Andrew Leigh (Fenner, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Treasury) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On New Year's Day 2020, this city, my beloved home city of Canberra, had the worst air quality in the world. Bushfire smoke had blanketed the city, and what being outdoors did for your lungs was the same as what smoking a pack of cigarettes a day would do. Increased severe weather events had been warned about since Ross Garnaut's work commissioned by the Rudd and Gillard governments. Yet Prime Minister Morrison denied that there was any link between bushfires and climate change. It led to countries around the world shaking their heads at the inaction from the Morrison government on climate change. In 2020, the Climate Change Performance Index put Australia dead last for our climate policies.

We've seen from the Morrison government inaction and denial. The former Prime Malcolm Turnbull has said he puts it down to the 'toxic combination of the fossil fuel lobby, right-wing partisan media, and right-wing sentiment'. He was so outraged by his former party having been captured by the climate denialists that he supported an independent candidate for the New South Wales Upper Hunter by-election over a National Party candidate.

As has been pointed out by economist Nicki Hutley, when other countries put in place their COVID response packages they used that as a chance to accelerate the shift towards renewables. Nicki Hutley's analysis suggests that the average national spending from COVID recovery packages on clean energy was 20 per cent. In Australia, it wasn't 20 per cent. It wasn't two per cent. It wasn't even 0.2 per cent. It was 0.02 per cent. That's how little the Australian government grabbed the opportunity to use COVID fiscal stimulus in order to encourage the shift towards renewables. As Ms Hutley noted, the word 'renewables' didn't even appear in the government's policy documents. The former prime minister, Malcom Turnbull, has noted that there hasn't been new major infrastructure investment in long-term storage projects since he announced Snowy Hydro 2.0 and the Basslink plan. So it's not just this side of the House that is deeply disappointed with the lack of action on climate change; it is former prime minister Malcom Turnbull, who, as history records, lost his job not once but twice because he wanted to drag his party into acting on climate change.

Acting on climate change is what we've seen from sensible conservatives in Britain, Germany and New Zealand, to name just a few countries. But, in Australia, the Liberal and National parties have taken the Trumpist path, choosing not to act. We heard from the resources minister the other day that solar panels do not work at night. This is a bloke who must be surprised every time he has a shower on a day when it's not raining outside. The fact is, battery technologies—

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Member for Mackellar, a point of order?

Jason Falinski (Mackellar, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The point of order relates to the standing orders on relevance. This bill deals with offshore installations, not with Malcolm Turnbull.

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There has been a wide range of debate going on throughout the day that I have heard, and there are amendments moved. You're point of order is quite out of order.

Andrew Leigh (Fenner, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Treasury) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Mackellar. I'm sure he's a little sensitive, as somebody who would love to think of himself as a modern liberal but who votes with the climate change deniers on his side. We've even had the member for Mallee saying that wind farms don't work at night, which I'm sure would be extraordinary news to some of those in the wind industry.

This Smart Energy Council today launched its election campaign, aiming to vote out the Morrison government for their inaction on climate change. They say: 'Scott Morrison claimed credit for programs like the renewable energy target that he tried to axe. He banked emissions reductions from policies that don't work or won't happen.' The Smart Energy Council is aiming to vote out the Morrison government in order not only to stop the blockers of climate action but to get the jobs in renewables. They point out that there are another potential 45,000 jobs in renewables by 2025.

Many of those jobs will be in offshore wind—technology which has been adopted by many other countries around the world, yet it is where Australia has been slow to act. We have one of the longest coastlines in the world, and work by Blue Economy indicates that feasible wind resources are 2,233 gigawatts of offshore wind. That is for an energy market which totals only 55 gigawatts, and it would allow Australia to be a major energy exporter. This is an opportunity which has been taken up by Britain and by many other countries.

An important thing to remember about the benefits of offshore wind is that it can tap into areas that have in the past supported coal-fired power stations that either have closed or are scheduled to close in the future—Gippsland, Latrobe, Newcastle, the Hunter Valley, the Illawarra, Gladstone, Central Queensland—where we've got electricity grid infrastructure and the ports, railways and populations that can benefit from new energy and new industry. There are jobs there as well. Those turbines need maintenance, and there's a network of ships and ports required for that maintenance. There are some 26,000 people who work in the offshore wind industry in Britain, and by 2026 there will be another 70,000 people working in that industry. We also have projects that are ready to go. Green Energy Partners have two projects they're looking to start exploratory work on, off the Illawarra and off Newcastle, and they are aiming to use Port Kembla as a construction hub.

These bills are inadequate. There is meant to be three bills. We are only debating two of them today, as the Deputy Speaker has noted. As Labor has raised and previous Labor speakers have noted, there are concerns over the way in which worker safety is addressed in these bills. The inquiry by the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee into these bills heard concerns that the government hasn't adopted the harmonised national work health and safety laws in this bill. That could potentially lead to confusion, and it poses risks for both employees and employees. It's critical that we get this right. Labor is also concerned that in the merit criteria for licences the bill doesn't require local benefits to be included. We believe that the minister should be required to consider the benefits for local workers, businesses, communities and First Nations people.

We welcome the bills, but they have come very late in an environment in which many other countries have done far more to accelerate the uptake of offshore wind and in which there are more than a dozen offshore wind proposals in Australia. Labor supports clean energy, unlike the Prime Minister, who has compared a large battery to the big prawn or the big banana; unlike the Prime Minister, who has said that electric vehicles will end the weekend; and unlike the Prime Minister, who has presented slideshows and sideshows modelling a so-called plan that is nothing of the sort and that has net zero modelling, net zero legislation and net zero ambition for Australia.

If only Australia had a prime minister who was as ambitious for Australia as he is for himself. If only we had a prime minister who was going to Glasgow with strong targets to create renewables jobs in Australia and turn the nation into a clean-energy superpower.

Brian Mitchell (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

[by video link] It sure is a nice change to see this government come to the table on renewable energy, but isn't the timing just perfect? It is just days out from Glasgow, and we are seeing this government do what it does best, turning up late to the party. And what a party it's turned out to be. We've got the mad bloke with the big hat, the bloke who's asleep most of the time, the woman who doesn't know how she ended up where she is and the grinning cat who disappears when it's convenient to him. What a party it is. We're seeing the member for Hinkler, the anti-renewables minister, back in cabinet in the same week the Prime Minister is flying to Glasgow to tell world leaders he's serious about net zero climate action—fantastic, great move, well done!

We've seen the member for Mallee boldly declare on the ABC that wind farms don't work at night. We shouldn't be surprised. The Prime Minister set the example when he said, three years ago, that promoting electric vehicle use across Australia would end the weekend, and now the same Prime Minister is spruiking net zero and spruiking electric vehicles. And now we have these bills before the House, bills that Labor has been calling on the government to bring forward for so long.

Labor will support the Offshore Electricity Infrastructure Bill 2021 and the two related bills. Of course we will, because Labor has always recognised the immense potential of renewables. We hadn't had to be dragged to it. We know that renewables are better for the environment but that they also offer terrific opportunities for the economy, especially in our regions. That's particularly the case when it comes to offshore electricity. Around the world, more than 35 gigawatts of offshore wind capacity are now in operation. This global output is expected to reach 80 gigawatts by 2030 and 2,000 gigawatts by 2050. For perspective, Australia's entire national energy market is currently around 55 gigawatts. Tapping into this offshore wind farm resource is essential, and we have the capacity to do so. Right now, there are more than a dozen offshore wind proposals in Australia. This promises enormous generation capacity and tens of thousands of jobs in the construction phase. Further, harnessing these proposals would create thousands of ongoing jobs and garner billions of dollars in investments.

I've often spoken in this place of the need to reinvest in Australia's maritime industry. The near death of our maritime sector is a national disgrace. Well, we will need ships and we will need crews to run maintenance workers to and from the turbines, so an added benefit of these bills may well be a much-needed breath of life for our struggling maritime sector.

Most of these offshore wind proposals are alongside traditional energy regions due to their strong connections to the electricity grid and other advantages, so offshore wind would therefore benefit the workers and communities who are otherwise most impacted by the global energy transition. But, due to the absence of a regulatory framework, offshore wind and other offshore renewables are not currently permitted in Australia, so we have billions of dollars on our doorstep, but the government's inaction on renewable energy has been leaving Australians in the lurch. It is regrettable that the government has caused such delays. It had promised that 'the legislative settings and framework aim to be in place and operational by mid-2021.' Well, here we are at the end of 2021 and we're only now debating these bills. And, by the end of last week, one of the three bills necessary for these settings to take effect had not even been listed on the Notice Paper. That was rectified this week, but it's yet another last-minute fix. Half baked and late: pretty on brand for this government.

We will hear a lot of talk. After all, this government specialises in announcements, but once again the delivery just hasn't been there. The fact is this government is unable to grasp the full suite of opportunities offered by stronger climate action because at its heart, down there in its guts, it really doesn't believe it. Every step of progress has been tortured. You won't hear this government talking enthusiastically about batteries, electric vehicles, pumped hydro, offshore wind—all the technologies available for massive deployment right now.

Industry and unions get it. The National Farmers Federation, the Red Meat Advisory Council, the Farmers for Climate Action, the Business Council and the trade unions are all on board. All of these groups know that the economy, industry and jobs are better off with strong and clear climate action policies and not the Mad Hatter's food fight that passes for coalition climate policy. It is only Labor that offers that clarity for investment and for the nation. This government spent eight long years spruiking dishonest scare campaigns that have sought to divide Australians and weaponise climate change. This government spent eight long years spruiking dishonest scare campaigns that have sought to divide Australians and weaponised climate change. It's cost Australia time that can never be recovered, and it's lost the trust of millions of Australians out there in regional Australia who are scared of the change that is coming.

We need to catch up quickly, and investing in offshore renewables puts us in the fast lane. All Australians, Tasmanians in particular, will benefit from long-term investment in offshore renewables, and Tasmania has been leading the way for nearly a century. Around 90 per cent of my state's electricity generation is from renewable resources—about 10 per cent of it is from wind and most of it is from hydroelectric. That delivers baseload and peaking electricity for Tasmania's major industrials, small businesses and households, and, because of a link to the mainland, we're also providing power to mainland customers. So Tasmania should very much be at the forefront of this renewable push.

Modelling from the Business Council of Australia shows we could create $89 billion in new trade by 2040 and create 395,000 jobs through investment in clean energy exports. It's yet another important contribution highlighting the opportunities available to Australia in a decarbonising economy, but only if we seize them. That means broader action now and not squabbling over whether climate change is real, as we continue to see from those opposite.

Every month, let alone year, counts in this next decade. We don't need a pamphlet from the Prime Minister; we need a policy. We don't need slogans; we need actions and outcomes. But we can hardly trust the government with this race. Look how they handled the race to secure enough vaccines. 'It's not a race', 'It's not a competition.'—infamous words from the Prime Minister. Labor, however, understands that, like securing enough vaccines and tackling COVID-19 early, it's important to secure our renewables future and get on the front foot.

There is an inevitability about the world's move to net zero emissions. Australia has the capacity to be at the forefront of this shift. But, despite having an enviable capacity for both fossil fuels and renewables, which positions us as pioneers for this transition, we are hindered by an ineffective and obstinate and, frankly, incompetent government. My colleague, the member for McMahon, the shadow minister, put it bluntly last week. He said:

To neglect the opportunity to become a clean energy export powerhouse would be an unparalleled public policy failure, consigning current and future generations to economic destitution. It would leave Australians picking up the scraps of the greatest economic change since the industrial revolution, at a premium.

Just imagine if we'd missed the industrial revolution and all the benefits that it brought Australia! Well, under this government, that's the risk we face with this next phase. I couldn't agree more with the member for McMahon.

Australia and my electorate of Lyons in particular are full of smart and hardworking people who are capable of leading this transition into an exciting economic future led by renewables. The only thing holding them back is those opposite, who seek to continually undermine public faith in renewable energy simply to score political points and to suit their own personal and political gain.

In summary, Labor welcomes these bills because we called for them. The government promised and then delayed them. And, while we don't seek to hold up the passing of these bills, they would benefit from further amendments. Business needs certainty and swiftness, workers need proper workplace safety frameworks and opportunities for local communities, and workers need to be considered and included. The future is here; we just need to grasp it.

Alicia Payne (Canberra, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Labor is excited about the potential of offshore wind. We know how effective it is. We know how good it is at producing zero emissions power. We know largely because Australia is so late to this party. Offshore wind has been around for years. In Europe 20 years ago, offshore wind farms were a common sight. Seriously, why has it taken so long?

Finally, we're here. We've got some legislation. It's not perfect, but it's here and it's welcome. This legislation, the Offshore Electricity Infrastructure Bill 2021 and the associated bills, will finally allow offshore wind to take off here at home. It will establish a regulatory framework for electricity infrastructure in the Commonwealth offshore area. It will allow the construction, installation, commissioning, operation and maintenance of offshore wind and other electricity infrastructure.

Australians are very aware of the benefits of renewable energy. They know it's good for the country. They know it's good for their bank accounts. That's why Australia has the world's highest uptake of rooftop solar. Although this government is currently trying to take a lot of credit for that, it has nothing to do with its policy.

Australia has the potential to become a solar and wind superpower—a superpower when it comes to renewable energy. We have such incredible untapped potential, and offshore wind is just one example of this. Australia is in the unique position of being both an island and a continent. We are huge and we have a huge coastline, and our coastline isn't just long; it's abundantly windy. That comes with huge potential for offshore wind power.

We know that the conditions of our coasts rival those in the North Sea, where wind farms abound. We have more offshore wind resource than we could ever possibly use ourselves. Recent research by Blue Economy indicates feasible wind resources of 2,233 gigawatts of capacity off Australia's coast. Australia's entire national energy market is around 55 gigawatts. If we utilise even a fraction of that potential, we can export huge amounts of renewable green power to South-East Asia.

Boris Johnson—in many ways a politician very similar to our own Prime Minister—has said that in 10 years time offshore wind will power every home in the UK. That is the potential of this technology. And let's be abundantly clear: everyone knows about this potential. It's the coalition, our government, who have been dragging their feet. There is no word for 'renewable phobia', officially, but that's the malady that afflicts those opposite. It's that malady that is afflicting the jobs opportunities in the towns and industries in this country, because of the government's pathological and ideological opposition to renewables being an important part of our sustainable and more certain energy future.

Luckily, Australia's energy providers are already there. There are now more than 10 projects that have been proposed and have been waiting for the government to get on with the job of allowing them to go ahead. The Star of the South of Gippsland will power 20 per cent of Victoria's energy needs—20 per cent from one project. One single rotation of an offshore wind turbine provides as much power as an entire day of rooftop solar. These turbines turn 15 times a minute. Imagine that: all of Australia's energy problems fixed, if we just got on with it.

Let's not forget that all these projects will create lots of jobs. The opportunities that come from offshore wind are abundant. These turbines need maintenance, ships to service them and people employed at the ports. There are 26,000 people already working in the offshore wind industry in the UK. It's expected that this number will grow, with an extra 70,000 jobs by 2026. To put that in perspective: the total coal industry in Australia currently employs around 52,000 people. That's before we even begin to talk about solar, hydrogen, hydro, pumped hydro and all the other renewable industries that will create an additional massive jobs boom, and, also, the advantage that will come from affordable energy for energy intensive industries.

And where would these jobs be? They'd be in the regions that power Australia right now. They'd be in the Hunter, in Gippsland, in the Illawarra, in Gladstone, in La Trobe and in Central Queensland. The regions that power Australia today will be the regions that power Australia into the future. But you wouldn't know that from the Nationals. You wouldn't know that from the comments by the minister for resources. These are their communities, yet they don't want them to benefit from these huge opportunities. It's clear how beneficial offshore wind will be for Australia. We know it, the community knows it, the private sector knows it, and I'm glad that finally—finally—the government is belatedly acting on this huge opportunity.

The government doesn't have to look far to figure it out. The effectiveness of wind energy can be seen just outside this building—in the capital, in my city of Canberra. It's been two years since the ACT officially became the first city outside Europe to be powered by 100 per cent renewable electricity. The ACT has managed this by offsetting its energy use via renewables, including five wind farms in resource-rich areas of the country: the Hornsdale Wind Farm in South Australia, the Ararat Wind Farm in Victoria and, just up the Federal Highway, in New South Wales, the Crookwell wind farm. Canberrans should be proud of this achievement, and the rest of Australia can draw inspiration from it.

While we welcome the government's long overdue epiphany, Labor do have concerns about certain aspects of these bills—specifically, around the work health and safety framework and licensing regime. It's concerning that the government has failed to adopt a harmonised national WHS law in the bills, instead amending those laws into a regulatory minefield. Without uniform laws, there is a danger of confusion and real risk for both workers and employers. We don't want to end up with a confusing situation where a worker would be subject to three different regulatory regimes: one regime while onshore, a second while on vessel in transit and a third while on the job on an offshore project. It's such a mess that even the department, the regulator and industry stakeholders can't agree on the situation. Further consultation is clearly needed on both the content and coverage of the WHS provisions. Labor has committed to improving and harmonising the WHS regulatory frameworks covering workers in offshore clean energy. We need to get this right.

Labor also calls on the government to include an amendment to ensure that benefits from these new industries flow to the communities where they are located. It is a serious concern that the bill doesn't require local benefits to be included in the merit criteria for licences. The minister of the day should be required to consider benefits for local workers, businesses, communities and First Nations people when considering whether to grant an offshore electricity licence.

While the government's position today is welcome, it can still do so much more. Let's not forget this is the same government that only a few short years ago argued that the sight of a wind farm was 'offensive' and a 'blight on the landscape', and the same government that has said batteries are as useful as the Big Banana and that electric vehicles will 'end the weekend'. The coalition are no climate converts. There has been no road-to-Damascus experience. The government's hostility to the renewable energy revolution sweeping the globe is unchanged. You simply can't believe anything this government says. This government loves the announcement but never follows through with its promises.

Just last week Keith Pitt—the same Keith Pitt who got a promotion in exchange for the government committing to net zero—in question time tried to undermine solar energy, trotting out the Tony-Abbott-era slogan that solar doesn't work at night. The member for Mallee followed this up by claiming wind farms don't work in the dark either. Matt Canavan has floated a mortgage tax to prop up the ailing fossil fuel sector, while claiming that net zero means compulsory veganism. That's the level of foolishness this debate has sunk to inside the government. If that isn't enough, Mr Canavan and George Christensen are also in open rebellion of the Prime Minister and the government's policy, claiming they will campaign against their own party on net zero. So now Australia is facing a climate crisis, a leadership crisis and a government in crisis.

We don't just drink water when it rains. We capture it and store it, and then we turn on a tap when we need it. Labor understands this. Labor understands that you need to invest in storage and battery technology to store the energy harvested in peak periods. That's why Labor has already committed to connecting up to 100,000 homes to 400 community batteries across the country. Labor will also invest $20 billion to modernise Australia's energy grid, to spur the production of cheap, clean renewable energy and keep power prices down. Labor understands the government needs the right policy settings so Australia can reap the rewards of the renewable energy boom.

Instead of preparing for this change, the Morrison government has chosen inaction and, in the process, has scared off international investors. Some 2,700 clean energy jobs are estimated to already have disappeared on Mr Morrison's watch, jobs ripped away from the regional electorates the Nationals claim to champion. This tired and rudderless government has no ideas. It would rather sow fear and division than harness hope and opportunity. Yesterday the Prime Minister and the energy minister stood up in the blue room, with a nice glossy brochure, with their fancy PowerPoint. They stood up and claimed to the Australian people that they had a plan. Yet this is no plan. It was a rehash of their old non-policy. In their own words, this is based on 'existing policies' with net zero written on the front.

How serious is the coalition when it comes to net zero? Clearly, not very, because yesterday they voted against it—every Liberal, every National, all the so-called modern Liberals. Minister Taylor would have us believe that laws are bad. He'd have us believe that this parliament enshrining our commitment to climate action is bad. They won't even make a real commitment. A newsflash to the minister: you are a legislator. That is the role of this parliament, to make laws, and it's time that this government did their job.

The plan released yesterday was not a plan, it was a scam. Australia needs climate action now and we don't have another three years to wait. We need to end the climate wars. We need to move on as a nation. We need to do our part as a global citizen. We need to respect the science. We need to legislate these targets. It is an embarrassment that our Prime Minister will go to Glasgow to represent Australia and won't even take a new target for 2030, which will be the focus of that meeting. We are still under the old Abbott-era targets, and they're not even going to be legislated formal targets. This new plan does not even formally change those 2030 targets. This is so embarrassing, and it is disgraceful that this Prime Minister would try and gaslight the Australian people into believing that this is some sort of action.

The government now claim they are committed to net zero by 2050, which is the absolute bare minimum that countries around the world are committing to. They will not enshrine this in legislation, and they have voted against it several times now in this parliament. It's shameful. It is shameful for the people in Australia who understand that we need climate action now, people who respect science, people in my electorate who contact me constantly about this. There is no issue that Canberrans contact me about more often than climate change, and many of these are young people.

Our young people are feeling that the adults in this parliament have let them down. I remember learning about climate change when I was in primary school. I never would have expected, all these years later, to be standing here in parliament crying out for a government to take action on this existential crisis facing our planet, that a wealthy, developed country like Australia would not feel the need to do its bit on the international stage and that our government, a coalition government, would treat this with such a lack of seriousness that they think they can get away with an announcement and a glossy brochure. They haven't even released modelling behind it. The Treasury seems to be distancing itself from this modelling as well, saying that they haven't been much involved today.

This is such an important and serious issue. The most authoritative body, the IPCC, have called this 'code red'. They have said this is our last chance to stop our world from reaching a level of warming that is beyond repair. We saw the Black Summer bushfires in 2019-20 and I note that they loom large in the memory of all Canberrans and Australians. These events, that unprecedented catastrophe, will become more common in Australia and around the world if we don't take action now. I call on this government to get serious about climate action.

Susan Templeman (Macquarie, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is a debate we should have had some time ago—not just a year ago but probably more like three years ago. I heard the member for North Sydney talk about how timely the legislation was, coming in the same week the Morrison government released its pamphlet on net-zero emissions by 2050. But actually it is years overdue, as was that so-called commitment to net zero. When you have a government that pretends that the need for climate action isn't urgent and that the existing policy settings are enough, what you end up with is lost opportunities, and we had a lost opportunity with this. It's taken so long for this to come to the parliament.

We also had a lost opportunity when the COVID economic response ignored any investment in renewables. By contrast to Australia, the Italian government's national COVID recovery plan allocated a total of 196 billion euros to six key areas, and one of those areas was renewables. The plan included 74.3 billion euros earmarked for a green revolution and ecological transition. I'm not even going to try to translate those figures in euros to Australian dollars, but it's a whole lot more. Proportionally, it's more than we have looked at investing, and that's shameful. It is a terrible lost opportunity. That's what we're talking about here with this legislation, the Offshore Electricity Infrastructure Bill 2021.

Instead of being the renewable energy superpower that we had the potential to be by now, we are way behind. The UK already has the world's largest offshore wind generation capacity, and in October 2020 the UK government announced a target of 40 gigawatts of offshore wind capacity by 2030, up from its original target of 30 gigawatts by 2030. It's good at increasing its targets, particularly its 2030 targets. UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson said to the Conservative Party conference this time last year:

… in ten years' time, offshore wind will be powering every home in the country …

This isn't some socialist government in Scandinavia; this is a Conservative British Prime Minister. He's obviously talking about a country that is not blessed with endless sunshine, but they have seen the opportunity that wind gives. We are really lucky: we have not only sunshine but wind. The global development of offshore wind resources has sped up as part of the broader shift to lower-emissions energy, yet we haven't. The EU is targeting 60 gigawatts, the US 30 gigawatts, South Korea 12 and Japan 10. All of this is expected to drive the addition of 200 gigawatts of offshore generation. I'd like you to keep that 200 gigawatts in mind.

