Rick Wilson (O'Connor, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak in support of the Repeal Net Zero Bill 2025. My electorate of O'Connor is ground zero for net zero. We've already seen the total demise of the nickel industry, with 14 out of 16 nickel mines in my electorate closing thanks to cheap, dirty nickel being produced in Indonesia. Of the two remaining facilities, Murrin Murrin has lost $61 million in the last six months and has just declined a $35 million government grant to transform its gas-fired power to renewables. The iconic Kalgoorlie nickel smelter and Goldfields nickel mines are shuttered, and the Ravensthorpe First Quantum nickel mine and processing operation on the south coast has folded.

Thousands of jobs have been lost across my electorate, and, going forward, the safeguard mechanism will single-handedly destroy even more productive industries between now and 2030. Of the 219 largest emitters in the country captured under the safeguard mechanism, 36 per cent are in WA, with over 20 of those facilities in my electorate of O'Connor. They include the goldminers of the historic Goldfields; Boddington, the largest goldmine in the country; lithium producers at Mount Marion; the Worsley Alumina refinery; and Premier Coal, in Collie. The safeguard mechanism is forcing companies to buy expensive renewable energy, build their own renewable power stations or buy expensive offsets, which is literally converting productive O'Connor farmland back to bush.

Meanwhile, the capacity mechanism is incentivising renewable energy projects across the agricultural areas of my electorate. Under the capacity mechanism, taxpayer dollars are underwriting the profits of largely multinational or international companies to build wind and solar farms across some of the most productive farmland in the country, where this year's grainyards will potentially be the highest ever and stock prices are at record highs.

These wind and solar projects are creating considerable community division. Last week I visited Narrogin, which will soon host three wind farm projects. There is open tension between those who accept the wind farm windfall and those who want to continue farming as their forebears did. Some residents are concerned about visual and noise pollution or are fearful of potential adverse health effects. Landowners and volunteer firefighters who have lived through raging bushfires know a wind farm makes agricultural land and adjacent wildlife havens indefensible by air. Where are the guarantees for environmental restoration at the end of the life of these renewables? Will farmers and shire councils be left with the environmental remediation burden after cashed-up multinationals have cut and run?

But the renewable energy fallout doesn't stop here for the good people of O'Connor, where the most popular vehicles for work and leisure are the Toyota HiLux and the Ford Ranger. Labor's vehicle emissions reduction scheme will drive up the price of these vehicles, as electric vehicles are simply not suitable in my electorate, where people can drive up to 600 or 700 kilometres just for a doctor's appointment. At the end of the day, for my electorate it's the hardworking businesses and taxpayers of O'Connor underwriting these projects.

These imposts effectively constitute a carbon tax. Treasury recently referred to the cost per tonne of carbon—which is effectively the same as a carbon tax—as around $65 per tonne to achieve targets of 43 per cent emissions reduction by 2030, and then up to $323 per tonne to reach net zero by 2050. People may recall—and I'm sure people on the other side will recall—that when the Gillard government was unceremoniously dumped in 2013 the carbon price was $23 a tonne.

Now to the impact on agriculture. The CSIRO recently modelled that a carbon cost of $70 per tonne of CO2 would add $150 to $200 per tonne to the cost of urea. The Grattan Institute modelled similar effects on the costs of agricultural chemicals, up five to 15 per cent, and lime and on-farm diesel, also up five to 15 per cent. Just this weekend, climate czar Matt Kean floated the removal of the diesel tax rebate. For a 4,000-hectare WA wheat-sheep farm, this could add more than $200,000 per year in additional costs by 2030.

So, to achieve these net zero goals, we're already decimating the mining industry across my electorate, inflicting serious damage on our agriculture and transport industries and hitting the hip pockets of everyday people living in O'Connor, all for a climate goal that most of the international community is coming to realise will never be reached. The only thing we're on track for is impoverishing our great country, for no gain to the global climate.

Dan Repacholi (Hunter, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm a fitter and turner by trade. I'm a bloke who has worked alongside miners, tradies and power station workers, and now I stand here as their representative in this parliament. Sometimes, though, when I come into this place to explain net zero to those opposite, I feel more like a kindergarten teacher than a member of parliament. I don't know if it's selective hearing, genuine misunderstanding or just plain ignorance, but, whenever we talk about reducing our emissions, those opposite leave out the most important word in 'net zero': 'net'. Net zero does not mean shutting down industries. Net zero does not mean zero emissions. Net zero is about one thing: offsets. It means we take as much carbon out of the atmosphere as we put in. It is simple and practical, and industries in the Hunter are already doing it.

One of the lines I always hear is that net zero will close down coalmines. That's rubbish. The Minerals Council of Australia and many coal companies have already set themselves net zero targets by 2050. They did this even before government legislated our national target. So I ask those opposite: why would the peak mining body set net zero targets if it meant destroying their own industry? Why would companies sign up for it if it meant going broke? The answer is obvious: they wouldn't, because net zero is not about shutting up shop. It's about running mines, keeping people in work and reaching net zero through offsets and better technology. Back in 2021, the Minerals Council set out practical steps to get there. These steps included energy efficiency, switching to renewables, carbon capture, methane abatement, electrification and investing in negative emissions technologies. In other words, the industry itself is leading the way.

