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

Australia is currently amidst an energy crisis, the likes of which it has not seen before. Indeed, not only is it on the front page of nearly every newspaper and in every talkback radio, but this energy crisis is being felt in every home across this country and in every business. The economy is getting weaker by the day. And here we are, in the final sitting week of this term of government, and the government brings in only one measure for consideration by the parliament about this energy crisis—only one measure. That measure does nothing to reduce the price of energy for households. That measure does nothing to make energy more affordable for Australian businesses. That measure does nothing to avoid the blackouts which the operator is warning about. The measure on energy that the government has chosen to introduce to the Australian parliament in the final sitting of this government is to mop up the mess of the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. That's why we're here. Think about that for a moment.

We only have to look at the last two weeks to know the damage which is being done, self-inflicted by government, across the economy because of poor energy policy. Australians were promised a $275 reduction in household power bills, but households are paying up to $1,000 more than what they were promised. On average, we have seen around 600 families every single week, since Labor came to office, signing up to hardship arrangements with their energy retailer because these families cannot pay the bills. We have seen 27,000 businesses go insolvent—27,000!—largely because they cannot handle the costs, and one of the biggest costs, we know, has been the increased cost of energy. We are seeing Australia now hollowing out its industrial capability as our manufacturers are either closing their doors or saying they need to because the cost of energy keeps going up and up.

Australia is losing its energy security. Australia is becoming more and more reliant on foreign powers to keep the lights on.

The warnings about blackouts are growing worse by the day. Everyday Australians now have heightened anxiety about not just the price of electricity but the potential for blackouts.

There's been much talk over the last 24 hours about tariffs potentially being slapped on Australian industry from the United States. These same companies need to be competitive. They need energy costs to come down. It's a handbrake on their activity in a world where they must get costs down to remain competitive.

These are the serious issues of the energy crisis Australia is facing, and there is not one serious commentator who isn't estimating it getting worse. I cannot find one commentator, other than the minister, the Prime Minister and some on the Labor benches—no commentator, no serious energy expert or analyst—who is saying that Labor's all-eggs-in-one-basket, renewables-only approach is going to bring prices down.

All of those problems that I've outlined are only going to get worse, because prices will continue to skyrocket on a renewables-only, entirely-weather-dependent system. Labor, as it goes forward in trying to have 82 per cent renewables on the grid by 2030 and nearly 100 per cent thereafter, is effectively closing down an electricity system which has been working, before it has a replacement ready to go. It's only going to get worse.

This context is key to this debate today, because, of all of those issues faced by Australians and the Australian economy, this government has chosen to introduce legislation, the Electricity Infrastructure Legislation Amendment Bill 2025, which addresses none of these things—none of them; not one iota. They've chosen to use the final sitting of the parliament to introduce an amendment to the act which manages offshore wind projects, and that amendment does one thing: it mops up the mess made by the Minister for Climate Change and Energy.

Prior to my words here, we had another debate in this chamber about this very bill, because the Labor Party doesn't want scrutiny on it. Again, this is the only bill in this portfolio area, in this sitting of parliament, and where is the minister? Where is the Minister for Climate Change and Energy? He's not here. He came into this parliament last week and introduced this bill at record speed. He was at that dispatch box on—off. He couldn't have been quicker. Why? He doesn't want scrutiny of this. And, when you look at what this bill does, you can see why. The substance of this bill is to legislate the retrospective application of the regulations that the minister put into place last December. But let's go back a bit because we need to understand offshore wind and how the licensing process has been regulated to understand why this bill needs scrutiny and why, in the absence of scrutiny, it absolutely needs to be opposed.

Firstly, the Albanese government has made it very clear that it wants offshore wind in abundance in this country. At no point has it revealed the economic impact on the Australian people or Australian businesses. At no point has the government come forward with any transparency about the economics of offshore wind. Nevertheless, it has forced, by its own rules, offshore wind, in abundance, into the operator's plan for Australia's future electricity system. 'To hell with the costs,' they think. 'We just want to do it.' Why? Well, they set the arbitrary target of 82 per cent renewables by 2030 and nearly 100 per cent thereafter. They just want it done. So they made the big call: 'We're going to have lots of offshore wind.'

They then identified six zones for potential declaration—one off the coast in WA, two in Victoria, one in Bass Strait and two in New South Wales. The way this government have run the community consultation process on each of those zones has been a disgrace, because they've demonstrated reckless indifference towards those local communities who will be most impacted. Some of these communities didn't even know that a zone was going to be declared until it was.

