Henry Pike (Bowman, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I know the member for New England spoke before me, and I think he left about 10 seconds on the clock. I was intrigued as to what he was going to contribute in the final 10 seconds, but that's alright. I'll pick up where he left off. We are, of course, at an interesting hour of the evening to be sitting in the Fed Chamber. We usually would finish up for the night after the grievance debate. But, of course, this being probably the last sitting week before the end of this parliamentary term—who knows, potentially—I think that we're getting a little bit messy with the order of the House, where things are going and which legislation is going to be debated in which chamber. I suppose that's understandable.

That is our primary concern around the Electricity Infrastructure Legislation Amendment Bill 2025, which we're dealing with this evening. The coalition's concern about this bill is that it hasn't been thought through, that there hasn't been consultation with industry, that it's been rushed through in what will presumably be the final sitting fortnight of the term and that it's all to resolve an issue that the minister created earlier in the term through the sloppy development of legislation. Of course, he's trying to fix it with some regulation, but that regulation will only apply moving forward.

What this bill seeks to do is apply those same changes to the Offshore Electricity Infrastructure Act 2021 retrospectively. When you end up in a situation where you are creating legislation to fix problems retrospectively it is not ideal. That's not the way that things should be done in this parliament. It's the way that we occasionally have to do things. Of course, we're all realists and understand that we don't live in a perfect world. But a situation where we've got to come here in the final dying hours of this parliament and try to retrospectively fix something without any consultation, without the proper input and the proper processes that we expect to occur in this place and without the opportunity to go out to those who are experts in the industry to get their perspectives on what these changes mean and what the impacts will be on their industry—in this instance, those who are involved in the development of offshore electricity—leaves us in a very difficult position. How are we supposed to deal with a bill like this without the information that we need in order to properly assess this?

Of course this bill will pass through the lower house. But I think it's worth taking the time this evening to talk about our concerns and to talk about the process that's been less than ideal in the development of this bill and about the opportunity—or lack of opportunity—that we've had to give this the proper assessment that I think all legislation that comes before this house should be able to enjoy.

This bill amends the Offshore Electricity Infrastructure Act 2021, under which offshore wind projects are managed across this country. And we've seen a lot made of offshore wind projects that have failed to get off the ground or perhaps are still in development across this country; they have created controversy within the communities where they have been proposed. This bill amends the act to specify that the regulations made by the minister on 12 December last year—it's interesting, actually, that those regulations came in after parliament had risen for the year. I don't think that's a coincidence; I think there was a deliberate attempt there to try and avoid any parliamentary scrutiny around the regulations. The government are now trying to apply those regulations retrospectively to feasibility licence applications submitted before the regulations were made in December last year.

We, as the coalition, have some serious concerns about what the implications are there. We have serious concerns with the retrospectivity of the bill. As I mentioned, this isn't normal process. It is an unusual thing to occur in legislation in this place—for a bill to be brought in to have retrospective application. We're also concerned about the procedural irregularity of this process. Normally, when we have a bill that has such a major impact upon an industry, we would expect to have an opportunity for the department and then the parliament to actually have proper industry consultation in relation to what it means. We would expect to have a call for submissions on this bill, to have a committee investigate what this means and provide a report to the parliament, and to consider that—and to consider that in the contributions we're making in the debate around this bill. Particularly, that should be doubly so when it has retrospective application.

We know that those regulations are currently being reviewed by a senate standing committee, and it seems unusual that we would press ahead with this bill, which, in effect, will apply those regulations retrospectively, at the same time that somewhere else in this building a senate standing committee is reviewing those regulations and determining whether they are a good outcome for the industry and whether they are something that should be tweaked. Given the minister's first attempts to fast track this bill through the parliament without scrutiny, especially given its retrospective nature, we think it's appropriate that we actually refer this legislation to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee to investigate. I don't think that's a tall order; I think that's entirely appropriate.

