amendment to me.

The transition to a future powered by clean energy is going to take more than a couple of election cycles. We must ensure that the authority is used for its intended purpose and is not used as a vehicle to pursue political aims. I hope people are listening at home, because we have seen this happen before. I don't want to see that record played over again. Quite frankly, I don't. I want to see this authority set up for the long term and to succeed.

Finally, I want to thank those individuals and organisations that have made such fulsome contributions to the Senate inquiry on this bill. Many of these have informed the amendments that I have put to the parliament today. One of the great joys of being an independent is to be able to look at those submissions really carefully and to engage with the community that I represent and to engage with civil society organisations who are really interested in good policy. So, in particular, I want to thank the RE-Alliance group, the Grattan Institute, the Australian Institute, the Australian Council of Social Service and Next Economy. I urge the government: do your housekeeping. I urge them to support these very sensible and modest amendments.

Patrick Gorman (Perth, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

With regard to the annual work plan, it's the government's view that the Net Zero Economy Authority Bill already has a requirement to publish and table the corporate plan in this parliament every year. That's a requirement related to the authority that sits under the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 and is the appropriate way in which to outline the work of the authority in this place.

With regard to a budget, the government does not support that proposal. We think the normal practice of government agencies to be funded through an annual appropriation bill is the appropriate way to resource this authority. It ensures appropriate parliamentary scrutiny and appropriate scrutiny at Senate estimates hearings, which are happening in the other place right now.

With regard to some of the examples that have been raised around the appropriations given for the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, I think it's worth noting that that's only for the money they invest, not for their operational funding. With regard to operational funding, the budget that has just been delivered by the Treasurer provides $265.9 million over the forwards to ensure the operation of this authority.

With regard to some of the other matters that the member has just raised, I refer to clause 16(1)(b), which talks about the facilitation of public and private sector participation and some of those coordination matters that cut across the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility, the Regional Investment Corporation, the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation, the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation, the Australian Renewable Energy Agency, and Housing Australia, which will do a lot of the work that the member has just outlined she is keen to see done—as am I—in a way that is with and for regional communities across this country, not to them. That is definitely the government's intent, and I think this bill delivers on that.

Helen Haines (Indi, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will put a question to the assistant minister in regard to the work plans and your explanation that there will be corporate plans. My experience with corporate plans in my life prior to arriving here was that the corporate plan does not go to the detail that a work plan does, and I'm curious about how the government will be able to monitor and track the activities of what is a brand-new agency and ensure that the intentions and objects of the bill are actually carried out.

Patrick Gorman (Perth, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The corporate plan will be tabled in the parliament, so how it chooses to deal with the papers as they are tabled will be up to the parliament.

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

The question before the House is that the amendments moved by the honourable member for Indi be agreed to.

Zali Steggall (Warringah, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move amendments (1) to (18) as circulated in my name:

(1) Clause 4, page 3 (line 24), omit "or a gas-fired power station", substitute ", gas-fired power station or other relevant facility or business".

(2) Clause 5, page 8 (after line 11), after the definition of national security information, insert:

net zero emissions economy means an Australian economy where:

(a) Australia's absolute greenhouse gas emissions have been significantly reduced to zero or to a residual level consistent with global efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5℃ above industrial levels in accordance with Articles 2 and 4 of the Paris Agreement; and

(b) any residual Australian greenhouse gas emissions are neutralised by, and continue to be neutralised after, the net zero target date.

net zero target date means the target date set out in paragraph 10(1)(b) of the Climate Change Act 2022 for Australia's net greenhouse gas emissions to reduce to zero.

(3) Clause 6, page 10 (after line 23), after subclause (2), insert:

(2A) An employer is also a closing employer if:

(a) the employer:

(i) is a constitutional corporation; and

(ii) owns (whether alone or jointly) or operates (whether alone or jointly) one or more parts of a facility that is a designated large facility for the purposes of the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007 for a financial year;

whether or not the employer employs employees to perform work at the facility; or

(b) the employer is a constitutional corporation that owns (whether alone or jointly) or operates (whether alone or jointly) one or more parts of a business specified in a determination under subsection (2B).

(2B) The Minister may, on recommendation by the Authority, determine in writing one or more classes of businesses for the purposes of paragraph (2A)(b).

