Colin Boyce (Flynn, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I rise to support the Repeal Net Zero Bill 2025, presented by my colleague the member for New England at the last sitting. Unfortunately, this bill has revolved around an argument that if you don't believe in net zero, you don't believe in climate change. I want to put that to bed right now. Climate change is real and is happening right now. Climate change is variable; the earth's geological history tells us that. The earth's climate has been changing ever since the earth began on Thursday afternoon 4.54 billion years ago. So this debate is not about whether you believe in climate change. This is about the economic cost of getting to a position of net zero by 2050.

We know the government has implemented emissions targets—43 per cent by 2030 and 82 per cent renewable energy by 2030—and my colleagues and I want to know how much this will cost in terms of economics to the Australian people. How much will it affect their futures and their prosperity? The Institute of Public Affairs issued a report recently that said that the Central Queensland federal electorate of Flynn, which I represent, will be the most affected. There are upwards of 16,000 jobs at risk in the mining and resource sector, the agricultural sector, the transport sector and the heavy industries sector, particularly, if we continue to go down this road of net zero.

In the electorate of Flynn, there are 90 projects—wind turbines, solar panels, transmission lines, batteries and all of the associated things that are happening. There's a problem there in terms of economics because, while many of these projects have got their environmental approvals—or, if they haven't, they're in the process of doing that—most of them do not have financial closure. There are a couple of reasons for that. One of them is that the proponents cannot guarantee a minimum net return for the people who are investing. For example, if there's a billion-dollar project—and there are plenty of them—the investors are looking for something like a 10 per cent net return per year. Ten per cent of a billion dollars is $100 million a year, and the problem for the proponents and for the government is that they cannot guarantee that return. The reason for that is that the weather is variable. You cannot guarantee electricity generation through wind turbines and solar panels, because sometimes the wind doesn't blow and sometimes the sun doesn't shine. So they've got a problem.

The way the government has gone about approaching that problem is that they've invented a thing called the Capacity Investment Scheme. Most people have got no idea what it means. In a nutshell, the Capacity Investment Scheme asks the Australian taxpayer to underwrite the minimum profitability of these projects, whether they produce energy or not. In my quest to find out how much this will cost the Australian economy, I've engaged the Parliamentary Library. They have written an extensive brief for me and done a wonderful job, and here it is. Some of the questions I asked them were: What are the cost and budget implications? What is the total estimated cost of the scheme? How will it be funded? What is shown in forward estimates? Are there any off-balance-sheet liabilities and contingency guarantees? The Parliamentary Library answered those questions as best they could, and I will quote from what they've said: 'The government's maximum liability—that is, the expected cost of the CIS and estimated payments under the CISAs—is classified in the budget and not for publication due to commercial sensitivities.' There is no answer; the government will not tell us what they are committing the Australian public and, indeed, the taxpayer to. How much will it cost to actually implement this Capacity Investment Scheme?

Further to that, one of the questions I asked the Parliamentary Library was who was eligible for this—what projects are eligible and so forth. I've learnt that battery projects are now eligible under the CIS.

Marion Scrymgour (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Member for Flynn. I call the member for Cunningham.

Alison Byrnes (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very pleased to speak on the motion in relation to the Repeal Net Zero Bill 2025 today to help show this for the farce that we all know it is. While the coalition continues to quibble about whether we should or should not have a net zero target, industry and our community are forging ahead with making net zero a reality. What we need to do is secure the jobs of the future in the clean tech space, and I've worked hard to make sure that the Illawarra can seize those opportunities. I have spent the last three years working with both traditional and emerging industry to ensure that our region is at the forefront of this energy transition. This means not having all our eggs in one basket but investing in the knowledge and expertise of those working hard for our clean energy future.

I was absolutely thrilled to support an investment of $15 million last year to supercharge our renewable hydrogen industry through the backing of Hysata to expand the production of high-efficiency hydrogen electrolysers in the Illawarra. That investment by the Clean Energy Finance Corporation was a critical part of the $172 million expansion of manufacturing at Hysata's Port Kembla facility and came on top of nearly $30 million in grants from ARENA, which have supported Hysata from its early startup days to develop, build and demonstrate its technology at a commercial scale.

The Illawarra offshore wind zone is another project I have proudly and loudly backed because I know that we need to be looking at every single opportunity for good, clean tech jobs in our community and because I back our clean energy future. What did the Liberals and their buddies do? They hounded and hounded and hounded this project down, spreading misinformation to try and scare our local community, because they don't actually want us to invest in those clean tech jobs of the future, and that is just shameful. We cannot be deterred from looking at clean tech jobs because of a few loud voices. This is far too important for our future.

Even big companies, like BlueScope Steel, know that a clean energy transition is critical. Our government has invested $136.8 million towards the relining and upgrade of BlueScope's blast furnace to help reduce its emissions and support pathways for producing even lower emissions steel in the future, because cleaner steelmaking is the way of the future.

Another clear way we are creating jobs of the future and the workforce of the future in Wollongong is through the Energy Futures Skills Centre at the University of Wollongong. I was incredibly proud to get this off the ground with a $10 million investment under the Albanese Labor government. Combined with $2.5 million in funding to upgrade equipment and teaching aids to create a renewable-energy training facility at Wollongong TAFE, this investment will ensure that local young people can gain the skills that they need to be part of Australia's clean energy future. Starting from the ground up, we will make sure that the Illawarra plays its role in tackling climate change with the workforce of the future, using state-of-the-art, clean-energy manufacturing facilities; helping businesses with the transition; and engaging in community outreach. I am absolutely confident that this centre will become the benchmark for training and skill development.

Yet another important program that I have been proud to deliver locally is the community battery program. Working with Endeavour Energy, we invested $1 million under the first round to support Warrawong and Dapto with affordable energy storage, helping to lower household electricity bills, reduce emissions and deliver reliable, renewable energy to local people. Our government has taken that a step further this term by giving everyone up to 30 per cent off the cost of a home battery under the Cheaper Home Batteries Program. Our community has absolutely taken that up with gusto, which has just been amazing to see.

Communities are also making sure that they are taking steps towards our clean energy future. Just one example is Electrify 2515, which is a pilot program that has again been supported by ARENA, with $5.4 million. This pilot program, led by Saul Griffith and Rewiring Australia, in partnership with Brighte and Endeavour Energy, allows residents to apply for subsidies for a range of devices that support their household electrification. Local people, businesses and community organisations all know the one thing that the coalition wants to ignore. They know that climate change is real, they know it needs urgent action and they know we must take action now. Achieving net zero by 2050 is absolutely critical. I back it. My local businesses—

Marion Scrymgour (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Member for Cunningham. I call the member for Riverina.

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Today is the first day of spring, and across the Riverina there are swathes of golden glory wattle—and today is the national day—and canola in full bloom. New lambs have hit the ground, and green shoots—thankfully not of the political variety but of the pasture variety and crops—are thankfully, finally, out, because it's been very, very dry. There is a crispness and a freshness in the air that only comes about on 1 September, but there's also an uneasiness in the air—tension you can sense, you can feel and you can see.

I want to talk a bit about the faces of net zero. I want to talk a bit about a fellow I know very well; I'm not going to mention his name. He told me yesterday: 'Our land is the absolute pinnacle of prime agricultural land and I believe is well and truly amongst the best and most highly productive in Australia. I do not believe we deserve this to be happening in our landscape and having our food security placed in jeopardy.' He's talking about wind turbines, and his area, Old Junee, between Wagga Wagga and Temora, is not a windy area. It's not an area where there are huge ridge lines, but it matters not, because these wind towers as tall as Barangaroo are coming to a country area near you.

Yass Valley mayor Jasmin Jones said:

We're not a renewable energy zone—

and that's really important to remember—

They keep approving these in prime agricultural area, prime tourism and agri-wine area. We're internationally acclaimed for our wines, and we're turning into an industrial junkyard. They're village killers and we've had a gutful.

That is what she said.

Emma Webb—she's a wool grower between Binalong and Bowning—told the Bush Summit in Wagga Wagga last Wednesday:

It's really tough at the moment. I'm a wool grower, so anyone whose involved in the wool industry knows how tough that is and when you couple that with poor seasons and rising costs, things are really, really tough and what it means with it being so tough, is its opening up the door to predatory renewable energy developers coming into our communities with bags of cash and buying off farmers so they can industrialise prime agricultural land.

And that's the rub, because these companies send out these spivs, they send out these shysters, and they are buying off one farmer and not the farmer's neighbour. They are making people who are generational friends friends no more. They are dividing families. This is not the Australia I grew up in. This is not the regional Australia that I know and love. These companies, quite frankly, can go to hell. They really can.

Take Cheryl O'Donnell from Crookwell. 'We just get this constant noise,' she says. She lives in the shadow of one of these wind towers. She says she suffers headaches and dizziness from the continual reverberation. 'It can be like a jet engine coming over the hill.' About her husband, Michael, she said, 'He's broken. He said to me recently, "I'm running out of places to hide from them out here."'

The Upper Lachlan council area between Upper Lachlan and Yass Valley has got 42 per cent of the state's green energy projects and it's not even in a REZ. Then you've got 60 per cent of the wind turbines in New South Wales in Upper Lachlan. Yet now Essential Energy are looking to put them on—wait for this—diesel generators for backup power because they don't have the continual power that they need, even though they're providing the green energy power. Some of the projects proposed in that council area won't even be connected to the grid, because they're just taking the subsidies and running.

The greatest moral challenge for humankind is not the weather, which we cannot change, but the ability to grow food to help feed a hungry world. I note the number of capital city based politicians demanding action on behalf of their virtue-signalling, weather hand-wringers and rent-seeking corporations. Never has the city-country divide, sadly, been greater. It's all well and good to cover our farmland, our beautiful farmland, with battery energy storage systems, solar factories and wind turbines. How about we put offshore wind turbines at North Head or on the Yarra River or turn those sails on the iconic Sydney Opera House into solar panels? Why not do that? Why take up our farmland, which we need to grow food and fibre and which we need for our agricultural production, at the expense of—what?—trying to change the weather? Yeah, good luck with that.

The member for McMahon may have a mandate, but he doesn't have a mandate to ruin regional Australia. He does not. I have to say this is just a complete nonsense. It's not going to change the weather. That's why I support the bill from the member for New England.

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

This is extraordinary. Here we are in 2025, and the coalition wants to kill Australia's commitment to net zero. It's not just short sighted; it is ludicrous. Have they learnt absolutely nothing? Did they forget the last election? Australians voted loud and clear for action on climate change. They voted for a government that takes the science seriously, a government that plans for the future, not one that wants to drag us back to the dark old days of climate wars. Let's be very clear; Australians want action. Every poll shows it, every community conversation confirms it and the last federal election proved it.

But here we are today, with the coalition still not sure where they stand. Talking out both sides of their mouths on net zero, this motion before us comes from the member for New England and is his attempt to repeal net zero. Meanwhile, we've got the Leader of the Opposition and a whole bunch of other people, including members from the other place, saying they support net zero. I read in the Age this morning Senator Hume saying that they support it. Which is it?

We can't pretend to back climate change in the cities while trashing it in the regions. We've seen polling, again, just over the weekend, that the majority of Liberal voters—who turned their backs on this party at the last election—want the coalition to back in Australia's 2050 net zero commitments. The polling also found that half of the former coalition supporters don't believe the Liberals or Nationals any longer align with their personal values and what they want to see on climate change and energy.

This motion is nothing more than climate denialism. It is reckless. It is dangerous. It betrays the very Australians who want their kids and their grandkids to inherit a safe, livable planet. People in my electorate of Newcastle and, indeed, right across the country know the cost of inaction. They've lived through the bushfires, the floods and the record-breaking heat waves. They understand that climate change is not some distant threat; it is here now, and it is hurting us. What's the coalition's answer? They pretend climate change is not happening. They're ripping up commitments, walking away from jobs and leaving our economy stranded in the past.

Newcastle has always led the way. This city, my home town of Newcastle, was built on coal. We have a carbon intensive economy. We have powered the nation for generations. But do you know what? The world is shifting. There is a dramatic shift to renewables, and we want to be part of powering the future. That's why it is so detrimental that those who oppose renewable projects offer nothing but fear and misinformation. They talk about what they're against but never what they are for. They've got no plans for jobs in towns like mine, no plan for investment and no plan for the future. Novocastrians deserve better than scare campaigns from those opposite; they deserve honesty, ambition and vision. That's exactly what Labor is delivering—billions in clean energy investment and a plan to ensure workers and communities like mine share in the benefits of this major economic transformation that we cannot pretend is not coming.

In Newcastle, we've already seen from the Labor government a massive $100 million commitment to establish a clean energy precinct at the Port of Newcastle. We've got another $425 million for a hydrogen hub at Orica, $60 million into the Hunter Net Zero Manufacturing Centre of Excellence at Tighes Hill TAFE and $21 million for a new Future Industries Facility at the University of Newcastle. But what do those opposite offer? They'd rip all of that up plus lead us into more delay, more denial and more division. Yet every serious investor, every major trading partner and every responsible business leader knows the future is in clean energy.

This motion is a joke, but the consequences are deadly serious. It betrays Australians, it betrays kids and it betrays every worker who is counting on this country to have a plan about their future. Most importantly, it betrays regions like mine. Only Labor has a plan for clean energy, good jobs and a fairer, more sustainable Australia.

Marion Scrymgour (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.