Ted O'Brien (Fairfax, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Electricity Infrastructure Legislation Amendment Bill 2025, having earlier been referred to the Federation Chamber by way of a programming declaration, being returned to the House immediately, and all debate occurring in this Chamber.

I don't know what sort of protection racket the Labor Party is running here, but, based on the actions to date on the issues reflected in this bill, we have had a deliberate attempt on the part of the responsible minister to avoid scrutiny, and there is no chance that this bill is to be considered uncontroversial. In order for a bill to go from the House to the Federation Chamber as a substitute for debate, it would typically involve both the opposition and the government agreeing to it being passed over to the Federation Chamber. That usually happens when it's not controversial. But the bill that we want to have debated in this House introduces a form of retrospectivity in its application—that is, the Minister for Climate Change and Energy has put forward a piece of legislation which will change the rules of the game. He's done so in the form of the legislation, which should be debated in this chamber, but we now know from the government that they want to shove it under the carpet and send it up to the Federation Chamber so it is not fairly debated. Since when has legislation which has retrospective application been non-controversial? Since when? When has that ever happened? I'm looking squarely at the Labor members who are in this chamber today. I welcome them to name the precedent, of all those bills that had retrospective application, that was so uncontroversial it was sent to the Federation Chamber. But that's what they're trying to do.

Now, the best thing that you can say about the attempt of the Labor Party to move this bill to the Federation Chamber is that it is consistent with the minister's approach to date—to hide from scrutiny when it comes to the issues that are in that bill. The issues in that bill relate to how the government manages offshore wind zones. This is only the latest example in a completely bungled mess which is the result of the incompetence of the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. I think most people who've been following the issues of offshore wind know that Labor has already made a mess of this right across the country.

Regional Australia has already been hit and hurt through a community engagement process on offshore wind which has been completely flawed, with reckless indifference shown to those communities. The government has never come forward with an explanation of the economic merits of offshore wind. But what has been most hurtful is how quickly they have disregarded concerns from regional Australia—the very people who will be most impacted from some of their offshore wind zones. I'm talking about the offshore wind zones off the coast of WA; Victoria; and New South Wales—in the Illawarra and the Hunter. These local communities have raised very fair and reasonable concerns around the economic impact, the social impact and the environmental impact of these zones. On each of these occasions, in each of those zones which I've mentioned, communities have been steamrolled by a minister who has adopted a process of avoiding scrutiny and refusing to have serious questions answered.

This has been the story of offshore wind under the Labor government from the time they came to office. They do not want scrutiny. Community after community with which I have met have come out with examples of very simple questions asked of government for which they do not get an answer. Why is it that the Albanese Labor government is so hell-bent on disrespecting regional communities when it comes to offshore wind?

Now, the bill before the House, which Labor wants to duckshove over to the Senate and ignore scrutiny on again, goes to offshore wind. For those who don't know what this is all about, I will explain. After the act was introduced under the former coalition government, it was the now Labor Minister for Climate Change and Energy who created the regulations which govern how feasibility licences are granted to developers who wish to build offshore wind projects in zones that are declared. The now Labor minister created regulations for how that is managed. This is consistent with everything Labor does in this portfolio—with haste and ideological rigour; to just steamroll ahead—because it set its arbitrary target of 82 per cent renewables in the grid by 2030. The minister went ahead with those regulations and introduced them, not having done his homework. Those regulations have since been proven to be flawed. As the minister was applying those regulations, he was rejecting proposals in these offshore wind zones. Once a proposal was rejected it was out of the game—until the minister was taken to court, and the court found that, in fact, the minister had the power to still grant feasibility licences to those proponents he had rejected.

So now the minister's in big strife. He raced ahead, he introduced those regulations and he was busted; he was caught out. So what did he do? He decided to change the regulations. When did he do that? Did he do that with scrutiny? Did he engage with industry? Did he engage with the coalition? No, he didn't. He did it sneakily instead. On 12 December last year, after parliament had risen, he changed the regulations to make sure that that power no longer existed. The thing is that that change in regulation, because it would have an adverse impact on others, could not be applied retrospectively. So he made a mess in the first place with the regulations, and then he tried to mop up that mess with a change in regulations—and, in mopping it up, he failed because he could not apply it retrospectively. What he really wants to do is change all the rules for the proponents who came before.