When you go to places like the Hunter and the Illawarra you hear stories about residents who will have an offshore wind zone, if Labor continues this debacle, right off their own coast. They didn't even know there was a consultation period. Those few who did know there was going to be consultation about these offshore wind zones didn't have their questions answered. We're talking about very intelligent people who know their own area. They had the potential of an offshore wind zone just off their coast. These communities brought forward very serious and reasonable questions on the economic impact, the social impact and the environmental impact on their areas. These questions were left unanswered by the government. In many cases, these communities were begging the minister to turn up and have a conversation with them, to understand the impact on their area. The minister refused.

The minister then called for a community review of this process. He got the Australian Energy Infrastructure Commissioner to run this review. It was very clear that well over 90 per cent of regional communities were dissatisfied with the process. That review was tabled well over 12 months ago. Still, to this day, the minister has taken no action on it. He does not want scrutiny. All of those zones, by the way? The minister has now gone ahead and declared them as offshore wind zones, despite at no point providing transparency or answers to those most impacted.

What follows once a zone is declared is that you have developers who wish to build a specific offshore wind project come forward. Developers come forward, look at a zone—a big geographical area in the ocean—and put forward applications so they can build offshore wind projects in those zones. Like everything the minister has done—with great haste driven by an ideological belief—the regulations that govern how those feasibility applications are treated were done too quickly and without scrutiny and had enormous holes in them. What the minister has ended up doing as these applications come forward, as some applications have been rejected by the minister, is fail to consider the possibility of still granting an licence for an area the applicant may not have bid for.

I'll give a very simple example here. Two applicants come into a zone. One wants a development of one area and another one has an application for another area, but there is some overlap and one has more merit than the other according to assessment. The minister has just rejected that application with lower merit, with no consideration of still granting a licence for another place within that zone. The original regulations should have accounted for that possibility, but they didn't. Why? Because this minister, again, with great haste, just put in the regulations, but he ended up being found out. He was taken to court. The court found that, in that example, the minister actually did have the power to still grant the second applicant a feasibility license, but the minister never did that. The minister's decision was basically that, once you're rejected, you're out of the race. The courts said he wasn't able to do that. In fact, he should have considered using a power that was there to still grant a licence.

Instead of dealing with this front-on, coming clean and saying, 'Okay, we've got an issue here. I could have done this better. This is how we now need to work together,' instead of engaging with this chamber and instead of engaging with industry, the minister decided, without telling the outside world, much less people in this parliament, to change the regulations so that that problem would just go away. When did he do this? Just before Christmas, after parliament rose last year—again avoiding any scrutiny. On 12 December the minister changed the regulations to mop up the mess he had created on how feasibility licences are granted. But then he found out those changes he made to the regulations—again, with haste, without scrutiny and without doing his homework—wouldn't do the job. The problem he really wants to fix is all those people who had put in applications who either had been rejected or he had planned to reject previously. In other words, he wants the change he made to the regulations last December to apply retrospectively, not just in the future but in the past.

To make a retrospective change is a big deal in any area, but it's particularly a big deal when you are dealing with a private sector which has already submitted applications on certain rules of the game by that same government. But that's this minister's plan. I don't deny there may indeed be merit to considering such things, but, in the context of the ongoing lack of scrutiny and the reckless indifference to regional communities and the private sector from this minister, that risk cannot be taken. Today we're talking about a bill, even though a Senate committee is still yet to investigate those exact same changes to the regulations made by the minister in December. In other words, those changes are yet to undergo scrutiny, and so, in the absence of that scrutiny, the minister has come into this chamber and wants to legislate the exact same thing plus retrospectivity.

And what makes this even worse is that this morning the Albanese government has tried to gag debate in this chamber because it does not want scrutiny or transparency, instead it wants to shove this debate off to the secondary chamber, the Federation Chamber. It does so against the Practice, where usually the government and opposition agree that bills which are not controversial get sent to that secondary chamber. Well, this is controversial, and the coalition disagreed with the government's judgement but still that's what they want to do. Why? Consistent with everything done by this minister on offshore wind, this change will be done without scrutiny, because it just mops up yet another failure.

I have to say one of the issues here goes beyond offshore wind. This, again, is a consistent approach we have seen from this minister and from this government right throughout this term where the minister has intervened in the marketplace and, in so doing, has made things worse. Just as the minister has shown reckless indifference to regional communities with respect to offshore wind, so too has he shown disregard for every Australian when it comes to planning premature closure of baseload power stations. It is as a direct consequence of the minister's declaration of an 82 per cent renewables grid by 2030 and the nearly 100 per cent thereafter that the market operator has been forced to plan premature closure of coal plants. Every now and then, when it looks like we're going to have a blackout, people fret because we're running out of energy, and yet the form of 24/7 always-on baseload power that keeps the lights on is being pushed out of the marketplace prematurely due to this minister's instruction.

