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

As I rise to speak on the Electricity Infrastructure Legislation Amendment Bill 2025, I do so with a certain amount of frustration for my constituents on the north-west, the west coast and King Island in the great state of Tasmania, a state which you will know, Deputy Speaker Freelander, is renowned for the production of renewable energy. It has done so for the past 100 years. Tasmania is already net zero. It is the only state or territory in the country to have such a status. It is a status that we are very proud of in the great state of Tasmania.

Along with that is our beauty. Tasmania is a beautiful state. Those who have visited my state will attest to that. Those who haven't need to get their backsides down to the great state of Tasmania and take all that in—our rugged coastlines, rainforests, arid farming regions and mountainous areas. It is a beautiful place of which I am profoundly proud. As I look out across my farm, I see the rolling green hills of north-west Tasmania, with the rich arable and volcanic derivative soil, growing potatoes, peas, beans, broccoli, carrots, onions and opium poppies, with black cattle off in the distance. In the far distance is the beautiful Bass Strait and our coastlines, coastlines that we are very proud of.

That leads me into this issue and aligns with this particular amendment, which seeks to put a smear on the face of our beautiful coastlines. In Tasmania, we have already taken the liberty over the last more than 100 years of making ourselves, as a state and as a community, 100 per cent renewable, as I stated at the beginning of my speech. We've done the right thing. We are the only state or territory to have done so. Why, then, do we have to look out our windows at our beautiful coastline and have that blemished by wind towers, some in excess of 280 or 300 metres tall? Why do we have to do that? Why do our shipping lanes, with currently unimpeded access both in and out of our great state, need to be impeded by such structures? As you would know and as you would appreciate, Deputy Speaker Freelander, everything in our state comes by boat, by ship. Very little is flown in and out; it mainly comes by ship into either Burnie or Devonport.

Our port in Burnie, which is Tasmania's largest port, is approximately five million tonnes, including woodchips that go to the Chinese market; minerals that come from our west coast; polymetallics, lead, copper, tin, zinc, silver, manganese, tungsten and many other minerals. These are loaded and shipped out through our Burnie port. Five million tonnes of containerised freight.

If we move to Devonport, the second-largest port in Tasmania, it is 3.7 million tonnes. It is the home of the Spirits. That's where our ferries come in and out of our passenger terminal, come in and out of the great state of Tasmania. These are both great ports, No. 1 and No. 2, in Tasmania. We don't want them impeded by 300-metre wind towers everywhere when we've already done the right thing and gotten ourselves to 100 per cent renewable. We are producing in excess of 10,400 gigawatt hours. That's enough to power one million homes and small businesses. We can do that. What we want to do is to develop the Marinus Link project, which will provide us the ability to trade excess renewable energy with our mainland colleagues who so desperately need it.

The other thing with hydro that people don't understand is that it is a base load energy. When you turn the tap on and the water runs down the hill, gravity does that—it's a great thing in Tasmania; we've got gravity! Heaven forbid, when that happens that energy can be used at any time. That means it is dispatchable and that means it is the sort of energy that the remainder of the country needs.

What we don't want to see is this renewable religion creeping into our great state, creeping along our coastlines and our beautiful outlook. I fear the government is pushing this legislation through so that they can achieve that religious ideology—

Kevin Hogan (Page, National Party, Shadow Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

To further it.

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

to further it—100 per cent! Instead of working collaboratively with industry, instead of working collaboratively with communities—communities need to have a say. It's their backyard. It's their view. Communities need to have a say in this process. My job isn't to say whether we should or shouldn't do something; my job is to represent the views of my electorate and put that to the government, put that to this place, so that my constituents are heard.

It's not my job to say whether something is right or wrong; it's my job to ensure that the process is followed. And in this case, in this particular bill, the process has not been followed. The process has been circumvented. This bill is a shortcut. This bill is being jammed through, and I fear trickery. It doesn't look good. It doesn't bode well for the views of my electorate, those good communities, those good people out there, who just want to have a say on what they're looking at from their homes and their businesses. It's not on. I'm all about looking people in the eye and asking them how they feel. That's something the government hasn't done in this case.