(2C) The Minister must cause a copy of the determination (including as varied) to be published on the Authority's website.

(2D) A determination under subsection (2B) is not a legislative instrument.

(2E) The Authority may, by notifiable instrument, make recommendations for the purposes of subsection (2B).

(4) Clause 6, page 11 (after line 19), after subclause (4), insert:

(4A) An employer is also a dependent employer if the employer (the relevant employer):

(a) is a constitutional corporation; and

(b) has a commercial relationship with:

(i) a closing employer within the meaning of subsection (2A); or

(ii) an associated entity of such a closing employer; and

(c) will, or will be likely to, cease a substantial part of the operations carried on by the relevant employer at the facility or business concerned, or in the same geographic area in which the facility or business concerned is located, as a direct result of the eventual closure of that facility or business.

(5) Clause 7, page 12 (after line 26), after subclause (2), insert:

(2A) A transition employee, of a closing employer within the meaning of subsection 6(2A), is an employee of the closing employer who is employed to perform work at the facility or business concerned.

(6) Clause 7, page 13 (after line 5), at the end of the clause, add:

(5) A transition employee, of a dependent employer within the meaning of subsection 6(4A), is an employee of the dependent employer who is employed to perform work in the operations that will, or will be likely to, cease as mentioned in paragraph 6(4A)(c).

(7) Clause 9, page 13 (line 21), omit "or a gas-fired power station", substitute ", gas-fired power station or other relevant facility or business referred to in subsection 6(2A)".

(8) Clause 9, page 13 (line 26), omit "or a gas-fired power station", substitute ", gas-fired power station or other relevant facility or business referred to in subsection 6(2A)".

(9) Clause 16, page 17 (after line 15), after paragraph (1)(b), insert:

(ba) with the Climate Change Authority and in consultation with industry, communities and the public and private sector—to proactively plan, coordinate and advise on the phasing out of fossil fuels, including their exploration, extraction and export and their use in Australia;

(10) Clause 16, page 18 (lines 3 to 6), omit subclause (2), substitute:

(2) In performing the Authority's functions, the Authority must have regard to the following principles:

(a) the principle of prioritising communities, regions, industries and workers that are or will be:

(i) concerned with manufacturing, installing or maintaining equipment, appliances, vehicles or devices that consume fossil fuels; or

(ii) otherwise significantly affected by Australia's transition to a net zero emissions economy;

(b) the principles of:

(i) economic efficiency; and

(ii) environmental effectiveness; and

(iii) equity; and

(iv) the public interest; and

(v) the impact on households, businesses, workers and communities; and

(vi) an effective global response to climate change; and

(vii) consistency with Australia's foreign policy and trade objectives; and

(viii) complying with Articles 2, 4, 8 and 12 of the Paris Agreement; and

(ix) boosting economic, employment and social benefits, including for rural and regional Australia; and

(x) achieving the safeguard outcome in paragraph 3(2)(d) of the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007;

(c) any other principles that the Authority considers relevant.

This subsection has effect subject to subsections (4) and (5).

(11) Clause 21, page 23 (line 5), omit "5", substitute "7".

(12) Clause 23, page 24 (after line 26), after paragraph (3)(f), insert:

(fa) climate science;

(fb) engineering;

(13) Clause 54, page 40 (line 5), omit "or a gas-fired power station", substitute ", gas-fired power station or other relevant facility or business".

(14) Clause 55, page 42 (line 29), omit "or a gas-fired power station", substitute ", gas-fired power station or other relevant facility or business".

(15) Clause 56, page 43 (line 24), omit "or gas-fired power station", substitute ", gas-fired power station, facility or business".

(16) Clause 56, page 45 (line 2), after "power station", insert ", facility or business".

(17) Clause 57, page 47 (line 11), after "power station", insert ", facility or business".

(18) Clause 57, page 47 (line 25), after "power station", insert ", facility or business".

These amendments, along with many that have been put forward by the crossbench, are seeking to improve this legislation. Earlier this week, I spoke on the Net Zero Economy Authority Bill 2024, and today these amendments are trying to address the issues there are with that bill. As the bill currently stands, it has a narrow and hypertargeted scope that fails to provide the authority with what is necessary to genuinely support a net zero economy transition. This bill restricts the type of employer or worker that is afforded that just transition to support under the act, specifically limited only to those transitioning from coal- and gas-fired power stations.