Let's turn to Australia. In Australia we have one of the longest coastlines in the world, thanks to being a pretty big island, which gives us so much potential for offshore wind. We have some of the best wind resources in the world, especially along our southern coast. Conditions along a lot of that coast rival those of the North Sea, an area which we all know has dozens of windfarms already servicing places like Denmark and Germany. We have more offshore wind resources than we could ever possibly use ourselves. Recent research by the Blue Economy CRC indicates that feasible wind resources in Australia could be around 2,233 gigawatts in capacity. That compares to what I mentioned earlier, the 200 gigawatts that the combined global capacity is targeting. So there's a massive opportunity for us. Our energy market is around 55 gigawatts, so we have a whole lot more than Australia needs, and that's why there's so much potential for exporting to South-East Asia. Yet, in spite of that, not a single offshore project has been developed in Australian waters.

But, fortunately, not everybody has had their head in the sand, as the Morrison government and previous Liberal leaders have, on offshore wind. There are 10 projects that are currently being blocked by the government because we haven't had this legislation to allow the construction of offshore wind farms. The combined projects have a generation capacity of more than 25 gigawatts. For the first 10 projects, that's a significant amount. One of the key ones is the Star of the South, in Gippsland, which, when complete, will produce enough energy to cover 20 per cent of Victoria's current energy needs. It's partly because these turbines are so much bigger than the ones along Lake George, which I drive past on my way from the electorate of Macquarie to Canberra. One single turn of an offshore wind turbine can provide as much energy as a whole day's worth of rooftop solar, just because of the size and capacity of it. The turbines can turn 15 times each minute. When you add in floating turbine foundations, which can operate in very deep waters, you open access to a lot more windy, offshore locations.

For us, some of the best resources are located just off the coast of regions that have traditionally been the powerhouses of Australia—Gippsland, Latrobe, Newcastle, the Hunter, Illawarra, Gladstone and Central Queensland. The positives are that these regions already have strong electricity grid infrastructure. They've got the ports and the railways, and they've got the populations for new energy and new industry. Most of these 10 proposals are situated near traditional energy regions because of the strong connections to the electricity grid. Of course, under Labor, we want to see that grid expanded. That rewiring of the grid is so that things that need to be developed away from those traditional areas can be, but these are a great place to start.

It's not just that the energy created will benefit Australia; these communities and their workers will have the most to gain from a new, thriving offshore wind industry. They're going to get the jobs. The turbines need maintenance, and there's a network of ships and ports required for that maintenance. Twenty-six thousand people already work in the offshore wind industry in the United Kingdom, and 70,000 are expected to by 2026. It's a lot, isn't it? Oceanex is looking at spending $31 billion to build 7.5 gigawatts worth of offshore wind and to significantly upgrade ports, so there's investment there that will generate jobs. Green Energy Partners have two projects they're looking to start exploratory work on, off the Illawarra and off Newcastle, and they want to use Port Kembla as a construction hub.

This diversification into these areas is going to allow so many new, high-skilled jobs. Paddy Crumlin, who's the national secretary of the Maritime Union, sees this opportunity to create a huge number of high-skilled jobs in Australia. He notes that we already have 'highly skilled seafarers and offshore oil and gas workers capable of constructing offshore wind projects' and that these projects can:

… provide the opportunity for these workers to transition into the important work of delivering Australia's clean energy future.

Labor has always known that there were jobs in renewables. The Morrison government has denied it, and they've created fear around it. They've created the fear because that is what they do best. We know that there will be jobs. In fact, one of the things that will be needed in these jobs is young workers coming through. Labor is focused, very much, on the apprentices that we will need in this renewable sector. I want to take a moment to outline the plan that we have. It isn't just a plan that says it's a plan; it actually has key steps that allow something to be implemented. There might be a good lesson in this for the government. What we know already around new-energy jobs is that three in four solar companies are already saying they're having difficulty recruiting electricians, for instance, because there are not enough candidates with specific experience. In spite of that, they're still booming, but they need more support to do even better.

What Labor would like to see is a dedicated commitment, and, under a Labor government, that's what we'll have. We'll invest $10 million in a new-energy skills program. There'll be 10,000 new-energy apprenticeships available over four years. We're very specific about how many that will be each year. There will be 2,500 commencements each year from 2022-23. It's not just a hope. It's not a horizon. It's not an ambition. It's a target and a plan to achieve it.

We know that there have been cuts to TAFE which have severely reduced the availability of training pathways for these new skills—particularly those which are not yet in the market at scale. We know that's another area which needs to be addressed so that there are those training capacities; that's where the extra $10 million in a new energy skills program comes in. Those are tangible things that we want to do, and we've laid out those steps for how to achieve that; that's what will be needed to really make the most of the opportunities we have for offshore wind.

These bills are useful: they provide a regulatory framework for electricity infrastructure and they allow the construction, installation, commissioning, operation, maintenance and decommissioning of offshore wind and other electricity infrastructure. But we do need to move fast on this. It is a race; we need to go from it being a piece of legislation to being enacted. In their submission to the Senate, the department responsible for this area noted that there's no provision in the legislation that mandates or sets a time frame for declaring an area. Several submissions from the business community have noted that this whole thing is long overdue and stressed the importance of moving quickly to declare zones and award licences so that they can get on with the job. This government—the Morrison government—has been stopping business from being able to get on with the job in building offshore wind farms. It's time that changed.

In the time I have left, I want to touch on a couple of things that we would like to see added to these bills. We will support these bills; they're necessary and they're overdue. They'll open up the potential for renewable industries. But there are a couple of things that we'd like to see, and one is to amend one of the clauses to better incorporate electricity transmission and exports. The capacity that we have here means that this isn't just renewable energy for us—for Australians. This is for export as well. Australia can be the battery of South-East Asia, especially after we harness this opportunity with offshore wind. We need to make sure that this legislation allows that.

One of the other concerns we have is about work health and safety not being expressed in this bill. The committee that held the inquiry heard substantial evidence that the government has not adopted the harmonised national work health and safety law into the bills. Without harmonisation, we might end up with the situation where a worker would be subject to one regulatory regime onshore, a second one while they're travelling out on a vessel and then a third one while they're working on the offshore renewable project. That's a terrible confusion for workers and it's terrible for employers to have to operate in that environment. Labor's national platform is very clear: we will improve and harmonise the WHS regulatory framework covering workers in offshore clean energy. Australia has had some years to get this right. During the whole feasibility period we can do this going forward and get it right so that employers and workers are not paying the price for it—and it's crucial that we do.

We also need to make sure that the benefits of these offshore wind farms flow through to the onshore communities linked to them—the local businesses and the entire community should see the benefit of it. There should be something that's positive, not just something that's sucking away from a local community. But that doesn't seem to be an issue which has been addressed by the government, and it should be.

We know the views of those opposite, that they think wind farms on land are ugly, that solar doesn't work in the dark and that batteries are only as useful as the Big Banana. But people out in the real world actually know what the opportunity is to have renewable energy. They want renewable energy and that's why people have put solar on their roofs. What we in this place should be doing is everything possible to make it easy for people to access renewable energy. We welcome these bills—they're well overdue and we certainly won't hold them up. But they could do with amendments and I would urge the government to support the changes that we have put forward.

Daniel Mulino (Fraser, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to rise today to speak in favour of the second reading amendment to this bill put by the member for McMahon. The Offshore Electricity Infrastructure Bill 2021 is a bill that is begrudgingly and reluctantly brought to this place by this government, a government that isn't really committed to action on climate change and isn't taking real action on climate change.

What we have seen announced over the course of the last week or so is an approach by this government, a slide deck surrounding a commitment to net zero by 2050, that doesn't set out a plan with enough detail, with enough meat on the bones, to actually achieve anywhere near what it should. The government claim that their approach is technology driven. The way that members of the government speak in this place, it's almost as though they are repeating time and time again phrases that have come out of focus groups. It's almost like we are hearing phrases and incantations that we're likely to hear all the way through to the election, rather than anything with any kind of content behind it.

When they say that its technologically driven, though, what it really lacks is any kind of detail when it comes to actually leading to that technology being developed, being adopted or being scaled. If we look at the slide deck that the government have developed, it is those three elements that are so critical. When you look at the waterfall diagram, which sets out how the government plan to achieve 100 per cent net abatement by 2050, it's a combination of new technology being developed, of that technology being adopted and put into practice and of that technology being scaled. The problem is that all of those three steps are going to require significant spending by the government and significant long-term investment by the government and by private sector entities. When it comes to direct spending by the government, the plan, the slide deck, that the government have developed again is extremely short on detail and almost nothing in the forward estimates in the next four years is new in the 129 slides in that deck. So all of the additional spending by the government that they expect us to believe will lead to this technological revolution is really to be taken on trust.

But what I want to focus on today is the massive investment that will be needed—investment that will be so critical to major infrastructure projects such as offshore wind farms but also that will be so critical to solar, to transmission, to storage and to so many other elements of the electricity grid. And I argue that the government are doing nowhere near enough to lead to the investment being put in place at the scale that is necessary for the kinds of technology that they themselves say in their own plan is going to be needed to achieve the short, medium and long-term targets that they have set out.

Government members keep coming into this place with these slogans like 'It's time for government to get out the way,' and 'We don't want to legislate a solution.' I might note that it is somewhat ironic that we are currently debating a piece of legislation being brought forward by the very government that keep telling us day in and day out that legislation is inappropriate. All of this flies in the face of the fact that the electricity market that we are trying to move towards a low-emission future is actually a creature of regulation. The National Electricity Market, which has been such an incredibly important microeconomic reform for this country over recent decades, was in fact a bipartisan creation across the Hawke, Keating and Howard governments. It was something that was created through massive microeconomic reforms going from the 1980s through to the early, middle and late 1990s. It was something that used to be a bipartisan reform, effective regulation, that led to a very effective, well-regulated national electricity market. Now, instead, we have lost that bipartisanship in this place and what we see are these resorts to hollow slogans.

What we have at the moment is an incredible opportunity and an incredible need. We have a need for massive abatement not just here but also around the world. Coupled with that, we see incredible technological innovation. We also have a financial system which is experiencing a glut of savings in Australia—though superannuation and other means—and globally, and an incredibly sustained period of low interest rates. We also have an incredible abundance of natural renewable resources in Australia, both solar and wind, as has been pointed out by earlier speakers. So all of these combined—the need for abatement, the technological innovation, the financial circumstances and the incredible natural resources that we are endowed with—create this aligning of the stars. Everything is lined up.

What we don't have is this government setting up the appropriate regulatory conditions that provide the right setting for people with capital to invest in projects. I don't want to go through a corporate finance lecture, but I think it is important to step through the very basics of what it is that is in the mind of an investor of large amounts of funds in long-lasting projects when they make a decision as to whether to invest or not. I would argue that the key components of that decision are: firstly, the discounted cash flow of that project, which is really the income that you expect to receive over the long-term; secondly, the rate of return of that project, which is really the discounted cash flow relative to the amount of investment that you think you have to put into the project; and, thirdly, the risk associated with the project. What I'm going to argue is that it's the combination of all of these three that is optimised by the right regulatory environment, and it is the government's inaction and inertia which is holding back investment which should be ready to go—investments that could be justified on the basis of their expected future incomes and their risk and the investment that they require. But investments that aren't getting over the line because of the unnecessary and highly inappropriate regulatory uncertainty.

Let's look first at this notion of discounted cash flow, which is actually just a fancy way of saying what is a project's expected future earnings. And it's necessary to discount those expected earnings back to current dollars in order to make a sensible comparison between those future earnings and what it is you've got to put upfront. As I said before, we are experiencing an incredible opportunity. We have interest rates at a level that is at a multiple-century low. So, we have a glut of global savings, we have huge amounts of capital looking for projects to invest in and we have incredibly low interest rates, so, when it comes to the discounted cash flow component of a decision being made by an entity with large amounts of funds to invest, you don't get better times than we have right now.