So what has he done? Last week he walked into this chamber and introduced the bill that should be debated here today. I'm talking here about the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, by the way, who will never lose a moment in front of that microphone. I've never seen a faster speech than the one he made last week—in and out. No scrutiny did he want—none at all. And now, today, when we have a line-up of speakers on this very legislation—he's not even here! He's in his room. Seriously! There's no scrutiny. They want to pass this off to the Federation Chamber. It is a disgrace! We need to have the debate here in this chamber. We need scrutiny on this legislation. Anything that has retrospective application at least deserves the scrutiny of the parliament. Even the regulations from last year are still yet to be scrutinised by the Senate committee. Thus, I put this motion to the House.

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

Is the motion seconded?

Michael Sukkar (Deakin, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion. Never before has the Minister for Climate Change and Energy been accused of hiding his light under a bushel—and that would be a bit of an understatement. This is a minister who, surprisingly, does not want to debate and speak on his bill that my good friend the member for Fairfax has just outlined. We think it is unacceptable that the Federation Chamber is increasingly being used by this government as a clearing house for bills that are politically difficult for them and, importantly, bills where there is significant opposition to what is being proposed. Here we're talking about a bill that makes retrospective changes. For most members in this House, there are few things that require more care, more debate, more argument and more attention than a retrospective change. Here we have, again, the government insisting on a controversial, important, significant bill that is before this House being sent off to the Federation Chamber.

We move this motion today partly in response to a similar decision that the government took last week, in kicking the Criminal Code Amendment (Hate Crimes) Bill 2025 off to the Federation Chamber against the request of the opposition. Again, today, it's against the request of the opposition. By any definition, whether it's last week's hate crimes bill or the electricity infrastructure legislation, these cannot be described as uncontroversial bills that can be kicked off to the secondary Federation Chamber. As the Practice notes, it's supposed to operate by agreement between the government and the opposition. That's how it has always operated, by the way.

For those members of the Australian public watching today who might be wondering what the arcane debate of a bill being kicked off to the Federation Chamber, the secondary chamber, means, this is a huge departure that has been habitual from this government. In the last parliament, 18 bills were referred off to the Federation Chamber, because our view was, quite rightly, that bills, by definition, should be debated in the main chamber—preferably with an opportunity for members to speak on behalf of their electorates, on behalf of the people who send them to this parliament, and to make their case. Eighteen bills were referred to the Federation Chamber. We're now getting towards nearly 180 bills in this parliament having been sent off to the Federation Chamber, which, again, supports our contention that the Federation Chamber is being used as a clearing house for bills that the government is too embarrassed to debate or which are trouble, otherwise, politically.

So I absolutely second this motion from the member for Fairfax. I suppose there's no surprise that the government want to kick this off to the Federation Chamber with as little scrutiny as possible, because they refuse to tell Australians how much offshore wind will cost or how much more Australians will have to pay in their power bills. They're changing the rules after the fact, which we know just creates uncertainty for anybody affected. They've largely ignored the relevant stakeholders in the industry, which the member for Fairfax outlined.

We know that communities around this country are utterly fearful of the decision-making of this minister and utterly fearful of the decision-making that he has displayed over the last 2½ years. So it's totally understandable that those communities are very nervous when the not-so-camera-shy minister does not want to front up to this chamber to justify or argue for the retrospective changes that are now being kicked off to the Federation Chamber. It would be a shocking precedent if the government continued down this path of sending controversial bills to the Federation Chamber. And that's why I second the motion.

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

The question is that the motion be agreed to. There being more than one voice calling for a division, in accordance with standing order 133 the division is deferred until after the discussion of the matter of public importance. The debate on this item is therefore adjourned until that time.