In stark contrast to the broad objects of this bill, the operating provisions for worker transition are incredibly limited. Time and time again, members of the Labor government came into this place, talking about no worker being left behind. With respect, that is simply not true. The title of this bill is a shameless attempt to greenwash the effect of this bill. For all the rhetoric about leaving no-one behind in the transition and framing this bill as the Net Zero Economy Authority, the government is leaving many workers and industries behind—and regions, as the member for Indi has pointed out through her amendments. It's limited to helping approximately 5,000 workers, ignoring at least 110,000 others from export coal, oil and gas industries and ignoring a further 100,000-plus workers if we considers the mechanics, gas fitters and other geographically dispersed but emissions-intensive industries that will be subject to transition and that could also be supported by this authority. Even members of the government, like the member for Newcastle, identified that the bill will neglect almost 90 per cent of coalmine workers in the Hunter. The Hunter Jobs Alliance highlights that, in that region alone, an additional 2,600 workers between now and 2030 will be affected by coalmine closures, yet they do not get the benefit of a jobs plan or the real powers for the authority in this bill. The bill should be broadened to include workers who are part of emissions-intensive industries. Examples include gas networks or gas supply and manufacturing businesses, and mechanics for fossil-fuel-powered vehicles. Or, at the very least, the bill should include a mechanism to broaden the scope of powers of the authority to include more workers.

It's not only for workers that this bill is too narrow. The bill currently outlines a Net Zero Economy Authority with wide, overarching objectives. It is critical that these functions are not just aspirational but that they are actually achievable and have teeth or powers associated. It's crucial that the authority is mandated to proactively plan, coordinate and advise on the phase-out of fossil fuels, including their exploration and extraction for export as well as domestic use—something the government seems to remain in denial about. It will acknowledge closure of fossil-fuel energy plants, but it will not acknowledge the likely and very real closure of fossil-fuel export industries.

Independence is also an essential to achieve the goals and for the public to have confidence in how we transform our economy. So the independent body and the board of this new authority must be independent and made up of people with the right mix of expertise and experience. In that respect, I note a number of amendments have been made by members on the crossbenches, again seeking to improve this legislation, but these have not been taken up by the government. At the moment, ironically and quite extraordinarily, this bill doesn't require a board member to have climate or engineering experience, and yet it is a body that's said to be delivering a net zero economy. Without even having that kind of experience, it's hard to imagine that this board will in fact be fit for purpose to meet the very broad and aspirational challenge that it has been set. I would ask the government to rethink the approach. It needs to consider amendments that will enhance the recruitment of board members, ensure their independence and avoid captain's picks.

Finally, we still have the issue that there is good greenwashing in the title of this bill by calling it the Net Zero Economy Authority. Ironically, 'net zero' is still not defined, and I've had discussions with the assistant minister in this respect. The difficulty we have is that there are a lot of other industries that come into play, particularly carbon capture and storage. So it is important to start defining net zero to ensure we don't have industries involved that are not really in the purview of this authority.

Patrick Gorman (Perth, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'll start by noting to the member for Warringah that provisions in the bill as it stands in front of us right now are that the Net Zero Economy Authority will be able to create advisory boards, where the board sees fit, for further advice on a range of things that have been mentioned in her contribution just now. When it comes to changes to the principles and adding additional principles to the bill, we believe that the objects of the act are clearly articulated in clause 3 of the bill, including promoting an orderly and positive economic transformation, facilitating the achievement of Australia's greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets and ensuring Australia's regions and workers are supported and benefit from the transition. We believe that's very clearly outlined in the bill as it stands.

With regard to the definition of net zero, we do not support this amendment. The bill currently refers to Australia's greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets and our obligations under the Paris Agreement. The Paris Agreement sets a long-term goal of achieving a balance between 'emissions by sources and sinks of greenhouse gases in the second half of this century'. This is an established and widely accepted characterisation of net zero and, indeed, the one that has been accepted in other bills that have been passed through this House, voted on and voted for by those in the government and those from the crossbenches. We believe that it would create unnecessary confusion if it were to be interpreted in a different way to existing Commonwealth acts, and so we do not support that change.