Let's look at the other component of what an investor might be thinking about, which is the risk component. There are a number of elements of risk with large projects. One is construction risk. Fortunately, when it comes to renewables projects, whether it be an offshore wind farm or a solar farm, generally the construction risk is relatively manageable—not zero, but generally relatively manageable—and certainly much lower than for many other kinds of infrastructure like rail tunnels or road tunnels through brown field sites or very large cities. So construction risk is quite manageable. Where we find significant risk is regulatory risk. Again, I go back to the notion that it's entirely inappropriate in the context of electricity markets to say that the right approach to facilitate investment is to say: 'Stand back. Get out of the way.' It's a completely absurd way to describe the last 30 years of regulatory reform when it comes to the electricity market.

The 1980s and the 1990s were all about bringing Australia into line with world's best practice when it came to national electricity regulation. It was all about setting up an environment in which long-term investors in transmission networks had the confidence that they were going to receive an appropriate rate of return. It was all about setting up the rules of the market so that generators were bidding in in such a way that they were confident that over the life term of the generation asset that they would get a reasonable rate of return. It was only with those appropriate regulatory settings that private sector entities and indeed public sector entities, but particularly private sector entities, would make the appropriate investments. And that's exactly the situation we find ourselves in now. So rather than stepping back, rather than saying we need less legislation, rather than saying government should get out of the way and certainly rather than continued inertia, what we need at the moment is to modernise the National Electricity Market further.

This is something unfortunately the state government have been having to take the lead on. We look at things like renewable energy zones and other areas of the National Electricity Market that require significant reform, such as the way in which storage is treated. That is something which is going to be absolutely critical if we are going to both encourage investment in large-scale renewable generation and achieve stability in the grid. But those opposite have no interest in that. They have no interest in the hard work of connecting the huge amount of money that is waiting to be invested in renewable projects and actually getting them to occur. What that requires is the hard work and the detailed work of improving our regulatory structures, rather than the uncertainty of a government that doesn't appear to be at all—and isn't in reality—committed to real action on climate change and isn't committed to the hard work of ongoing reform.

Let's look at some of the uncertainty that investors face. What are the market dynamics going to be in the future? As more and more renewable generation comes online, that leads to a degree of uncertainty for investors in terms of what the structure of generation is going to be. What are the bidding strategies of different generators going to be? The market dynamics of the future generation pool are very complex and uncertain, particularly when trying to imagine how that's going to be in 20 years time. Indeed, the overarching structure of the electricity market is something that long-term investors would be very concerned about, and that's one reason why the very belated commitment of this government to net zero, when so many other governments around the world committed to it years ago, is so problematic. So there are all of these issues that would be preying on the minds of long-term investors.

Let's look at different types of assets, to get a sense of what the challenges are in electricity. We've seen over recent years the prices of toll roads and ports go through the roof, and these are, understandably, very attractive assets because the reliability of future flows of income is very steady. But, when it comes to electricity markets, there is considerably more complexity and considerably more uncertainty, and that's why it's so incumbent on government to be continuously improved the regulatory structure so as to be doing all that it can to facilitate investment flows. It's not enough to put, in a slide deck, 'We are going to assume that 40 per cent of future abatement is going to be achieved by a technology road map,' when you have no realistic, no concrete, no detailed steps as to how you're actually going to link big investors, serious international investors, serious Australian investors with very long term perspectives, to risky investments, and facilitate those investments occurring in practice?

That was the kind of bipartisan reform that occurred in the eighties and nineties, and it's tragic that it's failing to occur, as we speak, because this government is all about hollow mantras and not about serious reform. That's why we're seeing, for example, the amount of investment in renewable energy projects dropping from 51 projects worth $10.7 billion in 2018 to 29 projects worth $4.5 billion in 2019. So it's not enough to say in some slide deck, 'Technology's going to get us there,' because scaling things up and actually adopting technology is going to require improving and updating and modernising our regulatory framework.

I want to simply add the next layer, which is that of course it's not just about the jobs in construction and ongoing jobs in all of these renewable projects; it's about the many other jobs that they will create and facilitate in the rest of the economy. My electorate of Fraser has some of the most sophisticated advanced manufacturers in Australia—firms like Bell Environmental, who are producing cutting-edge emergency response vehicles for civilian and military clients. Of course, Victoria is home to a considerable aluminium smelter, which is extremely energy hungry. It is these firms, which employ tens of thousands of people around Australia, that are going to require not just cheap energy but reliable energy. It's firms like these that are going to rely upon ongoing investment in major renewables projects. It's firms like these that are going to rely upon the National Electricity Market being modernised, not being avoided, not being treated like some kind of rhetorical joke.

That's why the Albanese government is doing the serious work. That's why we have the rewiring the nation policy, which is going to invest $20 billion into transmission, which is going to be critically important to underpinning these major offshore wind projects, going into the future. We need serious reform in this place, not hollow mantras.

Zali Steggall (Warringah, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on the Offshore Electricity Infrastructure Bill 2021 and accompanying bills. These bills will introduce a regulatory regime to enable construction, installation, commissioning, operation, maintenance and decommissioning of offshore electricity infrastructure. I will pause to note that in certain circumstances the Morrison government is happy to introduce regulation and legislation; it just likes to pick and choose which ones it does. The framework is long overdue. Energy developers have been waiting for the certainty this will provide. Subject to sensible amendments, these bills should be passed without delay.

The purpose of the framework—and, of course, I support that there be a framework, because it does the job it needs to do in giving certainty—is for the establishment of an offshore wind energy industry in Australia that will also support projects like the Marinus Link and Sun Cable. Offshore wind energy, in particular, has remarkable potential to generate jobs, bolster and diversify energy supply, drive down electricity prices, improve grid reliability and lower greenhouse gas emissions. This would be a win-win-win.

Whilst onshore wind now accounts for only 10 per cent of Australia's power, to date we are lagging so far behind other nations in developing our offshore wind capacity. For example, in the United Kingdom they've been developing their industry since 2007 and they already have over 10 gigawatts of offshore wind capacity installed. Prime Minister Johnson has put expanding the industry at the centre of his 10-point plan for a green industrial revolution. The UK is aiming for 40 gigawatts offshore by 2030. This year Denmark greenlit the biggest offshore project in the world—a 28 billion-euro artificial energy island that will power three million homes. That is visionary and ambitious. Denmark currently generates a remarkable 40 per cent of its electricity from wind power. Australia needs to catch up.

Australia's wind resources are some of the best in the world. We have 60,000 kilometres of coastline and high-capacity factors in excess of 80 per cent in some areas. Much of these resources are situated close to existing transmission lines and port infrastructure, so there is enormous potential to develop a substantial industry. Blue Economy has estimated Australia could support over 2,200 gigawatts of capacity, which is more than our current energy demand and more than enough to make us a renewable energy superpower—which should be our aim. Traditionally wind energy has been expensive, but that is changing; with economies of scale, research and development, and competitive tendering mechanisms, offshore wind may cost less than onshore wind in the future. Developers see this opportunity. There are 12 offshore wind projects with a combined capacity of 25 gigawatts proposed in Australia already. One project off Gippsland, the Star of the South, could be worth $6 billion for their regional economy and could generate 3,000 jobs over its lifetime. This project would also support up to 20 per cent of the state's energy needs—the equivalent of 1.2 million homes. This is a huge benefit.

The irony is that many critics—and I should note the Deputy Prime Minister's comments in question time some days ago—will say we should have offshore wind off for Warringah. The truth is: these developments will provide communities with enormous potential for industrial development. We need to put the right technologies in the right places, where there is need, demand and workforce.

Beyond Zero Emissions's analysis has found that developing offshore wind would revitalise industry in regional hubs. They projected that Newcastle, for example, could attract $28 billion in capital investment and $11 billion in revenue by 2032, and generate 34,000 jobs. Surely this is the type of project that should be embraced, not crazy projects like gas off the coast of Newcastle, like PEP-11. AEMO has indicated that other areas like north-west Tasmania, Gippsland and the Illawarra have the same potential and could support many gigawatts of offshore wind energy each. Developing these resources is essential, as we will need to provide workers in those areas with real alternative employment in sectors other than fossil fuel mining, as mines and power plants retire. Blue economy projects could generate up to 8,000 jobs per annum from 2030 by developing our wind energy resources to the highest level. But more and can and should be done to support the renewable energy sector so that we reach our climate goals. ClimateWorks in its landmark Decarbonisation Futures report has modelled that in a scenario where we would decrease emissions by up to 50 per cent by 2030—and this is very real and very possible—and reach net zero by 2050 we will have to reach 75 per cent renewable by 2030, and sadly there was none of that detail in the government's plan slideshow that was announced yesterday.

We can and should aim higher. We have the potential and we can exceed the targets. It would require policy support and shoring up investment confidence. The Clean Energy Council and the Clean Energy Outlook Confidence Index reported in July that investor confidence has decreased since December 2020. The report put this down to grid connection issues, underinvestment in network capacity and transmission, unhelpful and unpredictable government interventions and future market design uncertainty. Sadly, none of this was addressed by the Morrison government yesterday. As a result, in August, the Clean Energy Council reported that there has been a loss of jobs in this sector due to a corresponding slowdown in financial commitments for renewable projects.

This bill is a good development. It shows what positive government intervention and support can do. But we must look to the government to act in so many other areas. The government, for example, should drop its misguided Kurri Kurri gas plant obsession. This is a $660 million mistake that won't support liability or lower electricity prices. It will barely be used. It will spook investors and should be scrapped. The government should also drop plans for their gas-fired recovery and focus on a clean recovery, developing renewable energy capacity at the centre of any plan.

The Energy Security Board has created considerable uncertainty with energy developers and investors in propagating the options of a post-2025 market design for the National Electricity Market. Of course the federal government has endorsed this, because it's ultimately a coal keeper; this is just a means and design to keep coal in the system. This policy could prolong the life of ageing coal-fired and gas-fired generators. We've heard in the environment and energy committee inquiry into dispatchable generation that coal-fired generator owners like Delta Electricity are very much expecting that that will be its use and that will be its purpose. The final design of the market must have at its centre a decarbonisation goal and cannot unnecessarily give thermal generators a new lease on life. We must understand who will bear the cost and what effect it will have on reliability and affordability. This will ultimately be a tax on the everyday energy user.

We cannot talk about energy without putting it in the context of our greater priorities and what we must do. We absolutely must address the environmental aspects and our need to decarbonise rapidly. In the context of this offshore wind project, we also need to make sure they have adequate environmental safeguards for any offshore development. As drafted, the bill requires a license holder to submit a site management plan to NOPSEMA, but this will not necessarily address all environmental impacts. Instead, licensees just have to comply with the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act and regulations under that act. We know that the EPBC Act is incredibly limited in the sense that it won't encompass all marine impacts. Some matters are just not protected. There is no visibility on what those potential regulations are and therefore does not appear to have any environmental assessment requirement.

In contrast, in the United Kingdom offshore projects are required to undergo a strategic environmental assessment detailing possible environmental impacts and remedies. This is a best practice and holistic way of addressing all impacts. Strategic environmental assessments should be triggered before declaring an area suitable for infrastructure. It would ensure that only appropriate and low-impact areas are chosen and that decisions can be made before any investment timewise or financially for a project proponent. It's an industry where people are thinking about the future of steel production and coalmining in that area and looking to the future. Well, here's an example of something that provides a bridge to the future and an opportunity for manufacturing this industry within Port Kembla and for servicing the industry through the port, creating jobs that are sustainable into the future for people living within that community.

This bill establishes a regulatory framework for electricity infrastructure in the Commonwealth offshore area, beyond the three-nautical-mile limit. The bill allows for the construction, installation, commissioning, operation, maintenance and decommissioning of offshore wind and electricity infrastructure. Around the world, there's more than 35 gigawatts of offshore wind capacity now in operation, and that's expected to rise to 80 gigawatts by 2030. By comparison, Australia's entire market is 55 gigawatts. There are more than a dozen offshore wind proposals in Australia, and these promise enormous capacity and tens of thousands of jobs. Importantly, as I mentioned, these proposals are alongside traditional energy industries and regions.

There are some issues associated with this that need to be dealt with through the regulatory framework, and Labor has been campaigning for many years now for the government to fix those issues with that regulatory framework. It's regrettable that the benefits to be gained have been delayed by the government. The government promised that the legislative settings and frameworks were aimed to be in place and operational by mid-2021, yet once again they didn't deliver.

This bill's major provisions will allow the energy minister to declare a certain area as suitable for offshore electricity infrastructure and to establish a licensing regime for offshore electricity activities. Importantly, it requires developers to pay bonds to cover the estimated cost of decommissioning their infrastructure, which is important given the recent difficulties with the Northern Endeavour oil facility; requires management plans for each project, covering environmental management, work health and safety, infrastructure integrity, emergency management, consultation and financial security; designates the National Offshore Petroleum Titles Administrator, or NOPTA, as the registrar for licensing schemes; designates the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority, or NOPSEMA, as the regulator of offshore electricity infrastructure; and provides both NOPTA and NOPSEMA with compliance and enforcement powers to carry out these functions. So these are important regulatory changes that this bill will bring into operation. The second bill, the Offshore Electricity Infrastructure (Regulatory Levies) Bill 2021, provides for the cost of the new functions of NOPTA and NOPSEMA to be recovered from industry, consistent with current arrangements for offshore oil and gas.

This is a plan that is supported but is long overdue. When you think about it, given the size of the Australian coastline and the fact that we are an island, it's almost criminal that this government hasn't thought of this and introduced these regulatory changes before, because the industry has been there. The demand for this has been there. The innovation is there. The investment is there. The job opportunities are there. The only thing that hasn't been there is the willingness from the Morrison government to implement it.

That's because, as we've seen this week, there is still a group of individuals—predominantly in the National Party but many in the Liberals as well—who don't believe that climate change is real, unfortunately. They don't believe that it is happening, and they have held up the development of what could have been one of the most important and largest renewable energy industries in the world, with unlimited potential for investment, for technology advancement and for job creation. This has been held up by a handful of people who don't believe in climate change and continue to think that we can continue with outdated old polluting industries well into the next 20 or 30 years without having to make any changes. That is so backward and such a missed opportunity not only for our country but, importantly, for the regions, as I mentioned, where these jobs will be created in the future.

Thankfully, the government has finally come to the party but this is not enough. This alone will not help get us to net zero by 2050. What is needed is a fair dinkum commitment to ensuring that there are measures in place, not only to reduce pollution amongst heavy emitters but also to encourage the uptake of electric vehicles, the development of a hydrogen industry in this country, the development of solar farms, the exporting of the energy that is generated through solar and wind farms. The opportunities are boundless. They are boundless yet they are being stifled by this government. Hopefully, these bills and what has been announced this week will make them wake up that it is now time to put aside the climate wars, it is now time to stop weaponising climate change in election campaigns, it is now time to do what is in the interest of our nation for our kids' futures and it is now time to provide opportunities that renewable energy projects like those that will come as a result of this regulation will bring.

Josh Wilson (Fremantle, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for the Environment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am glad for the opportunity to speak in support of these bills, particularly the second reading amendment moved by the member for McMahon. The bills, the legislation, are just one small part of the changes needed to enable development of a sensible renewable energy industry in Australia—in this case, offshore wind power—for the first time. As the member for Kingsford Smith noted, it comes terribly late. Deep into the third term, eight years after this government was first elected, that is characteristic of them, a government that does not seem to have any ability to focus on the future, to respond to big challenges by guiding change in the national interest. This is a government that, as Australians will have watched in dismay, over the last couple of weeks has been dragged in the most chaotic and laughable fashion to the most unconvincing and pathetic form of commitment to net zero by 2050.

There is not any doubt that Australia needs leadership on climate change and energy, that we need relief from the burdens and the costs of climate change. We need the benefits of lower energy costs, reduced pollution and new jobs from the renewable energy and green tech economy. But all we get is an empty blue pamphlet and slogans. Unfortunately, the Morrison-Joyce government still thinks it can take Australians for fools, and that's what we will see more of; we have seen enough already. It thinks it can do nothing under the cover of a glossy pamphlet and a silly slogan, and I think that is really sad. It's a great trust to be on that side of the parliament and to have the steering and the stewardship of this nation, so it is a great shame when that responsibility is treated so shabbily.

These bills are not perfect. Labor is calling on the government to call up some of the shortcomings in the consultation requirements for declaring areas that will host offshore wind in workplace health and safety, harmonised licensing and a few other things but at least it is finally a step forward in making offshore wind possible as a source of renewable energy in Australia.

It is strange that this week on multiple occasions the Deputy Prime Minister has accused the opposition, this side of the House, of being in favour of legislation. It's a strange accusation. We would own up to that. We are in favour of legislation as parliamentarians. In other parts of the world, such as in the United States, we are commonly referred to as 'legislators'. That is actually what people refer to parliamentarians as—legislators. We are in favour of legislation. It is one of the mechanisms of good government, such as it is—or as it isn't, in the case of those opposite. The principal function of this place is to consider, debate, amend and pass or, sometimes, block legislation, and the idea that legislation is somehow an imposition on the Australian people is a joke. In this case it's eight years in, three terms in, that the government has finally bothered to pass legislation that enables Australia to take up offshore wind, which provides greater choice in investment, greater diversity in renewable energy, lower costs, lower emissions and new jobs. I'll say some more about jobs, in particular, later on.

It's bizarre that a country like Australia is yet to dip its toe in the water of offshore wind. Offshore wind provides 35 gigawatts of energy worldwide. It's projected to grow to 80 gigawatts by 2030. The US Biden administration has a target of installing 30 gigawatts alone by 2030. The UK gets 10 per cent of its power from offshore wind. It has the most installed capacity of any nation. It has a target of getting to 40 gigawatts of installed capacity by 2040.

Thanks to the policies of the previous Labor government, Australia is a leader in terms of household solar. When we came to government, in 2007, there were only 12,000 household units in the entire country. By the time we left, I think it was 1.3 or 1.4 million. Now, more than 2.8 million households, or something like one in four households, have household solar. That is thanks to the forward-looking vision and approach of the Labor government and its enabling policies. But right now we don't have a single watt of installed offshore wind capacity.

It is a very reliable and affordable form of renewables. The UK shows that. As an interesting comparison, the strike price of wind power in the UK is half the price set under the power purchase agreement for the new Hinkley C reactor. I say 'new', but it hasn't been delivered yet. It's 10 years past its delivery date. It's four or five times over budget, but, if it ever gets delivered, it will be based on a 35-year power purchase agreement, the strike price of which is twice the price of wind power in the UK market as a whole. It's bizarre and sad that people on the government side, especially the members of the National Party, pour scorn on renewable energy while they are in this unending—and happily, at this stage, unrequited—dewy-eyed love affair with nuclear power, which is the slowest, most expensive and most inflexible form of power generation.

It's an industry that, after 70 years, still hasn't figured out how to store its own highly toxic waste. We have uranium mines in this country that appear incapable of being properly decommissioned, with radioactive material leaking into the environment and no funds left to clean up the mess. At the same time, we have an industry, worldwide, that has still not, after 70 years, delivered a single facility capable of storing high-level nuclear waste. But the Nationals and the Liberals are deeply in love with this redundant technology. Maybe they could have put their atomic crush aside for five minutes over the last eight years and get on with a proven, cheap, renewable, clean energy technology, like offshore wind, which this legislation finally opens the door to.

Australia's wind resources have been assessed as being comparable to the North Sea, which is presently the world's leading offshore wind generation zone. We, Labor, have been pushing for years for the creation of a regulatory framework that would allow offshore wind. It's not surprising that there are already 12 proponents just waiting for this door to be opened. If that doesn't show you not only the potential in offshore wind but also the quite unbelievable obstructive capacity of those opposite, I don't know what does. We hear this bleating all the time about 'technology, not taxes'. Here's a proven technology, which is the largest source of renewable power for a number of countries—particularly in the northern hemisphere—and we haven't even been able to have a go at it, because of the failures of those opposite.

I want to take the opportunity to talk about the jobs potential that Australia could tap into if we had a government that took climate change seriously and if we had a government that was prepared to lean in on renewable energy and clean, low-carbon, net zero technology. To go back to the UK example: currently, offshore wind employs 26,000 people in the UK, and industry estimates predict that will rise to 70,000, on the basis of their present offshore wind targets.

Why is there no jobs transition planning under this government? If you go to the Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources website there's literally nothing on this topic under the heading 'Australia's climate change strategies'. There's not one thing on that website that goes to the questions of job creation, skills development, transferability and all the things that a responsible government would do as we go through the energy transformation that the globe is experiencing and which we are experiencing, and which will only increase and gather pace in time to come. If we look at the government's 2021-2022 budget, the skills and training section is entitled 'Building skills for the future'. There's nothing in it—nothing—about the transition of Australian workers into the new low-carbon jobs of the future.

The Climate Council has estimated that there could be 8,000 jobs in Australia in offshore wind by 2030. We can add that to the estimation by Accentia Technologies in the report commissioned by the Future Battery Industry, Cooperative Research Centre, a CRC which the government funds. That report estimates that by 2030 Australia could develop an energy, metal and battery related industry worth $7.4 billion and employing nearly 35,000 people. That's despite the government; when it signed up to the Paris agreement, it signed up to an obligation which states that countries must take:

… into account the imperatives of a just transition of the workforce and the creation of decent work and quality jobs in accordance with nationally defined development priorities, …

There is no sign of any such work being done by this government—none! We know that there has been no national energy policy and we know that there's no comprehensive climate policy, so maybe it shouldn't come as a shock that there's no energy and climate job strategy. The UK has one and the American jobs plan has six separate initiatives that are directed at new clean energy, electrification, zero-carbon manufacturing and the associated jobs that they will all involve. They look at all the things that we would want; they look at skills gaps and needs; training requirements; and transferability—all those kinds of things.

The UK's Green Jobs Taskforce, as part of Prime Minister Johnson's Ten Point Plan for a Green Industrial Revolution, has put out a report which states:

As we look ahead to publishing our comprehensive net zero strategy and hosting COP26 in the autumn, we must focus on how we invest in the UK's most important asset—our workforce—so that people have the right skills to deliver the net zero transition and thrive in the jobs it will create.

…   …   …

… we are taking the first steps to ensure that green jobs are good quality, that they can be accessed by people of all backgrounds and in all parts of the country, and that workers in sectors and industries undergoing change can reapply their skills and expertise towards this new challenge.

Hear, hear! Imagine that? Imagine a government being sensible enough, responsible enough and forward-looking enough to get on with a bit of serious work like that, to prepare young Australians and existing workers for the change that's happening? But not under this government.

The UK approach is focused on building pathways into the new energy sector. They have a Green Careers Launchpad and they're doing what we would expect: collaborative work between industry, unions, government itself and the education and training sector to identify skill needs and gaps to assess transferable skills. In terms of the potential for workers to transition and draw on transferable skills, I'll point out that the World Economic Forum has identified that of the top 10 skill sets required in the net zero carbon economy only three are industry specific. So the potential to achieve that kind of transferability and to support that is pretty significant.

In relation to offshore wind: some of these skills include asset and project management, and engineering and technical skills. These cover disciplines like mechanical and electrical; control instrumentation; and blade and turbine technicians. There's the full range of scientific qualifications: marine biology, geophysics, hydrology and oceanography, not to mention a range of maritime and seafaring roles. Australia has a fantastic offshore workforce as it stands—a maritime and offshore resource workforce that's well-suited and should be adapted to these kinds of opportunities as they come on stream.

As we pass these bills we'll finally open the way for Australia to leverage our enormous advantages when it comes to offshore wind. We should have, but we don't have, a framework in place to make sure that young Australians are geared up for the jobs of the future. We have no framework to support workers who want to move into these industries. In fact, vocational training has gone backwards under this government. After eight years and three terms, having tripled government debt and having put $100 billion of new spending on the tick, there are 150,000 fewer apprenticeships today than when Labor was in government. We know one of the greatest opportunities for job creation is the net zero economy, which includes not only offshore wind but also large-scale and household solar, hydropower, geothermal and wave energy, hydrogen technology and the full suite of activities within the battery industry, from energy mineral development to manufacture and system design. That's why we've announced the New Energy Apprenticeships program, to ensure that Australians, especially young Australians, take these opportunities. That's why we've committed $100 million to create 10,000 New Energy Apprenticeships over four years, starting in 2022-23. That's why we've announced a Buy Australia policy that will further support new Australian enterprises engaged in the clean energy transformation.

Australians watching this debate will wonder why it has taken us so long, and the answer is pretty simple: because when you have a government that only sees climate change as the altar on which to commit internal sacrifices of whoever they want to get rid of next, you're not going to get sensible policy, and that is a great shame for this country.

Ed Husic (Chifley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Industry and Innovation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Labor will support this bill for a very simple reason: because we have been arguing for it. It makes total sense that when you consider where Australia is positioned—when you consider the potential energy generation through this initiative; when, as was reflected on by the member for Fremantle, you look at a comparable site in terms of the North Sea, which is considered the largest geographic source of wind energy, and we can compare to that quite favourably; and when you look at what is happening in terms of generation internationally. Internationally, at the moment, there is approximately 35 gigawatts of offshore wind capacity that's currently in operation. But you can expect that within the next 10 years to jump up to 80 gigawatts and by 2050 will go to 2,000 gigawatts. So, (1) internationally, people have recognised the opportunity that exists; (2) in Australia we know that we are in a really good position; (3) if you compare in relative terms what we currently generate as energy to meet the needs of Australians—it's 55 gigawatts—you get a sense about where the opportunity presents itself with offshore wind. This is why Labor has been saying it is mad for us not to think about this and act on it. It is mad not to act on it, because, from our point of view, and particularly from my own point of view (1) when you take onboard the fact that there is this huge demand—about a dozen propositions or proposals ready to seize this opportunity—and (2) when you look at what is behind that if that happens, which is a huge jobs opportunity for the country, particularly in manufacturing, and (3) when we can use what we are very good at producing in this nation—steel—on those projects, we'll have renewable energy using Australian content manufactured by Australian workers. We have got a very proud heritage and tradition of steel manufacturing. We'll be able to set up the construction phase, and then the operation and the maintenance all along that chain can be provided by Australian industry and Australian workers. It's an opportunity that should be seized and hasn't been. Why? Because, yet again, we've got a government that's—quite unusually, as they're usually quick to announce and slow to deliver—slow to announce and deliver. They have been shamed and prodded into this bill, and so have finally brought the legislation before us.

I want to emphasise this point: even in question time today the government remarked upon the number of homes in this country that have solar panels installed upon them and reflected on the fact that Australian technology is embedded within that, that Australian technology has driven that. But they omitted to reference the fact that a lot of that manufacturing capability was offshore. We didn't hold onto it. We didn't find ways to seize that opportunity in a way that would have enriched our nation; we just offshored that opportunity. It's one of the reasons why we argued, successfully, for the establishment of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation to help make technology that may not have got market backing early on something that is a proposition worth investing in.

In what we have put forward as the Labor Party—the $15 billion National Reconstruction Fund—we have targeted renewables and low-emissions technology, specifically looking at the manufacturing opportunity that exists. If the commercialisation is supported through the CEFC you can have the opportunity then followed up with investment in manufacturing capability to ensure it happens. There were a lot of regional based manufacturers who wanted to get involved in terms of wind turbines, and they missed out on opportunities because the government didn't require local content on some of the power purchase agreements managed by Snowy Hydro. This put huge pressure on a regionally based employer, Keppel Prince, in Portland in regional Victoria, where hundreds of jobs were put under pressure because investors didn't want to use locals to help build the wind turbines that would be used for generating energy that would go to Snowy Hydro.

This is a scandal, and this is why Labor has argued in its Buy Australian proposal a 10-point plan to use the power of government procurement to help provide opportunity for local industry. When you combine what's being argued here with what we can see elsewhere, this will provide a huge jobs bonanza for locals; it is very important for us to line up all the resources to back that in. We see that good climate policy is good jobs policy. That's where we should be going. Particularly in terms of this, we should be looking at using Australian steel that is made here, with Australian manufacturing capability that puts it together, that then gets constructed by Australians, that can generate huge amounts of energy for Australia offshore in a way that we are missing out on at the moment. It is a win all round for us. That's why we support the bills and why we urge that this happen.

I come back to this point: why did it take so long? The reason it took so long is: this is a government that has fought against this very issue, of finding ways to generate power in a cleaner, more sustainable way. The rest of the world got it. These people didn't. They saw an opportunity not for jobs but for politicking—their jobs, not the broader community's. They wanted to find a way to score points. The problem is: on that side the resistance is baked in so deep within the coalition, within the Liberal and National parties, that they miss the opportunities that are presented, due to the scepticism that exists on their side and the refusal to acknowledge that we've got to deal with this broader issue in terms of climate change and the fact if we do deal with it we will have job opportunities that could flow for Australian industry as a result.

I feel, in particular in this debate, bad for one group of people who get this, who know that this has to happen and that something needs to be done—that is, Liberal voters who recognise that the issue of climate change is serious. They expect action on it, but they back a government that doesn't take it seriously. For Liberal voters who understand that climate change has to be dealt with, their views are not respected by the government that they vote in. I feel bad for those Liberal voters, because they are being disrespected. They have provided support and they have been disrespected by Liberal governments for years.

So I make this point: what can those voters do to make sure that that disrespect doesn't continue? Those voters—those Liberal voters who expect serious action on climate changes—reside in big numbers in the seats of Higgins, Wentworth, Mackellar, North Sydney, Kooyong, Brisbane and even Goldstein. The members for those seats like to parade their green credentials in the local area but consistently stand against taking any action on this. We have had two opportunities for them to legislate on net zero, and they would not do it. They wouldn't seriously back anything other than a PowerPoint presentation—because that's what we've got and what the Prime Minister is taking to Glasgow. The commitment within that presentation has already been laughed at by the international community, who shake their heads at the fact that this government won't do the right thing in terms of what's required for Glasgow. We'll be an international embarrassment.

Those Liberal voters in all those seats want this taken seriously and expect their representatives to do the right thing, but they won't. These seats that I mentioned—Higgins, Wentworth, Mackellar, North Sydney, Kooyong, Brisbane and Goldstein—are all prized assets in the Liberal Party, and you've got to get existential on those assets. You have to make them sweat. I say to those Liberal voters who want to be respected on the issue of climate change: the only way you're going to get respect is to vote them out. You've got to vote out Katie Allen in Higgins. You've got to vote out Tim Wilson in Goldstein.

Lucy Wicks (Robertson, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The assistant minister on a point of order?

Tim Wilson (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister to the Minister for Industry, Energy and Emissions Reduction) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Deputy Speaker. The shadow minister should refer to members by their appropriate titles.

Lucy Wicks (Robertson, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the assistant minister, and I would remind the member for Chifley to refer to members by their correct title. I would also ask the member for Chifley to return to the substance of the bill.

Ed Husic (Chifley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Industry and Innovation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's a cognate debate, Deputy Speaker, as has been emphasised a number of times, and it's been a wide-ranging one, as speakers have emphasised. I'm going make the point that Liberal voters who take this issue seriously should vote out the members for Goldstein, Kooyong, North Sydney, Higgins and Mackellar. They should vote out those people who disrespect their concern about climate change. They want serious action to be taken on this, and they are constantly just used and abused by these members who come here off the back of those prized Liberal safe seats and do nothing. Until you vote these people out, you will not get the Liberal Party to shake off its stupor and its deeply ingrained antipathy to dealing with this properly.

This is why the former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, on losing the leadership, remarked about how bad it was that in the modern Liberal Party they couldn't see that they needed to act on climate change and that there was an economic imperative to do so and an opportunity to do so. This member has a poster describing him as a modern Liberal, but a modern Liberal is still a Neanderthal when it comes to this issue. He and all these other members won't take this issue seriously. So, if you want them to take it seriously, you've got to vote them all out. You've got to put Independents in those seat.

I totally get it. While we have a lot of common ground with those Liberal voters who take these issues seriously, they're not going to vote for us, but they absolutely will vote for an Independent. They'll recognise, just as they did in Warringah, that that's the way to shake things up and get people moving. The only time you saw the whites in the eyes of the Liberal Party was when that happened. Then you'll see things like this bill taken seriously. You will see action to ensure that renewable energy is supported with investment, with a regulatory framework and with resources put behind it. The government can work collaboratively with businesses and regional economies to make sure that they're looked after and that it isn't just weaponised. But, as I said, until you see this ridding, this deep-seated antipathy to taking this action and the constant politicking on it, nothing's going to happen.

You've got to give the member for Goldstein a career break, with the members for Higgins, Wentworth, Mackellar, North Sydney, Kooyong and Brisbane. Teach the Liberal Party a lesson, change the dynamics of politics in this country and make sure we take this issue seriously, and see us get not only a reduction in emissions but also a boost in the economy.

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

[by video link] I'm happy to speak on the Offshore Electricity Infrastructure Bill 2021 and the two associated bills in this cognate debate. I do so from Sunnybank on Turrbal and Yuggera lands, and I commend the member for Chifley for his passionate contribution as always.

My attitude to these bills can be summed up by the phrase 'better late than never'. For some time now, as earlier speakers have indicated, Labor has been calling for legislation to unlock the benefit of offshore renewable energy, particularly offshore wind generation. It's a pity that the benefits of harvesting offshore energy have been delayed due to the inaction of the Morrison government. Don't forget that it's the coalition government that set up and still funds a national windfarm commission. Remember that? It's now called the Australian Energy Infrastructure Commissioner, someone who can now take complaints not only about wind but also about solar energy—if the wind doesn't blow at night, perhaps, or if the sun stops shining after it goes down. Maybe the wind can't find the turbines in the dark. That's a job that's still being funded by Mr Morrison at more than $200,000 per year. It's hardly surprising, given that inaction is this government's default position when it comes to renewable energy.

Offshore energy generation is already happening in other parts of the world, and we are way behind. More than 35 gigawatts of offshore wind capacity is being generated right now. By 2030 it will be around 80 gigawatts, and by 2050 it's expected to increase to 2,000 gigawatts. For those non-electricians out there, a gigawatt is a billion watts. That's about 17 million 60-watt lightbulbs, to put it in the old speak. To put that amount of energy generation into a broader context, Australia's entire national energy market is around 55 gigawatts.

Australia as a continent and an island nation has one of the longest coastlines in the world. The potential for offshore wind generation is more than we could ever use ourselves, even if we expand our domestic manufacturing as Labor plans to do. Offshore energy generation is an export opportunity, particularly in terms of South-East Asia and the billions of people moving into the middle class in that part of the world. As we see, time and time again, with this government they are always playing catch-up.

Remember back in 2019 when Prime Minister Morrison said during the election campaign that electric vehicles would 'end the weekend'? Just this week, the Hertz CEO said electric vehicles are now mainstream. Two years on, things have changed. Hertz Global has just purchased 100,000 electric vehicles for its rental car fleet. Business all around the world is ignoring the out-of-touch Liberals and getting on with the job of being in the 21st century.

The Prime Minister's vision for the future doesn't extend beyond his next meeting with his Deputy Prime Minister, the Leader of the Nationals. He couldn't see the potential for electric vehicles just two years ago, and now he's being held to ransom by the Nationals. Over the past week we've heard government members say—I kid you not—that solar doesn't work in the dark. And the resources minister, in defending his anti-renewables stance, said it was a fundamental fact that solo doesn't work without the sun, completely forgetting the role that modern batteries play in modern grids. It's hard to take this lot seriously but, unfortunately, they are currently running our nation—and they will be representing our nation's interests in Glasgow, on that world stage.

How can any of these government ministers in 2021—and I note that the resources minister has just been elevated to the cabinet—seriously talk about solar energy generation or wind generation being reliant on the sun and not mention batteries? Prime Minister Morrison once said of the South Australia-Elon Musk joint battery:

It is so at the margin it barely is worthy of a mention.

He then compared it to the Big Banana and the Big Prawn—putting politicking before jobs; putting The Nationals before the nation. Does this government think that the 100,000 electric vehicles that Hertz has just bought will stop working when it rains? Will cars stop in the middle of the road because there is no sun? Seriously; do these people go around with their heads in the sand? Newsflash for the coalition: batteries store the energy from solar panels and batteries store the energy from wind generation. Yes, you need the sun and you need wind to make the energy, and then it is stored in the battery or pumped hydro and other options when the sun is not shining or the wind is not blowing.

To be technical, experts say that Africa and Australia have the same amount of global horizontal radiation, which is one measure of solar coverage, and Australia has the greatest amount of direct normal irradiance, the other measure of solar coverage. In other words, Australia actually has more solar coverage than any other continent on earth. We have more than enough sunshine to make, store, use and export solar energy. The Australian Renewable Energy Agency says wind energy is one of the lowest-cost sources of new electricity supply in Australia along with utility-scale solar PV. We have sun and wind in abundance in this country, and that equals an amazing opportunity and it equals jobs, especially here in Queensland where we have some good steady winds at night—something to complement the Roaring 40s wind turbines down in South Australia, Melbourne and Tasmania.

Because the world is hungry for new sources of energy, this climate emergency is Australia's jobs opportunity. The coalition's chaos and division on energy over the past eight years has seen too many Australians miss out. Under Prime Minister Morrison's watch, 2,700 clean energy jobs have disappeared. Workers who have powered Australia for generations are getting left behind by a Prime Minister who won't lift a finger when it comes to their rights at work and won't do anything for their future.

When it comes to net zero emissions, we are still not sure what the Liberal and National parties are committed to, because they are not going to introduce any legislation to test the commitment of their party rooms—their very divided party rooms—and they won't release their modelling. But Labor are committed to net zero emissions by 2050, as are all of the states and territories, leading businesses and industry and agriculture groups, and 130 countries share the same and goal. So what do we need to do? We need to look after this planet and we need to care for our country.

The Liberal and Nationals' inaction has left Australia exposed to environmental threats and economic risks like international carbon tariffs. The net zero emissions PowerPoint display trotted out yesterday is like a cheap card trick, or a delaying tactic. There was zero new policy. There was zero actual plan in the announcement and no modelling released—just more of the same denial, delay and obfuscation. They are asking the Australian people to trust them because they have technology—and that will save us. They don't explain what the technology is, how it will reduce emissions or who will pay for it—what taxpayer dollars will go into it.

They forget that they are responsible for the cuts to the CSIRO budget, of hundreds of millions dollars, and that we've lost almost 40,000 university jobs in the last two years. They are asking us to trust them because they already have policies. Look at their great renewable policies like Snowy 2.0, which isn't even plugged into the grid yet. They are asking us to trust them to reduce emissions, without any new policy at all. It sounds like a line from The Flim-Flam Man to me—somehow emissions will be magically reduced without changing anything, via technology and offshore offsets that they railed against for years and years. Remember that offshore offsets means that somebody else will have to do the work—not unusual territory for this Prime Minister. If we want to achieve net zero by 2050 we can't begin reducing emissions in 2049; we need to get working now. We are in a climate emergency. It will take leadership and vision to turn this ship around. Both of these things are currently lacking in this government.

Labour has already engaged in policy development to get the ship right. We've already made announcements like: making electric cars cheaper by slashing inefficient taxes; cutting bills and supporting the grid with community batteries for up to 100,000 solar households; supporting 10,000 apprentices in the new energy trades of the future; our rewiring the nation policy, where Labor will invest $20 billion to upgrade our grid using Australian expertise, steel and workers to provide affordable, reliable and clean electricity to Australian businesses and households; and Labour's $15 billion national reconstruction fund, which will create secure jobs for Australian workers, drive regional economic element, boost our sovereign capability and diversify the nation's economy. It will partner with the private sector on investment that will grow the economy and jobs, including in renewables and low-emissions technologies like wind turbines, batteries and solar panels; modernising steel and aluminium; hydrogen electrolysers; and so much more. And we will continue that process. What is clear is that an Albanese Labor government will create jobs, cut power prices and reduce emissions.

I welcome these bills before the House today, because Labor called for these bills. After much delay by the coalition, they have been introduced, but the bills are far from perfect. We have concerns about the work health and safety framework. There was substantial evidence presented to the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee that the government has not adopted the harmonised national work health and safety law in the bills. Harmonisation of the laws is important, because, if not harmonised, a worker could be subject to one regulatory regime on shore, a second while in transit on a vessel and a third while working on an offshore renewable project. However, there is some disagreement between the department, the regulator and stakeholders on this. Labour urges the coalition government to undertake further consultation on these provisions. Labor is committed to improving and harmonising the workplace health and safety regulatory framework covering workers in offshore clean energy. It's actually in our national platform. If the government does not fix this, which is most likely, an Albanese Labor government will.

Both government and non-government members of the senate committee suggested some amendments to this bill in their report. The member for McMahon has moved an amendment to the bill to incorporate those amendments. I support the amendment moved by the member for McMahon.

Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Finally, after eight years, a piece of legislation that might actually do something good for renewables. Why did it take eight years? Could it be because the energy minister, who's in charge of this legislation—but doesn't have the courage to come and sit here at the dispatch box, so he leaves it up to his junior to come in to fly the flag—earned his political stripes campaigning against wind farms and renewable energy? Could that be the reason it has taken us almost nine years to see a piece of legislation that supports renewables? Could it be because the former Treasurer Joe Hockey said that wind farms were ugly and he couldn't stand them, as he goes around Canberra? Could it be that because the person holding the purse strings in this parliament said, 'I don't want wind farms, and there's no way that I'm going to ever support them?' Could it be because the man who is now the Deputy Prime Minister said he didn't understand, in his words, 'this insane lemming-like desire to have a sea of wind farms everywhere'? Could that be why it has taken almost nine years to see one piece of legislation that might do something good about renewables? Or could it be because our Prime Minister came in here and held up a lump of coal and said, 'This is coal. It's amazing. It won't hurt you,' when the whole world was screaming at him and saying that coal and gas are the major causes of the climate crisis, and we've got to stop burning them?

Could that be why it has taken so long to see one piece of legislation from the government that might actually do something good for renewables?

Well, increasingly, this government led by climate deniers is getting mugged by reality. Is it the political reality of having seats that they thought were supersafe, like Kooyong, now being Greens-Liberal seats, where a small number of votes could shift and the Treasurer could get the message that it is time to take action on the climate crisis? Or could it be that they're getting mugged by the political reality of seeing a former prime minister lose his seat to an independent who's got an ambitious climate policy? Could it be the fact that the Prime Minister is heading off to one of the most important climate summits in our lifetime, where, if he walked in with his lump of coal, he'd be turned around and kicked out, shown the door? Slowly but surely, the government is getting mugged by reality, including by the business community, who are saying, 'We have had enough.' Mind you, many of them are the same business community that tore down the carbon price when we had it, which was working to cut pollution in this country. They've now had a change of heart. But, increasingly, the government are realising that, although it might play well to their backbench to wave around lumps of coal and pretend climate change doesn't exist, it doesn't wash anymore. It doesn't wash.

Of course, they still have climate denialism at their heart. You see that just this week, where the world is pleading with the Prime Minister, who should have done a piece of legislation like this long ago—because the Greens have been calling for it for that long. The reason that—

A government member interjecting—

We hear the truth being spoken. The Liberal interjection, for the Hansard, was 'We're only one per cent of global emissions; what can we do?' Well, you know what? That shows you everything you need to know. I'm sure that they'll get up and correct that if they think I'm misrepresenting them. But that is what this government believes at heart: we should not be taking action on the climate crisis. That is why. You've heard it in the government's own words. Do you know what? Australia is the world's largest exporter of coal. We're the third-largest exporter of fossil fuel pollution, behind Russia and Saudi Arabia. Don't come in here and pretend we're not responsible. We are the third-largest exporter of fossil fuel pollution. And you know who we'll be hanging out with at the climate summit when Scott Morrison goes there? Russia and Saudi Arabia—with these mid-century net zero targets and no plan to get there, and subsidies for coal, gas and oil to put more coal, gas and oil into the system along the way.

This is a government of climate deniers, and delay is the new denial. Pushing action out to 2050 and coming up with a plan that involves more coal and gas, terrible 2030 targets and just a hope that someone will ride in on a unicorn in 2049, with technology that hasn't been invented yet, to save us all shows your plan is a fraud. The fact that the government send members in here, during a debate on their own bill about wind farms, to interject that 'we're only one per cent of emissions so why should we do anything' tells you everything you need to know about the denial that beats at the heart of this government.

That is why, to get action on the climate crisis, we need to phase out coal and gas. Sadly, we have a situation in this parliament where both the government and the opposition want more coal and gas. In fact, they're prepared to put their hands into the public's pocket to make people pay for it. People may not know this, but, thanks to the government and the opposition voting together, $50 million of public money is now going to help open up a new climate time-bomb in the Northern Territory—the Beetaloo gas basin. You thought Adani was bad? Beetaloo is terrible. Inside those Northern Territory gas basins there's the equivalent of 70 years of all of Australia's pollution. And opening up that project will put an extra six per cent on Australia's emissions. So, at the same time that the Prime Minister parades around, saying he's going to cut emissions to zero at some specified time in the future and, 'I've got no plan to get there; just trust me,' Liberal and Labor are actually making the public give $50 million to big gas corporations to open up the Beetaloo basin, which will be worse than Adani.

We have, sadly, a situation here where the country is run by a bunch of climate deniers, but the opposition wants more coal and gas as well. The only way we are going to tackle the climate crisis is by phasing out coal and gas. What is becoming clearer day by day is that the only way we're going to get climate action—and not just have legislation like this brought in after nine years of government—brought in on the first day of the next government is to kick the Liberals out and put the Greens in balance of power, to push the next government to take the action that science requires and phase out coal and gas. The very good news is that this government is hanging on by its fingernails. That's why it's bringing in pieces of legislation like this after nine years—to try and convince people that they care about renewables. They know that the smallest of shifts, only a few hundred votes, is going to see them lose majority government. That's how close this election is. But it's going to be very difficult for the opposition to win in its own right. So at this election, if you want more legislation that's going to fast track renewables and phase out coal and gas, don't waste your vote on a Liberal or Labor Party that won't be able to win majority government in their own right. Vote to put the Greens in the balance of power so that we can kick out the Liberals and push the next government. That is how we're going to see legislation that will unlock this country's potential.

This bill is about offshore wind. Did you know that Australia has around 2,000 gigawatts of offshore energy that we can harness? To put that into perspective, Australia's entire grid is around 55 gigawatts. In other words, there's 40 times Australia's current energy use in our offshore waters. That's why the Greens have been saying for so long that we need legislation that will help unlock that potential.

There are a couple of key projects that are trying to get underway but that don't have any regulatory environment, and this bill will allow them to proceed. There's the Star of the South project, which is going to help replace Australia's oldest and dirtiest coal plant, Yallourn, in Victoria's Latrobe Valley. And there is Oceanex's 10 gigawatts project currently situated offshore of the New South Wales coal regions of the Hunter Valley and the Illawarra. Just these two projects alone—bearing in mind, as I said, that there's about 40 times Australia's current energy use out there to be tapped—are near the regions where we're going to have to phase out coal. These projects will be the projects that will help workers transition as we phase out coal and gas, which is why they should have been supported a long time ago—so that we could replace those coal-fired power stations and turn them off in a way that allows workers to move directly into secure industries with well-paid jobs. It makes so much sense. What also makes sense is to use the infrastructure that's already there to create hydrogen, to create ammonium and to power heavy industry and manufacturing with clean energy, instead of relying on last century's increasingly unreliable coal and gas technologies.

But the good thing about there being 40 times the equivalent of Australia's energy just in wind alone—we haven't even touched solar yet or what we're going to be able to do in backing it all up with hydro—is that we could have a surplus mentality. We could produce so much electricity that it would drive the cost down to near zero because the fuel is free. That's the other great thing about the sun and the wind: they are free. You could drive the cost of electricity down to zero. Not only is that going to revitalise manufacturing in this country when we have cheap, clean electricity; we're also going to be a magnet for all those energy-hungry industries in the world and in our region. The Greens want Australia to be the place where you bring your energy-hungry industry to from around the world and you set up here because you get an advantage in Australia that no-one else can give you. We can give you low-cost electricity that is clean. This is what we could do if we unleash the potential that Australia has.

