Darren Chester (Gippsland, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

I take pleasure in joining the debate in relation to the safeguard mechanism. A bit like you, Deputy Speaker Georganas, I feel like we may have been on this ride once or twice before in the last 10 years. I appeal to those opposite and to the media covering this issue to recognise we need a balanced debate on this issue. We need a balanced debate and a balanced approach to ensuring we achieve our energy security and affordability needs and delivering the environmental outcomes that Australians expect.

I'll touch on environmental issues first. I believe the environmental debate we're having in Australia today has become too simplistic and obsessed with emissions and the climate debate, at the expense of the far more complex conversations we should be having about natural resource management and the complex conversations that regional Australians are having every day as they deal with failures to manage the natural environment appropriately. I accept that climate change is a global challenge and we must play our part as a responsible nation, but the other environmental challenges, the real environmental challenges we face every day, demand local action. What I'm talking about is more practical environmental action in this nation. I often refer to this as a policy which reflects the need for more boots and less suits—that's more boots on the ground doing practical environmental work and less suits in the cities making excuses for why things can't be done.

When I make those comments, I immediately think of the invasion of pest animals and plants right throughout our nation, which is particularly prominent in regional areas and particularly prominent on areas of public land being neglected by state governments. My state of Victoria is certainly no exception. What I'm seeing as I travel throughout Gippsland is farmers, landholders and people living in towns who are deeply concerned about the impact of feral animals—feral deer, feral pigs—in their communities. These issues demand greater attention in this place in partnership with the land owners, the state governments. We only need to think about issues such as foot-and-mouth disease and the risk it poses to the agriculture sector if it were to get loose in this country. The vector animal that would spread that disease through this country would be feral pigs, and feral pigs are now showing up in northern Victoria in my electorate of Gippsland.

So the environmental conversation we need to have, as much as it should recognise these global issues of emissions and climate change, has to also take into consideration the practical environmental management needed on the ground in local communities, focusing on pest animals and weed control, the need to improve biodiversity and tackle erosion and riparian vegetation—things like hazard reduction in our forests, where the fuel load has grown enormously even since the 2019-20 bushfires, and critical asset protection around our towns and catchments and other important infrastructure in regional areas.

It also has to include a serious conversation about a world-class and sustainable native timber industry in regions like Victoria, where the industry is under direct threat right now by Premier Daniel Andrews's obsession with closing down all timber harvesting in the native hardwood sector by 2030.

I would argue the true environmentalists in this nation don't reside in Canberra or Sydney or Brisbane or Melbourne. They live in our regional communities. They're the people who are out there every day getting their hands dirty. They're joining Landcare, they're joining Coast Care, they're doing feral animal control, they're planting trees. They're taking action locally to improve our environment, which after all is one of the key considerations of the bill before the House today. Unfortunately, in my state of Victoria the state government has absolutely gutted the workforce on the ground in public land management. We look at Parks Victoria or the department supposedly responsible for practical land management. The workforce on the ground has been absolutely gutted by a government which continues to invest in suits but not enough boots.

So I fear that the bill before us today doesn't get the balance right. The coalition's policy to achieve net zero emissions by 2050 is a responsible and balanced reduction plan that protects our economy. In government, as much as those opposite would like to claim otherwise, we had a record of achieving our international targets, in partnership with industry and other levels of government. We've always said that the approach to this challenge is through technology, not taxes. The coalition in government supported the carbon trading system that rewarded businesses that voluntarily reduced their emissions. In government we committed $22 billion to bring down the cost of lowering emissions, leveraging up to $132 billion in private sector investment and supporting 160,000 jobs. We would argue on this side of the House that we can grow the economy while taking effective action on climate change and undertaking practical environmental measures.

That is not what this government is proposing. They want us to use a carbon trading system to force businesses to buy carbon credits. That is effectively a tax. The bill intends to have 215 businesses that are impacted by the safeguard mechanism reduce their emissions over ten years. That includes 66 coalmines, 36 gas facilities, 26 iron ore mines and 49 manufacturing facilities, nine of which are in my electorate of Gippsland, which includes the coal fields of the Latrobe Valley.

What concerns me greatly—and I think any reasonable member of this place would share my concerns—is that we have a range of cost-of-living pressures right now that are severely impacting people on low and fixed incomes. My concern is that this policy is only going to do more to hurt Australians and drive up the cost of living in our everyday households. I fear that emitters who can't achieve the reduction proposed by this government will purchase their credits at inflated cost. In fact this legislation proposes a $75 carbon tax, three times the Rudd-Gillard carbon tax. Effectively, that will be passed on. When you think of who will pay this price in the end, it will be the people from the communities that every one of us in this place, the 151 electorates, represent. It will be the people in those communities who will pay the price when it's passed on to consumers. Businesses will pass the additional costs straights on to consumers through higher electricity prices, higher food prices and higher prices for building materials. We will see increases in things like the price of steel and concrete, which obviously are critical inputs into the construction of homes. We've just seen significant increases in housing prices right across Australia, particularly in regional Australia, where the cost of dwellings is rising in the order of 30 per cent across many regional communities. That's why people on this side of the House, in the coalition, fear this as a hidden tax. We fear that this is going to drive up cost-of-living pressures on households when they can least afford it.