With regard to the scope of worker supports, I note that, under clause 16(c), the authority will have a broad function to support workers in emissions-intensive industries who are or will be affected by Australia's transition to a net zero emissions economy. The energy industry jobs plan in part 5 of the bill is just one of a number of ways that the authority can do this. I'd also like to note and point out that, for people who are looking to retrain, change their skills, shift from industry to industry, or change their work, this government has already implemented a number of supports, including the work that we've done through Workforce Australia, through new energy apprenticeships and through the comprehensive fee-free TAFE programs that we've outlined.

We also note that, with regard to some of the functions the member has outlined, there are some parts of that work that do appropriately sit with other agencies, such as with the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water. And I've addressed quite comprehensively the government's views on the composition of the board, so I won't add more there.

Zali Steggall (Warringah, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Noting the assistant minister's comments, I want clarification in some aspects. You state that the provision to provide plans or create boards in relation to those other areas is already included in the bill. Could you identify the section of the bill that in fact provides that, because, in relation to jobs plans or employment plans, that is very clearly limited to part 5? Noting earlier comments in relation to the review provision in 12 months, it is limited only to that section. It states 'review into the operation of this part', and it's only that part, which is the operation of gas and coal powered plants. My understanding is that that is very limited, so I have not identified that there are broader powers in the remaining sections of this bill. I would further ask the minister to confirm that currently only approximately 5,000 workers will be covered by the energy industry jobs plan and that in fact over 100,000 coal, oil and gas workers are excluded from that jobs plan.

Patrick Gorman (Perth, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Very briefly, I refer the member to section 16(b), section 16(c), section 16(d) and section 16(e).

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

The question is that the amendments moved by the honourable member for Warringah, amendments (1) to (18), be agreed to.

Zali Steggall (Warringah, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move amendments (1) to (18) on sheet 2, as circulated in my name, together:

(1) Clause 4, page 3 (line 24), omit "or a gas-fired power station", substitute ", gas-fired power station or other relevant facility or business".

(2) Clause 5, page 8 (after line 11), after the definition of national security information, insert:

net zero emissions economy means an Australian economy where:

(a) Australia's absolute greenhouse gas emissions have been significantly reduced to zero or to a residual level consistent with global efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5℃ above industrial levels in accordance with Articles 2 and 4 of the Paris Agreement; and

(b) any residual Australian greenhouse gas emissions are neutralised by, and continue to be neutralised after, the net zero target date.

net zero target date means the target date set out in paragraph 10(1)(b) of the Climate Change Act 2022 for Australia's net greenhouse gas emissions to reduce to zero.

(3) Clause 6, page 10 (after line 23), after subclause (2), insert:

(2A) An employer is also a closing employer if:

(a) the employer:

(i) is a constitutional corporation; and

(ii) owns (whether alone or jointly) or operates (whether alone or jointly) one or more parts of a facility that is a designated large facility for the purposes of the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007 for a financial year;

whether or not the employer employs employees to perform work at the facility; or

(b) the employer is a constitutional corporation that owns (whether alone or jointly) or operates (whether alone or jointly) one or more parts of a business specified in a determination under subsection (2B).

(2B) The Minister may, on recommendation by the Authority, determine in writing one or more classes of businesses for the purposes of paragraph (2A)(b).

(2C) The Minister must cause a copy of the determination (including as varied) to be published on the Authority's website.

(2D) A determination under subsection (2B) is not a legislative instrument.

(2E) The Authority may, by notifiable instrument, make recommendations for the purposes of subsection (2B).

(4) Clause 6, page 11 (after line 19), after subclause (4), insert:

(4A) An employer is also a dependent employer if the employer (the relevant employer):

(a) is a constitutional corporation; and

(b) has a commercial relationship with:

(i) a closing employer within the meaning of subsection (2A); or

(ii) an associated entity of such a closing employer; and

(c) will, or will be likely to, cease a substantial part of the operations carried on by the relevant employer at the facility or business concerned, or in the same geographic area in which the facility or business concerned is located, as a direct result of the eventual closure of that facility or business.