There is a number of practical changes to this bill that would help. We could amend the bill to include a merit criteria for feasibility licences, commercial licences and transmission licences in a way that would include local procurement of labour and goods right through the logistics and supply chains. This could unleash a massive domestic employment potential. We could get people jobs. If we said, 'We are not only going to have these offshore wind farms in our area but we will put in place laws and rules that drive up local employment and local training,' this could be a massive jobs bonanza. We should have Australians crewing the ships that are going out to be part of these projects and build back up a shipping industry that has been decimated over the course of several governments.

We should also remove the possibility of financial speculators or scalpers rushing in to buy tenements by removing from the bill that the minister consider and accept financial offers from licences and, instead, manage and distribute them in the public interest to rapidly develop clean energy. A third change to the bill could be the suggestion put forward during the inquiry by Sun Cable that would make it clearer that one of the main objects of the law is to encourage the export of Australia's vast renewable resources to the world. For clarity and purpose to both investors and lawyers, this implicit obligation of the legislation should be made explicit. Finally, as mentioned by previous speakers, the workplace health and safety provisions should be fully harmonised with the national system to ensure that the standards that apply to workplace health and safety are the best that they can be. I support the comments made by one of the members of the opposition on that point.

You can't trust this government to go ahead and implement legislation well. We have seen that with JobKeeper. We have to make sure that they don't turn a good piece of legislation into something that is a millstone around the industry's neck. We hope they won't. But above all, we have to get out of coal and gas. We need to stop giving public money to coal and gas because that will slow down the growth of this amazing potential industry in Australia that could set us up, not only as a renewable energy superpower but as the regional hub for clean, cheap energy.

Stephen Jones (Whitlam, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The mega announcements made by the government yesterday amidst much hype were welcome but modest. In effect, what they have done is join Australia with every other state and territory in the country, every significant business, whether they are an industrial, mining or financial services business, with the rest of the world in acknowledging that if we don't hit net zero by 2050, we face a diabolical climate consequence. Australia, as a nation, has the most to lose if we don't work in concert with every other nation around the world. Whether it is the Great Barrier Reef or the sustainability of our agricultural lands, the fact that the majority of the population lives within a few kilometres of the ocean, we have the most to lose and, indeed, the most to gain through the transition to a clean energy future and the reduction of our carbon emissions to net zero by 2050.

Of course, focusing on 2050 is a bit of a sleight of hand because, in essence, if we are not looking at what needs to be done over the next decade, we are essentially setting a target for our grandkids to achieve, instead of us focusing on the job that is our responsibility as elected men and women of this parliament. So more focus needs to be put on what we will do over the next decade so that our grandchildren need to do less over the next three decades to rectify the problems we have left stand still.

I support the bills and I support the amendment that has been moved by the member for McMahon. The bills are sensible if late, as others have noted, because offshore wind is a proven technology that does have the potential to turn Australia into a renewable energy powerhouse. The only thing stopping it, frankly, has been the inaction of this government. So it's a good thing that, at last, these bills have come before the House after years of needless delay. Delay in this place has meant that offshore wind projects have been delayed as well, including offshore wind projects adjacent to my electorate and the electorate of the member for Cunningham, who has joined us in the chamber. I'll have more to say about that shortly.

Two offshore projects are ready to go. They're waiting to go off the coast of the Illawarra, and I'm keen to speak a little bit about them. The bill will establish the necessary regulatory framework to allow them to go ahead, including the rules around the construction, installation, commissioning, maintenance and, eventually, decommissioning of such projects. As the member for Cunningham will know, we are very familiar with the consequences of the failure of governments to put in place mechanisms, including financial security mechanisms, that require businesses and proponents who put forward these renewable energy projects offshore to rectify and decommission at the end of the project. We have experienced off Port Kembla over the last decade what became both a hazard and an eyesore when a failed offshore wave project was not properly decommissioned, and the taxpayer had to pick up the bill for that. These sorts of mechanisms are absolutely necessary.

We are behind the eight ball, a long way behind the eight ball. Denmark and Germany, alongside many other European countries, already have a well-established offshore wind-farm industry producing many gigawatts of renewable energy for their economies. They must be looking at Australia, with its vastly more expansive coastlines, and wondering to themselves why we are so late to the game.

Recent research by Blue Economy Cooperative Research Centre estimates that the feasible potential for wind farm energy production in Australia is in excess of 2,300 gigawatts. Members of this place may or may not be aware that the entire annual production of Australia's energy grid is 55 gigawatts. So it's many multiples—as many as five times—of the annual production of our current grid that is available to us through offshore wind farm facilities. It is a veritable goldmine waiting to be tapped. The only thing missing is sufficient regulatory guidelines. Investors want in. Institutional investors—I speak to them regularly—want in. They want regulatory certainty. They can see a long-term income stream available to them from an energy-hungry nation which wants to attract more, not less industry to this country on the basis of cheap and sustainable energy from renewable sources.

As welcome as these bills are, simply getting some regulations in place is not going to be enough. What investors are really after is a plan—not talk of a plan, not a PowerPoint presentation masquerading as a plan, not the repetition of the word plan over 100 times in 30 minute press conference, but an actual plan which will deliver the certainty backed by legislation and guidance for industry. Yesterday, the Prime Minister had an opportunity to do just that, but he failed. He said the word plan over 100 times during his press conference, but just saying 'plan' does not make it real. The fact is that what we saw yesterday was not a plan but a scam. There was no target, no modelling, and no legislation, just a glossy pamphlet and a three-word slogan. After a decade to think about it and 20 previous plans, all he could offer was something which resembled a Seinfeld episode—a show about nothing. That's not leadership. If you want to be a leader you actually need to do the substantial stuff of putting in place the plans and showing people the way to a sustainable economic future. You need to spell the things out and not run and hide because you're terrified that the people who sit behind you may not like what you're proposing.

More than two years ago my council, and the member for Cunningham's council—Wollongong City Council—adopted a net zero target by 2050. That was like many other councils around the country and just about every state and territory. They did more than that; they put in place an actual plan with real numbers and real targets in it, including a development strategy which saw the possibility to create over 10½ thousand jobs in our region over the decade through renewables. It identified clean energy as a major source of those jobs and is working through its Invest Wollongong partnerships to bring forward specific projects to deliver those jobs.

The New South Wales government, a coalition government, is not my stripe and not my team. But I actually have to admire, in some respects, some of the things that they're doing. They have developed a detailed hydrogen strategy. It was released earlier this month, with detailed targets: 110,000 tons of green hydrogen production by 2030; 10,000 hydrogen powered vehicles on the road in the New South Wales fleet in the same period; and a price on green hydrogen of under $2.80 a kilogram, which makes it not only competitive but more competitive than alternative fossil fuels. It has detailed modelling, including the relative decline in capital costs and energy prices over time as a result of achieving those targets. There's a survey of comparable world economy positions on the hydrogen economy pathway as compared with New South Wales, and there's a thorough examination of the impact on emissions reductions, jobs growth, the growth in export potential and the overall economic benefits. And, finally, the plan has a three-pillar policy which will enable it to achieve its targets.

This is what a plan looks like in one sector. It's what a plan looks like! Not a flimsy PowerPoint presentation scattered with three-word slogans repeated time after time after time which doesn't deliver any clarity for investors but which hopefully gets the Prime Minister through the next question time. Australian needs better than that.

Through the process that the New South Wales government has identified, Port Kembla is one of two sites identified as a superior location for a large-scale hydrogen production facility, with a planned production start date of 2030. The hub will leverage off Port Kembla's existing high-quality industrial infrastructure and skills base as a springboard into the future. The core gas facility has already been producing hydrogen using existing technology for over 30 years, and the port's facilities and expertise in export orientation, its fast-growing local population and its close access to Sydney also give it natural advantages. That's what a plan looks like! And, in this instance, that plan was crucial in attracting the two offshore windfarm proposals to our region which I spoke of at the top of my contribution.

Green Energy Partners is looking at building a $15 billion project with an initial capacity of three gigawatts. I'll just say that number again: a $15 billion project off the coast of Wollongong. They plan to use Port Kembla as a construction hub for the build phase, providing jobs and using local skills and expertise, and building on the port's proud industrial history—a $15 billion project that, for the want of regulation, could have gone ahead a lot earlier. And Ocean EDGE is building a $10 billion floating windfarm with the initial capacity of two gigawatts. So there are two projects and $25 billion worth of work in an economy that's crying out for development and crying out for jobs and potential. It has joined the Illawarra Innovative Industry Network that is collaborating on ways to bring new jobs and opportunities to the local economy across the board. Both projects were attracted to the Illawarra by the clear coordinated plan for the Hydrogen Hub and by the local political commitment, including the commitment of the member for Cunningham and myself, the local councils and state members of parliament of all political stripes. This is how you get action.

The bills we are debating today represent a step forward in taking the plan forward into the construction phase. Providing a bit of much-needed regulatory certainty is literally the absolute minimum this government can do. It's the story of the Prime Minister; he always does the bare minimum after exploring every other alternative and every other excuse not to act. The people of the Illawarra and the investors backing their future need much, much more. They're doing their bit to seize the jobs and the opportunities of the future while looking after the workers in traditional industries today.

This does not have to be a zero-sum game. I reject the proposition put by the member for Melbourne, in some Disney World fantasy about how this is all going to play out. We've got to bring the people of the Illawarra, the people of the Hunter, along with us. We have got to give them certainty that we've got their backs. They know their grandkids aren't going to go down a coalmine; they know that. They want to ensure that they will continue to have a good paying job, secure employment, an employer that looks after their interests and a government that has got their backs. They want to plan for the future and they want security for their jobs today.

That's why an Albanese Labor government will deliver a Made in Australia manufacturing plan, which harnesses the capacity of renewable energy projects with those energy hungry industries and the infrastructure necessary to deliver them, to ensure that we as a nation are no longer just a quarry which digs dirt up, sticks it on a boat and sends it overseas but a nation that value-adds. We can ensure we can harness our endless supply of renewable energy, couple that with our bountiful supply of resources and ensure that we can once again be a manufacturing, a resource and a renewable energy powerhouse. I commend the bills, and the second reading amendment moved by the member for McMahon, to the House.

Peter Khalil (Wills, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Offshore Electricity Infrastructure Bill 2021 and the associated bills. We support these bills. We commend the bills, as the previous speaker said. Why is that? Because we have called for this time and time again. As is often the case under this government, they are very late to the party. But we welcome them; finally, they've seen the light! They've heard the wind, as it is. It's great that in recent weeks the Morrison government has suddenly discovered that climate change is an issue, and the need for renewable energy. There must be a 'remind me tomorrow' button installed on the coalition's computers, for dealing with climate change. Or maybe the Morrison government is simply out of scare lines and scare tactics. Either/or, the fact remains that offshore wind has huge potential for Australia.

We are girt by sea, as we know, with endless coastlines. We are an island nation. We have some of the best wind resources in the world—and I'm not talking about some of the hot air that has emanated from the Nationals' party room or all the infighting, bluster and huffing and puffing that's gone on as they try and get to the no-brainer position of net zero emissions by 2050. Seriously, we are comparable to places like the North Sea, between Britain and Europe, where offshore energy is already an established industry.

It is beyond ridiculous now—it's ludicrous—how long it has taken us to catch up to the rest of the world. In fact, research from earlier this year found that if all the proposed offshore wind farms were built their combined energy capacity would be greater than that of all of Australia's coal-fired power plants. But, despite all this, Australia's lack of a legal framework has meant we're yet to commission our first offshore wind farm. This legislation will finally allow offshore wind to begin in earnest in Australia by setting up the regulatory frameworks necessary for offshore wind farms. It's great to see the government finally getting around to it. There are a lot of reasons—

Debate interrupted.