Over the next 10 years we will have over 12 gigawatts of energy generation coming from coal plants closed ahead of when these coal plant owners have them scheduled to close. So Labor's bringing forward the closure of our baseload power stations, despite the fact this is leading to an increase in prices and heightened risk of blackouts. It is a direct consequence of a constraint placed on the market operator for its system plan by this minister and this Albanese government—a direct intervention for which they do not want scrutiny.

They're saying that they now appreciate that gas might be important. Again, this government has intervened in the gas marketplace, sought not to be under scrutiny and made things worse. This government is suffocating the supply of gas in Australia. We have abundant gas under our feet in Australia. This government is suffocating its supply to the Australian marketplace. It's often gas which sets the price of electricity, and once you limit supply, supply and demand, prices go up. That's what has been happening.

The Albanese government uses taxpayer money to fund legal activists to fight gas projects in the courts. That's how much they're trying to suffocate gas. The approvals process is an absolute debacle. They have not advanced one critical gas infrastructure project. They stripped any money out for CCS. This is a government which is adamantly opposed to Australia using its own gas, and of course that has impacts on our trading partners.

When you have the Japanese, of all people, publicly calling out the sovereign risk of Australia due to the market interventions of the minister for climate change in the Albanese government, you know there's a problem. And there is a problem, because they are jeopardising not just our energy security but the energy security of our key allies and trading partners. So they're killing off coal prematurely; they're suffocating gas. Why? Because they want to put all eggs in one basket of wind and solar.

The problem is investment has stalled on wind and solar under the Albanese government. This is what happens when you intervene so much in the marketplace and heighten sovereign risk. It impacts every sector. And if they're so hell-bent on closing down one system to replace it entirely with renewables, why then make this intervention on offshore wind and send all the wrong signals to the private sector? It doesn't make sense unless you are just mopping up at mistake, which is precisely what this is.

The Albanese government only wants all eggs in one basket—renewables only. Not only is it trying to suffocate gas and close coal prematurely, not only is it stalling the rollout of renewables, but it is also denying Australia the opportunity to look at alternate technologies used the world over, including zero emissions nuclear energy. To think that Australia is the only nation amongst the G20 which is either not using nuclear energy or not moving towards it—it's ridiculous. So every other advanced economy in the world is using nuclear energy today or moving towards it, yet the Albanese government wants nuclear energy to remain illegal in Australia.

The coalition have been very clear with our approach, and it is one of a balanced energy mix. We believe that only a balanced energy mix will deliver cheap, clean and consistent 24/7 electricity. That means renewables, gas and, as coal retires from the system, zero-emission nuclear energy. We have accepted a scenario of increased demand for electricity by up to around 60 per cent between now and 2050 as the more realistic plan put forward by the market operator. But Labor refuse to agree that a balanced energy mix will work even though their approach leaves Australia isolated. There is not one country in the world seeking to do what Labor is attempting. Even though prices go up, lights go out and emissions, by the way, don't even come down, this government wants to double down.

That is why it all comes back to the importance of scrutiny. The bill before the House, the Electricity Infrastructure Legislation Amendment Bill 2025, needs scrutiny. That is why as an opposition we make clear: (1) this bill should not be sent to Federation Chamber for debate; it should be debated here in this chamber; (2) this bill should be referred to a Senate committee, the committee for environment and communications legislation, for review so proper scrutiny of the bill can take place; and (3) given the lack of scrutiny and the long, sorry saga which has led to this point, the coalition will oppose this bill in the House.

I close with these last comments. Australia right now is amidst an energy crisis. We have a government which is hell-bent on putting all eggs in one basket with a renewables-only approach. This is making Australians poorer. Businesses are closing. Our economy will be weaker. We are eroding our energy security. It is only getting worse. It is time that Australia had a pragmatic energy approach and put engineering and economics at the centre. We need a balanced energy mix. That balanced energy mix includes renewables and gas. We shouldn't be closing our coal plants prematurely, but, once they do retire from the grid, they should be replaced with another form of 24/7, always on, base-load power in the form of zero-emission nuclear energy. To the extent that this government continues, it needs to have scrutiny. It needs to answer questions. At the very least when it comes to this week, in this parliament, scrutiny should be applied to the Electricity Infrastructure Legislation Amendment Bill 2025. To do otherwise would be a disgrace, but that is the Albanese government.

Debate adjourned.