(5) Clause 7, page 12 (after line 26), after subclause (2), insert:

(2A) A transition employee, of a closing employer within the meaning of subsection 6(2A), is an employee of the closing employer who is employed to perform work at the facility or business concerned.

(6) Clause 7, page 13 (after line 5), at the end of the clause, add:

(5) A transition employee, of a dependent employer within the meaning of subsection 6(4A), is an employee of the dependent employer who is employed to perform work in the operations that will, or will be likely to, cease as mentioned in paragraph 6(4A)(c).

(7) Clause 9, page 13 (line 21), omit "or a gas-fired power station", substitute ", gas-fired power station or other relevant facility or business referred to in subsection 6(2A)".

(8) Clause 9, page 13 (line 26), omit "or a gas-fired power station", substitute ", gas-fired power station or other relevant facility or business referred to in subsection 6(2A)".

(9) Clause 16, page 17 (after line 15), after paragraph (1)(b), insert:

(ba) with the Climate Change Authority and in consultation with industry, communities and the public and private sector—to proactively plan, coordinate and advise on the phasing out of fossil fuels, including their exploration, extraction and export and their use in Australia;

(10) Clause 16, page 18 (lines 3 to 6), omit subclause (2), substitute:

(2) In performing the Authority's functions, the Authority must have regard to the following principles:

(a) the principle of prioritising communities, regions, industries and workers that are or will be:

(i) concerned with manufacturing, installing or maintaining equipment, appliances, vehicles or devices that consume fossil fuels; or

(ii) otherwise significantly affected by Australia's transition to a net zero emissions economy;

(b) the principles of:

(i) economic efficiency; and

(ii) environmental effectiveness; and

(iii) equity; and

(iv) the public interest; and

(v) the impact on households, businesses, workers and communities; and

(vi) an effective global response to climate change; and

(vii) consistency with Australia's foreign policy and trade objectives; and

(viii) complying with Articles 2, 4, 8 and 12 of the Paris Agreement; and

(ix) boosting economic, employment and social benefits, including for rural and regional Australia; and

(x) achieving the safeguard outcome in paragraph 3(2)(d) of the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007;

(c) any other principles that the Authority considers relevant.

This subsection has effect subject to subsections (4) and (5).

(11) Clause 21, page 23 (line 5), omit "5", substitute "7".

(12) Clause 23, page 24 (after line 26), after paragraph (3)(f), insert:

(fa) climate science;

(fb) engineering;

(13) Clause 54, page 40 (line 5), omit "or a gas-fired power station", substitute ", gas-fired power station or other relevant facility or business".

(14) Clause 55, page 42 (line 29), omit "or a gas-fired power station", substitute ", gas-fired power station or other relevant facility or business".

(15) Clause 56, page 43 (line 24), omit "or gas-fired power station", substitute ", gas-fired power station, facility or business".

(16) Clause 56, page 45 (line 2), after "power station", insert ", facility or business".

(17) Clause 57, page 47 (line 11), after "power station", insert ", facility or business".

(18) Clause 57, page 47 (line 25), after "power station", insert ", facility or business".

I'm actually disappointed that I need to move these amendments. When we look at the consideration in detail of this bill, where many on the crossbench have attempted to improve the effect and powers of the Net Zero Economy Authority, alleged, under this bill, it's clear that the government is still very limited and very blinkered with regard to which industries and which specific workers it's willing to help.

That's why I moved my amendments. They will amend the name of this bill to what it in fact is: the 'coal and gas-fired worker transition authority' bill. It's necessary for the government to be very clear and not to mislead people and communities as to the very limited extent of support that its bill offers. Coalmining communities, such as those in the Hunter and in other areas around Australia, that work in mines where the product is for export, might be mistaken in thinking that a just transition would be afforded to them under this bill. That's not the case, and that needs to be made clear. This House has not voted to accept amendments moved by many here that would provide a mechanism to do that or, at the very least, a mechanism to ensure it's possible within the powers of the authority to do it—or even that it would be within the terms of review, to broaden the scope and powers of the authority over time. Then it would be in keeping with the alleged name 'Net Zero Economy Authority'.