Yes, we are reaching a point where an election is going to be called, and there is all sorts of speculation around this building about when that might be. We may not be here again, and that committee may dissolve and have to be reformed and have to look at this bill again when it's reintroducing in a new parliament. But I think that's entirely appropriate. I don't think the government has made the case for why this needs to be pushed through in the final few hours of this parliament and why we're sitting late tonight. Not that I'm complaining. I've got nothing better to do than to debate this bill.

Unfortunately, we are concerned that Labor have completely ignored industry stakeholders on this bill, and they've been rushing through this legislation, which, of course, directly affects major investment decisions, without proper consultation. Those who are engaged in the process of developing proposals for offshore projects know that these are not inexpensive activities. These are not proposals that are made lightly. Certainly, it seems to me that we owe those who are making that sort of investment in this country the opportunity to have their say, to at least have their concerns aired and to have those in this building who have to speak and vote on legislation actually review their feedback. We should consider that feedback and then incorporate it into our discussions and deliberations.

I think this is very much rushed, and it is not the way that legislation should be done. There are instances, of course, when we need to have retrospective legislation. We all appreciate that, and we all appreciate the fact that there need to be times when we do rush through bills. We've had a few opportunities like that in just this term of parliament, when we've rushed things through both houses of parliament in a single morning. We've had times where we've had to come back to the place when we weren't expecting to and vote for bills under guillotine rules, but I don't think this bill falls into that sort of category. I don't think this is the sort of bill where it's something that's totally uncontested and something that needs to be desperately done for a particular reason in terms of timing. I think this bill can wait until the next parliament. I think it can be considered properly by a committee. Certainly, that's what we're keen to do and what we're proposing as the coalition.

Unfortunately, we've only got this bill before us today because Labor was so rushed to get more offshore wind projects that they forgot to finish writing their regulations. This is essentially fixing a mistake that was made earlier in the term. We feel that Labor is attempting to push this bill through the parliament without the appropriate scrutiny before the election so that the minister is free, during the course of the election campaign, to make more announcements in relation to offshore developments.

One major theme of this whole term has been the concern that communities have had across, up and down. When you think about Western Australia and when you think about the proposals that have happened in the Illawarra and—we had the member for Newcastle speaking earlier—when you see the outcry within the Newcastle and Hunter communities at the offshore proposals that have been made there, you think, 'There are a lot of communities up and down the coastline of this country who are concerned about what the prospect of offshore energy developments means for them, means for their amenity and means for the cost of their energy.' I think we owe it to them to take great care in developing legislation and regulation in this area. I think we deserve the opportunity to hear from them and to hear from the proponents. It's a novel suggestion, I know, but I think we owe it to them to take great care before we start proceeding with any changes when it comes to the legislation and the regulations that govern the development of offshore energy in this country. Unfortunately, that's not the way that the federal government is pursuing this at the moment.

The bill will apply new rules to feasibility licence applications. An act of parliament in this regard is only required because the government expects that retrospectivity may adversely affect rights or impose liabilities. Otherwise, regulation would have sufficed. Of course, this is all due to the fact that, in 2024, there was a Federal Court decision, Seadragon Offshore Wind Pty Ltd v Minister for Climate Change and Energy, that found that the minister was wrong to deny an application for a licence when he could have lawfully awarded a licence for a non-overlapping area. This is the crux of the issue that's been created here.

In response to that decision, the minister's regulatory changes, which occurred back on 12 December—a convenient time to introduce regulatory change, when everyone is knocking off for the year—are a disallowable instrument, despite the disallowable instrument currently being under review by the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation for another 12 sitting days. So they've got another 12 sitting days to consider this. Are we going to get another 12 sitting days? I'm not quite sure. I don't think we will somehow. I think that'll take us well and truly away.