The other issue that we need to talk about, when we start talking about Tasmania, is the ability for Tasmania to grow. Now, in order for any country to grow they need to grow their base load energy production. It unlocks industry and it unlocks potential. It aids in providing businesses with the energy that they need for 24/7 operations. I will use Tasmania as an example. As I said, Tasmania consumes around 10,500 gigawatt hours of energy each year. Around 86 or 86½ per cent of that is through hydro. It comes from 54 hydro dams and 30 power stations. Some have been operating for 110 years. That hydro energy is made up by wind and solar. We've already got that. In order for the wind and solar industries—if you like—to develop and grow, they need access to market.

That's where Project Marinus comes in. That's where the two dual 750-megawatt DC cables that go from my electorate into Victoria come in. It allows the excess renewable energy from the great state of Tasmania, which is 100 per cent renewable, to be exported and sold. It also allows the safeguard that, if we do run low on water, like during a dry year or a drought, we get import energy as well. It goes both ways. It's a wonderful option. We've already got that in Project Marinus.

It was initially a 600-megawatt DC cable, but there's a six-hour cool-off period with that cable before we can reverse polarity, so that's why we've now downgraded that to about 480 megawatts of energy, which is insufficient for our renewable operators to operate in the market. So, if you want to make energy cheaper in the state of Tasmania, then you need to make more units. How do you make more units? You increase the scale. How do you increase the scale in an island state that's not connected? We need those dual 750-megawatt cables that link Tasmania to the mainland. That allows more units to be made cheaper, and we provide reliable, cheap, baseload energy free from offshore wind. We've already got enough on our beautiful state.

However, we're seeing that process being stalled. We want to see Marinus move ahead. We want to see that expedited and moved ahead so industry can move ahead. Out of that 10,400 gigawatt hours of energy, Rio Tinto Alcan in Bell Bay, an aluminium smelter, consumed about 25 to 26 per cent of that entire production. So, you see, 25 per cent is being consumed by one business. That's a quarter. What we're saying is we need to grow that. We need to make more units. We need to make those units cheaper in order to make that reliable and cheap for Tasmanians first, and then, if we've got any excess, we can look after the mainland. We need to look after Tasmania first.

The other thing it'll do is create potential growth for future businesses. If you are a business somewhere, say the south of France, and you were looking for a place to start a business as a reasonable energy consumer, why wouldn't you set up in Tasmania? It's 100 per cent renewable. If Tasmania were its own country, it would be in the top 5 countries in the world to reach 100 per cent renewable, and it's not talked about. It's not spoken about, but we should be singing this from the hilltops. Tasmania is a great state. Tasmania has great potential. We don't need Mr Bowen at all—and I mean that from the bottom of my heart. I don't need him down there with his wind towers, and I particularly don't need him shoving this particular legislation through like the sneaky little minister that he is. We don't need that in Tasmania.

We're upfront, and I'd rather say to my constituents—I'd rather say to my people—'What do you think?' and have them look me in the eye and tell me what their heart tells them. This is their home. Families have lived here for generations, and I want my state protected. I want my constituents listened to. I respect my constituents. I respect them deeply, and all I'm asking is for this government to share that same respect. Show a little bit of contrition, allow this to go to public consultation, listen to people's feedback and follow the due process. It's not a big ask. It's fair, and, if Mr Bowen wants to be fair, then he's going to have to start getting a little more fair dinkum as far as I'm concerned because this bill sucks. This bill stinks; this bill reeks of sneakiness and underhandedness. It's almost evil.

In closing, my advice for Mr Bowen: have a little respect for the people of the north-west, the west coast and King Island in the great state of Tasmania. Think about where they're coming from, think about their position, think about their homes, think about their futures and think about their family, their children and their children's children. Think about that before you go ramming some piece of legislation through here, because, I tell you what, they probably want to do the same to you. Heaven knows it mightn't be a bill.

Mike Freelander (Macarthur, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Please address your comments through the chair.

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

I concur that the Minister for Climate Change and Energy has not used the right process—a terrible process, in fact—for the Electricity Infrastructure Legislation Amendment Bill 2025. But I just want people to consider the burden that Labor's massive renewables-only energy policy is having on regional and rural Australia. Just think about this: Labor's plan includes nearly 60 million solar panels, over 3,500 new wind turbines and 28,000 kilometres of new transmission lines, all in rural and regional areas. We know that the government will need to double the size of the transmission grid just to connect all of this new renewable energy, but, if it's double the size, I suspect it will be double the price and the cost—cost that will be added to families' and businesses' power bills. As we know, these endless kilometres of wind turbines and solar panels and 28,000 kilometres of additional transmission lines are impacting rural and regional areas, and farmers and food production. This is also, sadly, dividing neighbours, dividing friends and dividing communities. That's appalling.

I'm also concerned about reports regarding the fine plastic coming off turbines over time and farmers having to make declarations that will affect their businesses, their markets and their profits in time. I read that farmers who graze livestock under solar panels, wind turbines or other renewable energy infrastructure must now declare it under the national on-farm livestock assurance program. Equally, I understand that this change to the Livestock Production Assurance program was quietly introduced in September. Farmers and producers are rightly very concerned about the potential consequences of this. Meat & Livestock Australia contracts a company called Integrity Systems Company to manage its Livestock Production Assurance process. This process requires farmers to identify any chemical or physical contamination risks to livestock from equipment or infrastructure that may be degrading with age. Solar panels and wind turbines are both cited as examples, because solar panels degrade as they reach end of life, and it will be farmers who bear the cost and the risk of these solar panels and wind turbines as they degrade. I just hope they're actually aware of these risks. We've even recently seen the collapse of a wind turbine.

I also read that the Minister for Climate Change and Energy has appointed Tony Maher as his Energy Infrastructure Commissioner to deliver the government's wind tower and transmission plans in regional and farming areas. Tony Maher, as we know, was the CEO of the National Farmers Federation for many years. I'd say to farmers, 'I hope you're aware that the role of the Energy Infrastructure Commissioner will be to deliver the wind, solar and transmission plans for the government, not for you.' I also wonder whether farmers will be made aware of all the current and future costs and responsibilities they will have, and I wonder whether their obligations under the integrity systems will actually be explained to them at all.

On top of all of this, farmers and small businesses will now have to report their scope 3 emissions. This endless green tape process will cost each one of us, those of us who are farmers. I can see this also, maybe, as a mechanism the Labor government will use to impose methane and additional carbon taxes on the farming sector once they actually announce their 2035 emissions reduction targets, which they haven't done and were supposed to do in February.

Kevin Hogan (Page, National Party, Shadow Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

After the election, I think.

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

Yes. It's farmers that are actually the targets. In the South West of WA, in what is the iconic and beautiful Geographe Bay, Labor has decided to build a wind factory. It has declared a zone of 4,000 square kilometres with massive turbines of nearly 300 metres from base to blade tip—close to 1,000 turbines—with prices and profits for investors underpinned by Labor's Capacity Investment Scheme, which now means the profits of these offshore companies will be underwritten by Australian taxpayers year on year. All of this is off the federal budget.