We believe there are better ways to do our share in reducing global emissions. I recently visited Fortescue Metals in the Pilbara and saw firsthand how that particular company is using technology to drive down its emissions through alternative fuels like hydrogen, or the largest solar farm I've seen. They're investing in renewable energy sources and on track to reach decarbonisation themselves by 2030. This is one of the world's largest producers of iron ore, and it's a clear example of how our policy—the previous government's policy—in relation to technology not taxes was working in the community.

I want to reflect for a moment a little closer to home in my own electorate of Gippsland, and particularly the regional Latrobe Valley, which stands to be the most adversely affected region in Victoria if we get this wrong, and I fear we are already getting this wrong. For more than a hundred years the people of Latrobe Valley have supplied a reliable and affordable secure form of energy to all Victorians and much of south-east Australia. Victorians have depended on that reliable base-load energy from Latrobe Valley, from the brown coal-fired power stations. That community should be enormously proud of the achievements it has delivered and the wealth it has created and helped to create right across Victoria. The member for McEwen would know this very well: my region still bears the scars of the job losses associated with the decision to privatise the SEC more than 30 years ago. The member for McEwen will remember it as well as I do.

He'll have to forgive us and those opposite will have to forgive me if I'm a little sceptical about promises being made on just transition plans. What we have seen already in the Latrobe Valley with the precipitous closure of the Hazelwood power station, the planned closure of Yallourn W power station in 2028 and the announcement only last year that Loy Yang A will shut in 2035—prematurely shut in 2035—is that those plans will leave a gaping hole in energy supply. Yet we are being asked to trust the renewable energy zealots, like the minister for climate change. Minister Bowen will say there's large-scale solar and onshore and offshore wind supported by advances in battery technology that will help to create jobs and keep the lights on at an affordable price. But I fear it's a bit like the captain of the aircraft saying: 'Don't worry. We're going to take off and we'll add the wings to the plane when we get up in the air.'

Don't get me wrong, I believe there's a transformation underway towards more renewables and less fossil fuel-powered energy sources across Australia, and I freely admit I was at the forefront of the National Party design to support a net zero emissions target by 2050. But I reinforce my opening comments that this must be done in a balanced way. It must be done in a way which respects our communities, particularly in places like Latrobe Valley, and still delivers a reliable and affordable system for all Australians. Given our national contribution to global greenhouse gas emissions is 1.3 per cent, we need to recognise that there is no Australian solution to these environmental challenges in isolation. We need to be in a position of economic strength to make our contribution to dealing with these challenges. Keep in mind, if we shut down every one of the coal-fired power stations in Latrobe Valley, total global emissions would go down by 0.11 per cent.

The decision by AGL to bring forward the closure of Loy Yang A will impact, obviously, local jobs and the economy by undermining the reliability of Victoria's power supply. ExxonMobil Australia acknowledged today that they will not be in a position to stabilise the grid if coal-fired power plants break down unexpectedly, like they did last winter. David Berman, ExxonMobil Australia's Commercial Director, said:

The Gippsland Basin Joint Venture will no longer have the capacity to step in as it has in the past to provide whole of market solutions when planned or unplanned maintenance events occur, or when additional gas is required to support the electricity market.

This is my concern, that we are rushing headlong into a weather-dependent form of energy supply without the security to back it up in a major manufacturing state like Victoria. International experiences leave me unconvinced that the planned renewables will offer the same reliable and affordability that Victorians have become used to expecting from Latrobe Valley generators. For example, projects like offshore wind off the Gippsland coast have great potential, but the turbines haven't been built, approval hasn't even been granted and the transmission lines through private property to connect them to the grid remain extremely contentious in my community. Given those challenges, I would be surprised if there were any wind turbines operating in Bass Strait by the end of this decade and contributing to the national grid. You won't be surprised to hear me say as a local MP my first priority is the social and economic prosperity of my community, and that is centred around long-term and sustainable job opportunities.

Our region has a rich and proud history of powering the wealth of Victoria through the delivery of affordable, reliable base-load energy, and my community has a very proud history of practical environmental management as well. They just want to see a balanced approach, and our power industry workers and their families should be proud of their contribution to the nation and should be respected as we make this transition.

Last year the Australian Energy Market Operator released the 2022Integrated system plan for the National Electricity Market. I freely admit I know a lot of people probably haven't read it. I don't blame you. It was a soulless document, written by engineers and economists, with hardly any reference to the people who will be directly impacted by the changes in the electricity generation system. Moving to a system which is 100 per cent weather dependent before transmission lines are even built to link from large-scale renewable projects to the grid is a recipe for higher prices and unreliability for businesses and for blackouts and brownouts for family homes and industry in regional communities.

Finally, I want to make this simple point. People need to be at the heart of these decisions. The AEMO report was disturbingly light on any references to the likely social and economic impacts in directly affected communities like Gippsland and the Latrobe Valley. People need to be at the heart of these decisions—the people who currently work to generate the electricity, who are expected to install the new renewable capacity and the transmission lines, who need reliable and affordable energy at home and in their workplaces and who want to live in an environmentally sustainable system for their children.

If we put aside all our concerns about the capacity to meet our future energy needs from renewable sources alone by 2035, the issues facing Latrobe Valley demand a coordinated, strategic response from all levels of government. I believe there should be a high-level and bipartisan task force appointed to immediately deal with the long-term issues and provide long-term funding to help my community make the transition. As a local MP, my focus is on the region and on ensuring that Gippsland and Latrobe Valley families are not forgotten, when it's our families who have been working to power Victoria's wealth for the past 100 years.

See this speech in context