The government has brought forward these legislative changes to retrospectively apply those regulatory changes they made in December. Unfortunately, as the consequence of that—and part of this is due to the timing and the nature of this presumably being the last sitting week—the government has had little or no consultation with industry, including the investors who will be impacted by this decision. I had a search this morning when I decided to speak on this bill. I desperately, frantically searched for any comments from any of those investors and stakeholders. No-one has had an opportunity to put their thoughts together. Researching hard, I couldn't find a thing. That's concerning because it means that it hasn't been properly thought through by industry, that the standing committee hasn't had the opportunity to properly review the regulations and that, unfortunately, we're here late to try to push it through.

I think the answer as to why we're doing that is that it gives the Labor government more opportunity and more room to make feasibility licence announcements during the course of the federal election campaign, which is impending. This is of concern to us when we look at the impact that those licence agreements have already had on the communities that have had these sorts of developments proposed. This is of deep concern to us. It's not the way that legislation should be handled. If you look back at the government's record on energy prices and their reckless pursuit of a renewables-only profile for our energy production, you can see the real impact that it's having on Australians. And it's not just the cost of energy. It's not just that we know that the underlying cost of energy has gone up 30 per cent in the course of this term; it's the impact that it's having on these communities.

It's not just offshore projects that are impacting them. We've seen the impact of renewable energy projects, particularly in my home state of Queensland, when we look at some of the environmental damage that has been done in areas like Rockhampton from wind projects. When you look at the former Queensland government's pumped hydro project, think about the forest that would've been destroyed in the process of developing that project. Thankfully, it's now been scrapped. But these are the sorts of impacts that don't make the news, unfortunately—or, if they do, it's very rare.

These are the sorts of impacts that need to be considered. It's not just the economic impact. It's not just the impact on the reliability of the energy system in Australia; of course, that's an issue that's going to come more and more to the fore as we approach the end of this decade. It's the impact that it has on the community and the opportunities for those communities who are being affected to have a proper say over the regulations and the legislation that govern the development of these sorts of projects. I'll leave it at that, but we are deeply concerned about where this is heading.

Jenny Ware (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Electricity Infrastructure Legislation Amendment Bill 2025. We are opposing this bill, on our side. I think we need to start with looking at what this legislation is all about. This legislation is in response to a massive loss that the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Chris Bowen, had in the Federal Court at the end of last year. I say that as a recovering planning, environmental and housing lawyer! In the case of Seadragon Offshore Wind Pty Ltd v Minister for Climate Change and Energy, the Federal Court held at the end of last year that the federal Minister for Climate Change and Energy may lawfully grant a feasibility licence for an offshore wind farm development over a smaller area than applied for by the applicant. So this legislation concerns offshore wind.

About 20 years ago, when I was a partner in a law firm, I had a client who was looking at onshore wind projects down in the state of Victoria. We negotiated and negotiated, and in the end the deal did not go ahead for the simple reason that the economics of onshore wind did not stack up in that particular location.

I have always been absolutely committed to net zero. Those on our side have said—and through our leader, Peter Dutton—that we have absolutely committed to the net zero target by 2050. How we get there is where we disagree with those on the other side. The Minister for Climate Change and Energy and the Prime Minister have completely and utterly stuffed energy policy in this parliament under this Albanese Labor government. We have some ridiculous examples of energy policy. Let me start with the big announcements during the election campaign. We're coming up to the three-year anniversary of the $275 cut to power bills' that we were allegedly all going to get. Instead, most Australians have seen their power bills increase by a thousand dollars. That was the big headline—they were going to reduce; they haven't. Let's look at some of the ridiculous examples of how their energy policy is playing out in practice.

Victoria—your home state, Deputy Speaker McKenzie—because of the decisions by the state government under the former Premier, is now importing gas when it has enough gas to power almost all of Australia. It has said no to gas, which is supported by the federal minister—'No to gas; we don't want gas.' Instead, we're now importing gas into this country at the same time that we are exporting gas to some of our trading partners, such as India. How on earth is that any sort of way to run energy? The dislike of gas has meant that Labor has now moved firmly to committing only to renewable energy and, as our coal-fired power plants are coming to the natural end of their lives, what this government has failed to do is develop any other sensible base-load power. Solar is fine when the sun's shining. Wind is okay in certain circumstances—when the wind is blowing. When it is not, what do we do?