With the wind factory proposal, what we saw in the South West was a terrible and arrogant and superficial, badly named—misnamed—'public consultation'. It wasn't a consultation. It was typical of the steamrolling of regional communities that we're seeing in other states. Over time, I suspect our communities will be left with this rusting infrastructure in one of the most loved, visited and enjoyed areas in Australia, Geographe Bay. Of all places, Geographe Bay is the wrong place. This is for locals and for domestic and international visitors. This is where the diving, the fishing, the camping and the recreational and commercial fishing and boating happen. No wonder our communities are so strongly opposed to this. They didn't want it, and they are absolutely strong and active and vocal in their opposition, angered and frustrated by the process, a bit like that of this bill, of terribly arrogant and superficial consultation. It wasn't consultation at all. And the representatives at these sessions couldn't even answer basic questions for us about exclusion zones. They told us that the exclusion zones could range from 50 to 500 metres around each turbine and the actual distance would not be known for up to 10 to 12 years. How's that? Over time, our community would be left with rusting and aging massive turbines that need to be replaced on a regular basis or left for taxpayers to deal with. It's one or the other. It's a regular replacement. The Leader of the Opposition came to the electorate and said that we will not proceed. The coalition will not proceed with this project if the coalition wins government. I see that four of the proposed proponents of this project have pulled out of the application process. The deadline for the applications was pushed back twice and ended last month.

But here's something else. I also read that Australia's oldest commercial wind farm, the Chinese-owned Pacific Blue, has said it will not re-power the site at Codrington in Victoria, because it will be too expensive. So here we are. These are supposed to keep going. They're supposed to be endless wind and solar. We have a site that was commissioned—

Kevin Hogan (Page, National Party, Shadow Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Wind is supposed to be free.

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

Right. We have a site that was commissioned in 2001, and it will have to be decommissioned in 2027 because it's too expensive to re-power. Will this be repeated? How often? The company has yet to announce what it will do with the neighbouring Yambuk wind farm, commissioned in 2007. We'll wait and see what happens there. I suspect the same will happen with offshore wind turbines as well.

Labor's renewables-only policy is failing the Australian people and failing business and failing families. The cost of energy is driving businesses absolutely to the wall or to fail or to consider leaving Australia. Labor's energy approach is actually five times the cost that Australians were initially promised. Families and businesses are bearing this cost. It is obscene, in a resource-rich country like Australia. It is absolutely obscene. Energy bills have risen by up to 52 per cent, and more than 27,000 businesses have been forced to close their doors. There's no doubt that soaring energy costs are a major reason for these closures. These high-energy costs apply right throughout your input—at all stages of your input. Every input will involve an energy cost, and that adds to your cost of doing business. Business and industry—ACCI and COSBOA's—concerns are being totally ignored by the government. How on earth can Labor talk about a future made in Australia when business, industry and households don't have affordable, dispatchable power? It's that simple. What is even worse, Labor is putting Australia's energy security into China's hands. Every 20 to 25 years, the wind turbines and solar panels that are made mostly in China will have to be replaced. We will be dependent on China for our energy security, and this will compromise our national security. Anyone in this House knows, and everyone should know, that energy security and national security are actually the same thing. You can't have one without the other.

In WA we are short of power, and in my electorate I have businesses and industries that are paid by AEMO to switch off their processing to feed the power into the grid just to keep the lights and air conditioners on in Perth. I've even seen what I think is power rationing over summer in the south-west in my area, even at my home and on our farm. Synergy, the state government owned energy generator, is supposed to provide between 220 and 250 volts to my house. Over summer it got down to 212 and 214 volts only. I've had Synergy out to have a look at this. We have to have a generator because we can't be sure we're going to have power. You can imagine, with this type of power and generator, then trying to connect the transfer box, what was going on in that space.

We've seen prices increasing in WA significantly. WA-owned power company Synergy recently sent me an email saying they were increasing my small businesses' power bills. It is happening to small businesses right across Western Australia. They are reporting 30 per cent increases in price in some instances. But Synergy offered me a special deal, a subsidised deal where, as a taxpayer, my taxes would be paying a government subsidy. This is the WA government with a hand in each of my pockets at once. This is just another example of the challenges we're facing with energy in Western Australia. As we know in WA, we have a significant amount of gas, and gas is the transition fuel in Western Australia. It is up to the state government and to Synergy to make sure that we have the power we need in our businesses and our households. It should not be that businesses and industries in my electorate have to turn off and stop their production just so that they can keep the lights on in Perth and keep enough power in the system. There is a shortage of power even in Western Australia, of all places.

Kevin Hogan (Page, National Party, Shadow Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Shame!

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

Yes, shame! The greatest concern is when I'm watching the damage that's being done to rural and regional Australia, and when I look at those desperate farmers in Victoria, they've got no choice. They're just going to get steamrolled, and I am so concerned about them. There are also concerns around fire in those same communities, with insurance premiums going up. One thing leads to another, but none of this burden is felt by basically anyone on that side, nor by the government at all. On that basis, I conclude my remarks.

Bert Van Manen (Forde, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a pleasure to rise on the Electricity Infrastructure Legislation Amendment Bill 2025. It's interesting that the government wants to ram these provisions through the House, given that the bill is still under review by a Senate committee. It tells us much about this government's agenda and what they want to do. I know in some brief conversation I had with the member for Spence in the lead-up to my remarks, I noted that once again we see the government waxing lyrical about its green energy plans. As usual, the promise of the government's programs and policies bears little resemblance to the actual delivery and the impact on the ground. But we're used to that now, and the Australian people are increasingly waking up to that reality.

What we find is that Labor refuses to tell Australians how much offshore wind will cost and how much they will have to pay on their power bills. In fact, we have no idea what Labor's grand green scheme of 82 per cent by 2030 is going to cost the Australian people because they refuse to even make an attempt to detail what the true cost will be. As the member for Forrest rightly pointed out, there is a multitude of holes in this policy big enough to drive a Mack truck through.

Now, in this case, Labor is changing the rules after the fact, which creates uncertainty for investors and raises the risk profile for energy projects in Australia. The government has completely ignored industry stakeholders on this bill, rushing through legislation that directly affects major investment decisions without proper consultation. Well, knock me down with a feather. This isn't the first time this government has done this. They have a track record over the past three years of ramming legislation through this place, with a fig leaf of consultation. But, when you actually scratch the surface, there has been no consultation, or maybe at best, to give them a little bit of credit—which they're probably not due, but I'll give them a little bit—they've made some attempt to speak with their favoured groups but not all affected stakeholders. That's their track record. They speak to their favourite groups and not the full range of impacted stakeholders. More importantly what we find in many of the consultation processes is that they get people to sign non-disclosure agreements so you can't even have an open and public debate about the proposals the government is putting forward.

I find that incredibly interesting, because I seem to remember—and the shadow minister at the table might correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm sure he won't—that this current government came to power in 2022 promising an era of openness, transparency and letting the sun shine in.

Kevin Hogan (Page, National Party, Shadow Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yeah, what happened to that?

Bert Van Manen (Forde, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

'What happened to that?' the shadow minister at the table quite rightly asks. Well, it has only been closed doors, non-disclosure agreements and a failure to be transparent with the Australian people. With this piece of legislation we see exactly the same process being rolled out.

Now, it's interesting to note that the government has steamrolled ahead with offshore wind zones without any proper consultation, with a backlash across the country from the affected communities. But, interestingly, major players have also abandoned offshore wind projects due to cost blowouts, regulatory uncertainty and economic unfeasibility. Importantly—and incompetence is a hallmark of this government, so I'm not really that surprised—the government keeps pretending that offshore wind is booming. But the market says otherwise.

So where are we with all of this? Well, we're here today because the Labor government have been so rushed to get more onshore wind that they forgot to finish writing the regulations. As usual, it's about politics and not about the quality of the policy. The government is attempting to push a bill through parliament without scrutiny before the election so the minister—and I'm pleased to see that the minister is in the House for the final bits of this debate—can make announcements during the campaign. They're very good at making announcements, but the follow-up tends to be rather lacking. As I said in a previous contribution in this House today, nine times out of 10, if you listen to what they say, it's complete nonsense in reality. There's a vast gulf between what they say and what they actually do.

As we look at the government's energy plan overall, there's a continuing blank cheque for higher power bills. I remember, as the shadow minister at the table would remember and as my colleague the member for Fadden would remember, the Prime Minister promised 97 times during the election campaign that Australians would get a $275 cut to their power bills. Instead, we are seeing families paying up to $1,000 more under Labor's costly and chaotic energy plans. They tried to buy off the Australian people with a $300 rebate this financial year. The Australian people are a bit smarter than that. We've seen in the last week or so Moody's confirm that it will cost up to $230 billion over the next 10 years and drive up household electricity prices another 25 per cent in that time. This is yet another independent warning that the government's renewables-only approach will hurt Australians, forcing families and businesses to the wall.

I know from talking to businesses in my electorate that the cost impact for them business-wise of energy prices is extraordinary. They are seeing increases in gas prices of more than 50 per cent. I know in general we talk about 34 per cent in the household sector, but in the business sector there have been 50, 100 and 200 per cent increases in gas prices. That is making their ability to keep their doors open and keep hardworking Australians employed increasingly difficult. This government doesn't seem to really care about that. The government must explain why they continue to pursue a plan which hurts everyday Australians.

This government is also fond of talking about the environmental benefits of offshore wind. Interestingly, I came across an article recently by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. It released a final programmatic environmental impact statement on a wind development in the New York Bight. That's quite interesting reading. The report tries to gloss over the impacts a little bit, because it uses such interesting words as 'outlining measures to avoid, minimise, mitigate and monitor impacts'. Well, what are some of the impacts that they're seeking to minimise? They're seeking to minimise biological impacts. On what? Marine mammals, sea turtles, birds and fish. They could suffer due to noise, habitat displacement and changes in migration patterns. Even bats are mentioned in the report. What other impacts are they seeking to minimise? Physical and socioeconomic impacts. The potential effects on water and air quality, commercial and recreational fishing, tourism and scenic resources are all outlined. What else? It says mitigation measures are not enough, although the report outlines numerous avoidance, minimisation, mitigation and monitoring measures. That, to me, tells a completely different story from what those opposite propose of the economic and environmental benefits of wind power in particular but also solar.

We've seen in Queensland the impacts of large-scale commercial solar farms on ridge lines in the Great Dividing Range and pristine bushland and koala habitats. These ridge lines are being bulldozed and massive wind turbines are being built. If a farmer wanted to do exactly the same thing, he would not be allowed to do that, but a wind farm company can come in and do that with very few questions asked. Where is the equivalence? If it was a mining company, they wouldn't be allowed to do that, but a wind farm proponent can. The double standard is just extraordinary.

As I look at all of these things, the amount of money involved and the lack of life span of these projects, and I look at the impact on Australian business and Australian households as a result, all I can think of and describe these projects as is a boondoggle. Merriam-Webster dictionary defines a 'boondoggle' as 'an expensive and wasteful project usually paid for with public money'. I think that covers it! Google says it's 'work or activity that is wasteful or pointless but gives the appearance of having value'. I think that covers it very well. Wikipedia says it's 'a project that is considered a waste of both time and money yet is often continued due to extraneous policy or political motivations'.

That is the best definition of these wind farm projects and this legislation I could find. It's why the coalition stands opposed to this legislation and we stand implacably opposed to the energy policies put forward by this reckless and hopeless government because all its going to do is send Australia into bankruptcy.

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

At the outset, I wish to thank all honourable members for their contributions. I appreciate the opportunity to reflect on the debate on the Electricity Infrastructure Legislation Amendment Bill 2025. The passage of the Electricity Infrastructure Legislation Amendment Bill 2025 provides for the consistent and equal treatment of all applications under the offshore electricity infrastructure licensing scheme. It's necessary to ensure all feasibility licence decisions are underpinned by a fair and competitive scheme for all applicants regardless of which declared area they apply for or when their applications were made. These changes will clarify scheme administration and provide regulatory certainty for feasibility licence applicants as well.

The changes ultimately support the government's climate change and net zero objectives to allow the advancement of world-class offshore renewable energy projects. Offshore wind will provide energy security, reliability and affordability, while also benefiting Australia's national interests including job creation, regional development and investment in coastal communities and economies.

I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned.

House adjourned at 20:47