Electricity Infrastructure Legislation Amendment Bill 2025

Mr VAN MANEN (Forde—Chief Opposition Whip) (20:33): It is a pleasure to rise to speak on the Electricity Infrastructure Legislation Amendment Bill 2025. It's interesting that the government wants to ram these provisions through the House, given that the bill is still under review by a Senate committee. It tells us much about this government's agenda and what it wants to do.

In a brief conversation I had with the member for Spence in the lead-up to my remarks, I noted that once again we see the government waxing lyrical about its green energy plans. As usual, the promise of the government's programs and policies bears little resemblance to the actual delivery and the impact on the ground. But we're used to that now, and the Australian people are increasingly waking up to that reality.

What we find is that Labor refuses to tell Australians how much offshore wind will cost and how much they will have to pay on their power bills. In fact, we have no idea what Labor's grand green scheme of 82 per cent by 2030 is going to cost the Australian people because they refuse to even make an attempt to detail what the true cost will be. As the member for Forrest rightly pointed out, there is a multitude of holes in this policy big enough to drive a Mack truck through.

Now, in this case, Labor is changing the rules after the fact, which creates uncertainty for investors and raises the risk profile for energy projects in Australia. The government has completely ignored industry stakeholders on this bill, rushing through legislation that directly affects major investment decisions without proper consultation. Well, knock me down with a feather.

This isn't the first time this government has done this. They have a track record over the past three years of ramming legislation through this place, with a fig leaf of consultation. But, when you actually scratch the surface, there has been no consultation, or maybe at best, to give them a little bit of credit—which they're probably not due, but I'll give them a little bit—they've made some attempt to speak with their favoured groups but not all affected stakeholders.

That's their track record. They speak to their favourite groups and not the full range of impacted stakeholders. More importantly, what we find in many of the consultation processes is that they get people to sign non-disclosure agreements so you can't even have an open and public debate about the proposals the government is putting forward.

I find that incredibly interesting, because I seem to remember—and the shadow minister at the table might correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm sure he won't—that this current government came to power in 2022 promising an era of openness, transparency and letting the sun shine in. Mr Hogan: What happened to that? Mr VAN MANEN: 'What happened to that?' the shadow minister at the table quite rightly asks.

Well, it has only been closed doors, non-disclosure agreements and a failure to be transparent with the Australian people. With this piece of legislation we see exactly the same process being rolled out. Now, it's interesting to note that the government has steamrolled ahead with offshore wind zones without any proper consultation, with a backlash across the country from the affected communities.

But, interestingly, major players have also abandoned offshore wind projects due to cost blowouts, regulatory uncertainty and economic unfeasibility. Importantly—and incompetence is a hallmark of this government, so I'm not really that surprised—the government keeps pretending that offshore wind is booming. But the market says otherwise.

So where are we with all of this? Well, we're here today because the Labor government have been so rushed to get more onshore wind that they forgot to finish writing the regulations. As usual, it's about politics and not about the quality of the policy.

The government is attempting to push a bill through parliament without scrutiny before the election so the minister—and I'm pleased to see that the minister is in the House for the final bits of this debate—can make announcements during the campaign. They're very good at making announcements, but the follow-up tends to be rather lacking. As I said in a previous contribution in this House today, nine times out of 10, if you listen to what they say, it's complete nonsense in reality.

There's a vast gulf between what they say and what they actually do. As we look at the government's energy plan overall, there's a continuing blank cheque for higher power bills. I remember, as the shadow minister at the table would remember and as my colleague the member for Fadden would remember, the Prime Minister promised 97 times during the election campaign that Australians would get a $275 cut to their power bills.

Instead, we are seeing families paying up to $1,000 more under Labor's costly and chaotic energy plans. They tried to buy off the Australian people with a $300 rebate this financial year. The Australian people are a bit smarter than that.

We've seen in the last week or so Moody's confirm that it will cost up to $230 billion over the next 10 years and drive up household electricity prices another 25 per cent in that time. This is yet another independent warning that the government's renewables-only approach will hurt Australians, forcing families and businesses to the wall. I know from talking to businesses in my electorate that the cost impact for them business-wise of energy prices is extraordinary.

They are seeing increases in gas prices of more than 50 per cent. I know in general we talk about 34 per cent in the household sector, but in the business sector there have been 50, 100 and 200 per cent increases in gas prices. That is making their ability to keep their doors open and keep hardworking Australians employed increasingly difficult.

This government doesn't seem to really care about that. The government must explain why they continue to pursue a plan which hurts everyday Australians. This government is also fond of talking about the environmental benefits of offshore wind.

Interestingly, I came across an article recently by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. It released a final programmatic environmental impact statement on a wind development in the New York Bight. That's quite interesting reading.

The report tries to gloss over the impacts a little bit, because it uses such interesting words as 'outlining measures to avoid, minimise, mitigate and monitor impacts'. Well, what are some of the impacts that they're seeking to minimise? They're seeking to minimise biological impacts.

On what? Marine mammals, sea turtles, birds and fish. They could suffer due to noise, habitat displacement and changes in migration patterns.

Even bats are mentioned in the report. What other impacts are they seeking to minimise? Physical and socioeconomic impacts.

The potential effects on water and air quality, commercial and recreational fishing, tourism and scenic resources are all outlined. What else? It says mitigation measures are not enough, although the report outlines numerous avoidance, minimisation, mitigation and monitoring measures.

That, to me, tells a completely different story from what those opposite propose of the economic and environmental benefits of wind power in particular but also solar. We've seen in Queensland the impacts of large-scale commercial solar farms on ridge lines in the Great Dividing Range and pristine bushland and koala habitats. These ridge lines are being bulldozed and massive wind turbines are being built.

If a farmer wanted to do exactly the same thing, he would not be allowed to do that, but a wind farm company can come in and do that with very few questions asked. Where is the equivalence? If it was a mining company, they wouldn't be allowed to do that, but a wind farm proponent can.

The double standard is just extraordinary. As I look at all of these things, the amount of money involved and the lack of life span of these projects, and I look at the impact on Australian business and Australian households as a result, all I can think of and describe these projects as is a boondoggle. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines a 'boondoggle' as 'an expensive and wasteful project usually paid for with public money'.

I think that covers it! Google says it's 'work or activity that is wasteful or pointless but gives the appearance of having value'. I think that covers it very well.

Wikipedia says it's 'a project that is considered a waste of both time and money yet is often continued due to extraneous policy or political motivations'. That is the best definition of these wind farm projects and this legislation I could find. It's why the coalition stands opposed to this legislation, and we stand implacably opposed to the energy policies put forward by this reckless and hopeless government.

All it's going to do is send Australia into bankruptcy.