We've relied on coal for years and we are rightly now moving away from the coal of yesteryear, but Labor will not even look at embracing nuclear energy, which has been embraced by all of our other major trading partners. It's been used for years in Europe and in America. In my electorate of Hughes, I do of course have the only nuclear plant in the country, and I'm very proud of the work that's done down at ANSTO. They do work with nuclear medicine and they do a lot of work in nuclear research, and it's certainly not the position of the coalition that we would be in any way expanding that for nuclear power. But I said in my first speech in this place that it seems to me ridiculous that we are not looking at harnessing the nuclear technology and the expertise that we already have in this country and how we can use them to reach net zero.

Nuclear energy is now safe. I have said on many occasions as well that my 15-year-old self that had posters of Midnight Oil and used to wear the 'no nukes' T-shirts would be shuddering at me promoting nuclear in this way. But the nuclear energy of the 21st century is very different to the nuclear energy of the past, and it is well and truly time that we embrace this, because the government's approach on this is, with respect, pig-headed and obstinate. Why is it that Minister Bowen won't even engage in any meaningful discussion on this? I have invited Minister Bowen to come out my electorate of Hughes to have a look at the nuclear facility; he refuses. Why is that? Why bury your head in the sand so much? Why stand there and say that he is a person of science and innovation and then refuse to consider or even go out and visit a plant to learn more about the nuclear industry?

Nuclear power will eventually be in this country. We just need to look at the many contributions that nuclear has made to our country already. Every single person in Australia that has to have any sort of treatment for cancer is availing themself of technology that has been developed through the nuclear medicine facility at ANSTO in my electorate. Thankfully, we have signed up to the AUKUS arrangement for nuclear powered submarines. This will be a big boost to our industry. It's a very important defence relationship, and it reflects the importance that both America and Great Britain have to Australia historically and militarily.

If we say that nuclear can be used in medicine to save lives, and nuclear needs to become part of our defence and our security to protect Australians, why can't nuclear be used to power our homes? That's the question that Minister Bowen absolutely refuses to answer. When I return to wind power, which is the subject of this legislation, I am a proponent of looking at a whole hybrid mix of energy. I think that wind plays a part, and solar—certainly in a country as hot as ours with as much sun as we get—has a very big part to play. But so too does gas and so to does nuclear.

But now, with Labor's offshore wind projects, for example, it has been shown the investors and the proponents of those offshore wind projects have pulled out down in the Illawarra. They've said, 'This is not going to work here.' The local communities down in the Illawarra, which is not too far from my seat of Hughes—local fishermen and local environmentalists—have said it is completely unacceptable that this will happen in our electorate. Minister Bowen has kept saying, 'No, it has to go ahead.' It's not going ahead now, and the communities were right. They were right to stand up to this government and to the minister and say: 'Why are we going to rip up our sea beds? Why are we going to potentially interfere with the whales' migratory patterns? Why are we going to do all of this in the name of supposedly saving the environment? Are we going to destroy the environment to save the environment?' It makes no sense, and Australians are far more sensible than the Prime Minister and the minister for the environment give them credit for.

When I first did some work on onshore wind projects, there were many sites that were identified where the economics did not stack up, and local communities were so opposed to those going on in their community that they fell away. I think that part of the reason that Minister Bowen is so supportive of offshore wind is that onshore wind has failed. Onshore wind has largely failed. There are some parts and some companies that have been able to make it work, but, overall, the approach has not worked.

So I say to the Albanese Labor government, and I say to Minister Bowen: come out to my electorate. Have a look at nuclear. Don't put all of your eggs into the renewables-only basket. It makes no sense. Our energy going forward is absolutely crucial for households, for families, for businesses, for our manufacturing, for our industry. Why won't Labor open their eyes, open their minds and consider nuclear as part of the mix to resolve our energy crisis going forward?

Debate adjourned.

Federation Chamber adjourned at 19:56