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

O'BRIEN () (): I move opposition amendment (1), circulated in my name:

(1) Schedule 2, item 7, page 13 (lines 10 and 11), omit the item.

The coalition supports the vast majority of this bill. At the end of the day, it builds on the coalition's work in the previous term of government. Given our strong legacy when it comes to record investment in renewables while also being able to reduce emissions, keep the lights on and, of course, reduce prices, we are very proud to see our legacy built on by this government. As flagged in my second reading amendment, though, we do have a concern about just one aspect of the bill, and that aspect is reflected in the substantive amendment to which I now speak. It is an aspect that has the minister moving, to the House, that he gain more power to make determinations with respect to financial securities on offshore infrastructure deals. Our approach was very clear when in government. Our view has not changed. There is a regulator who should have that authority. We therefore disagree with the government's proposal that that authority move out of the realms of the regulator and to the minister.

I acknowledge the minister's words just now, before I rose to speak, that he believes that he would be better placed to make such decisions. I can understand why the minister might believe himself to be the best to make such decisions. However, our obligation in this place is to do what we think is right and what is in the best interests of the Australian people and the Commonwealth. I will not repeat the concerns expressed in my speech on the second reading other than to note those words, especially the concern that regional Australia has about this government not respecting the need for a social licence on these major, very important infrastructure projects. I appreciate advice that the minister has provided to my office on the importance of financial securities. On that aspect, there's no different view from the Coalition; financial securities are absolutely key. That's not in question here. What's in question is whether or not the minister himself is empowered to make decisions that should be made by the regulator.

We cannot afford, in light of the enormous rollout of renewables that the minister has planned—we're talking here about 28,000 kilometres of transmission lines, over 22,000 solar panels every single day and 40 wind turbines every month. You can imagine the amount of deals that needed to be done and the importance of protecting the Australian people, including from potential liability for the Commonwealth, and why therefore we need to protect regional Australian communities from a minister who might be emboldened with the authority to make easier terms on these financial securities and the missionary zeal with which he is already trying to implement his policies—policies that were predicated on economic modelling that last night was disproven in the budget papers by the government itself, economics that were disproven in the budget papers themselves. It is very unwise to empower this minister—indeed, any minister—for this purpose, and that is the reason I've put forward this substantive amendment.

Chris Bowen (McMahon, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will correct the honourable member opposite. I did not say and I do not believe I am better placed than NOPSEMA. I believe that for the minister of the day it's an appropriate reflection of their duties. The powers that we are giving the minister in the Offshore Electricity Infrastructure Legislation Amendment Bill 2022 are entirely keeping with the powers that I as Minister for Climate Change and Energy have. On a very daily basis, on things I would sign off and approve, other ministers in other portfolios would have similar and greater powers. NOPSEMA is an important and respected regulator. This is not in keeping with their role. As I said before, this is about protecting the interests of the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth's interests should be protected by a Commonwealth minister.

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

I would like to make the point that the minister now stands and says: 'It's not about me as the minister. It's not about wanting to give myself more power. It's just whoever the minister of the day is.' But there was no complaint from the now minister previously about these powers—no complaint whatsoever. It just so happened that, when this minister became the minister, he thought the minister was best placed to make these decisions. Think about that. Here we have a situation where we've got a new minister who decides, 'I need more power.' Never before was he suggesting that somebody who acted in this capacity has this power, but, now that he is the minister, he wants that power.

This goes to the very heart of why we are concerned about this proposed amendment from the government. It is the emboldenment of power that this minister is after. Now he wishes to rise above it, be on the high moral ground and say it has nothing to do with who is the minister. 'This is in the best interests of the Commonwealth.' But when he was not the minister he was silent on this point. This is about him. This is about his agenda, and it is an agenda that has been proven to be flawed.

I will take the opportunity to point out that the minister was asked multiple questions in question time yesterday, but at not one point was he prepared to confirm on the Hansard record that he will deliver $275 reductions in household power bills. Now, I am very happy to allow the minister—actually, the minister will have an opportunity to get on his feet again after I speak. I ask you, Minister, to confirm that you will deliver on your promise of a $275 reduction in household bills for Australians.

We found out last night that the government's economic plan that said that they would deliver that $275 reduction in household power bills was wrong. Who said it was wrong? The government's own budget papers. The government's own budget papers have confirmed what the Prime Minister and this minister have not had the courage to say publicly. Despite being asked multiple questions in question time, this minister refuses to state whether or not he stands by his promise of a reduction in power prices. We found out last night—and it took the Treasury to put it in writing—that power bills are going to go up by over 50 per cent.

Where did the government get that modelling from? From modelling it had outsourced before the election. That same modelling justified their entire suite of climate and energy policies. Think about that. The minister's entire suite of policies is based on an economic model that last night we found out was entirely flawed. When you start talking about over 600,000 jobs coming out of the plan of the new government which model is it based on? The same model which is flawed.

Honourable Member:

An honourable member interjecting—

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

Over 600,000 and rising. What reduction in household power bills will the minister commit to? Silence! This is the problem. He knows very well that he has broken that promise. This gets back to why I have moved this amendment. I had no intention of having this sort of back and forth, but I'm not going to accept on behalf of the Australian people, especially regional Australians, this minister pretending he's doing the bidding of the people of Australia. He says that this power should be in the hands of the minister of the day regardless when we know very well he was silent on this issue when he was not the minister. Since he has become the minister he wants all the power he can get, and it will be the Australian people who lose.

Chris Bowen (McMahon, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I welcome the opportunity to point out that under this government there's one minister for energy and it's appropriate that the power be held by a minister for energy. It would have concerned me under the previous government because we now know that there was more than one minister for energy under the previous government. Under the government's absolute shemozzle there were secret ministers, who all would have had the power. I concede that there would have been less governance in relation to that. I don't wish to detain the House. We'll resist and defeat the amendment. I invite the honourable member opposite to ask me more questions at 2 o'clock. I suggest he word them better than the ones yesterday.

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

I would like to make the point that we have the Minister for Climate Change and Energy in the chamber today. He had every opportunity to stand and rebut the substance of what I put forward and he just stood yet again and had no substance to rebut what I have put, which only affirms to me that he has no interest in respecting the social licence that can only be gifted by those communities that are impacted by major projects. Him being empowered with this authority that should lie with the regulator will only embolden his visionary zeal, and the Australian people will lose.

Question unresolved.

Rebekha Sharkie (Mayo, Centre Alliance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As it is necessary to resolve this question to enable further questions to be considered in relation to this bill, in accordance with standing order 195 the bill will be returned to the House for further consideration.