Instead, we have seen industries, especially those that we know will phase out as a result of the transition to a low-carbon economy, left out. We know that our economy is changing, that it needs to and that it needs to change fast. In fact, we need to put an end to coal and gas. We need no new coal and gas; we need to end those export industries and transition to others. The first step in that is recognising it. The year 2023 was the first where temperatures on land exceeded two degrees above pre-industrial levels. Joel Gergis' quarterly essay named 'Highway to Hell: Climate Change and Australia's Future' outlines a grim scientific account of what we are facing. Transition will, and must, occur, and we need to support our economy, communities and workers in doing so. The International Energy Agency forecasts that the world is decarbonising, that our trading partners are decarbonising and that the demand for our fossil fuels is going to change and decline, so we need to address this and assist those communities. It would be remiss only to pick, narrowly, a few winners—a few communities which deserve the power of the authority and not others. That's why, reluctantly, we need to ensure that this bill is only directed to those who it's actually empowered to assist. It will not impact many others in the fossil fuel industries who will be impacted by the transition to net zero.

We see a lot of greenwashing across a lot of industries,. The use of the term, 'net zero' is a nice phrase. It rings, and makes people reading it think that it's addressing a very specific thing. I know there's a very real reason why the government drafters used that term in the name of this authority, and that's why I've moved these amendments to change it. I think we need to be really clear that a net zero economy is much broader than just coal and gas workers in the fossil fuel energy industry. If we're genuinely going to say that it's a net zero economy, it must be much broader. That's why I have moved these amendments, to ensure that we don't leave anyone behind. I want to make sure that no-one is misled by the title of this bill; that it's in fact very clear and that communities know the importance of the terminology 'net zero'. There's a growing awareness about this, and they know that the use of the term is also associated with much greenwashing. We need to make sure that consistency and climate commitment are attached to the term.

In the absence of broadening the scope of the authority to provide work plans which address the other industries that will be impacted by the net zero transition, it's necessary to call a spade a spade and to say that the operating provisions of this act should be reflected in its name. This is why I have moved these amendments.

Patrick Gorman (Perth, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government does not accept the proposed amendments. Indeed, to accept them would be to mislead about the intent of this bill or the provisions within it. We have just spent almost two hours considering this bill in detail. I have stood here and outlined the broad powers that sit within the Net Zero Economy Authority. If we were to accept this change, which in my view talks down to workers in a range of essential industries for our economy, it would not reflect the bill that is in front of us. It would not reflect the ambitions that the government has for this authority and it would not reflect the expectations of this parliament, who I hope will soon vote for this bill. It would not reflect our ambitions for what that authority needs to go on and do.

I outlined the powers in section 16 and I outlined the hundreds of millions of dollars the government has put in the budget for this authority to do all of that work, so to simply try and divide Australians by saying, 'This is just for a small section of workers,' is completely wrong. The amendment would not reflect the bill as it is on the table right there, and I would urge the member for Warringah—who I know comes and does, as I seek to, raise the standard of political debate—that I don't think that this is an appropriate way to raise the standard of political debate. It narrows the title of the bill and it narrows the title of the authority in a way that actually doesn't reflect the work that it will do. I agree with the Member for Warringah when she says it's time to stand up for integrity and accountability and restore trust in Australian politics. This change would not do that.

I know that the Member for Warringah has done a lot of work when it comes to increasing accountability for those of us elected to parliament and when it comes to integrity in political advertising. In my view, it would be a lie in terms of what this authority does if we were to change it to this name. It's so much bigger in scope. The transformation is so much bigger than the simple title change that's proposed. The government doesn't support it and I don't think anyone in this parliament should.

Zali Steggall (Warringah, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have a question for the assistant minister. If it is the intent of the government to generally have an authority that addresses an entire net zero economy transition—which means going broadly across a lot of areas—could the minister clarify why part 5, Energy Industry Jobs Plan, is limited in section 54 to only those relating to the closure of the whole or part of a coal-fired power station or gas-fired power station, and that is the only requirement to trigger the creation of an energy industry job plan?

Patrick Gorman (Perth, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Part 5 is just one part of the bill. We've already outlined that section of the Energy Industry Jobs Plan will be reviewed in the first 365 days, should this parliament choose to pass the bill. For other matters in terms of why there is a focus on those immediate closures I'd refer the member to the impact analysis that's contained in the explanatory memorandum.

Question negatived.

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

The question is that the bill, as amended, be agreed to.