Another old chestnut is that we should build a new coal-fired power station. Now, coal power is something that has a special place in my heart. Our power stations have kept the lights on in the Hunter for generations. They create good jobs, they built communities like Lake Macquarie, Cessnock and Muswellbrook, and they made the Hunter the powerhouse of the state and of Australia. For that, I will always be grateful. I am not in favour of any of the power stations shutting down earlier than they have to, and, if business came forward tomorrow with a solid plan for a new coal-fired power station in the Hunter, I would happily look at it and have the conversation. I am not opposed to any source of power generation, as long as it stacks up financially. But the truth is that the market has moved on. Our coal stations are ageing and are having many unplanned maintenance outages, and new ones are no longer the cheapest and most efficient way to generate power.

At the same time, Australia is leading the world in rooftop solar, and in the Hunter families are leading that charge. From Kurri to Cessnock to Toronto to Singleton, people are putting solar on their roofs because it saves them money. Not one person is calling solar 'woke' in the Hunter; they are too busy cutting their power bills. We have plenty of sun in this country, so why wouldn't we make the most of it? For those who ask, 'What about when the sun doesn't shine?' the simple answer is something called a battery. It stores solar energy so you can use it at night. With our Cheaper Home Batteries Program, it has never been more affordable. Hunter households are taking it up at one of the fastest rates in the nation, with 106,000 batteries installed since 1 July. A proud coalmining region is proving that you can honour the industry that built us while embracing technology that makes life cheaper and easier. That's the real story of net zero in the Hunter. It's not about sacrifice. It's not about turning our backs on coal. It's about building on our strengths. We can mine coal and use offsets. We can keep our power stations running for as long as the markets support them. We can also be leaders in solar, batteries, renewables, gas and new industries that will take us into the future. That is good for jobs, good for families and good for the Hunter.

The Hunter has always been the engine room of New South Wales. We powered the state through coal, and now we're proving we can lead the way to net zero as well—not by shutting down but by stepping up, not by walking away but by making smart choices. That is what net zero means for us. That's why it's good for the Hunter and that's why we'll continue to support it all away. To the coalmining community out there: remember, for as long as people want to buy our coal we'll always supply it to them. We have the best coal in the world, and we need to make sure we keep using it.

Tom French (Moore, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There was a time when the member for New England stood for something. He was a country maverick who crossed the floor more than anyone else, a man who wouldn't take a script from anyone—not the press gallery, not the suits in Canberra and certainly not his own party. He was loud, but it came from conviction and from a genuine belief that the bush needed a fighter, and for a time he was that fighter. He still stands for something, but it's no longer the people he once championed. The conviction remains, but the compass has spun. The fight that once came from the soil now comes from the studio light. The bill before us, the so-called Repeal Net Zero Bill, is the product of that drift. It tears down; it doesn't build. It looks backwards, not forwards. It scraps the Climate Change Act, abolishes the Net Zero Economy Authority and deletes every reference to net zero it can find, as if deleting the words will stop the weather. There is no courage in it, just confusion. It's a long way from the plain-spoken pragmatism of the farmers, workers and small-business owners who actually keep the regions running.

I represent Moore, a coastal electorate where people know the value of hard work and fair reward. They know when someone is offering a fair go and when they're just selling nostalgia. The people of Moore don't want another round of arguments from last century; they want cheaper bills, steadier jobs and a government that treats clean energy as a tool, not a target. In Joondalup, small firms are cutting costs with solar. In Kingsley, retirees are counting every dollar. In Mullaloo, apprentices are wiring up industries of the future, not patching up the past. When they talk about the past, it's in words like 'shutdown' or 'decommission'.

The member for New England says net zero is pointless. He says we'll be stronger if we walk away from the world. He says renewables are future landfill. But, while people suffer through droughts, tariffs and the embarrassment of being a century behind, it's his words that seem pointless. Once the member for New England stood up for rural Australians in this chamber, but this bill gives them only an echo, distant and unclear—the sound of politics stuck in neutral. It's a squeaky-wheel performance of masculinity chasing overseas strongmen instead of shaping Australia's future here at home.

Net zero isn't ideology; it's industry. It's 33 per cent of Australian homes now topped with rooftop solar. It's farmers earning carbon credits to diversify their income. It's regional towns like Geraldton and Kalbarri turning wind and sun into wages and opportunity. Since Labor came to government, renewable generation has risen nearly 30 per cent. Investment hit $12.7 billion last year, including $9 billion for new, large-scale projects. Over four million homes now produce their own power—the highest per capita in the world. That's not ideology; that's the Australian instinct to get on with it.

The National Party, once a party of practical men and women of the land, has walked away from net zero entirely. In doing so they've walked away from their own communities' economic future. Instead of backing farmers and regional workers, they have backed fantasies. Instead of standing up for regional opportunity, they have surrendered to political nostalgia. Every time they turn their backs on net zero they turn their backs on regional jobs and investment.

Yes, the member for New England once stood up for the bush. He stood for independence, decency and the right to have a go. But this bill is not that. It's not maverick; it's mimicry. It's not rebellion but retreat—a retreat that would leave this country he loves weaker, poorer and more divided. Now we see it plainly: the retreat is complete. Australia deserves better. The bush deserves better. This parliament must do better. I oppose this bill because standing up for regional Australia means standing up its future, not dragging it back into someone else's past.

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

There being no further speakers, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting.