Milton Dick

In accordance with standing order 133(b), I shall now proceed to put the question on the motion moved on the second reading of the Governor-General Amendment (Salary) Bill 2024 on which a division was called for and deferred in accordance with the standing order. No further debate is allowed.

Milton Dick

The question before the House is that this bill be now read a second time.

Long debate text truncated.

Steve Georganas

I'll continue on from where I left off last night, when I managed to get a couple of minutes in on this very important bill. As I was saying last night, the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Bill 2024 is very important because it lays the groundwork for changes to make the NDIS better and more secure and to support people with disabilities in a way that gives them even more dignity in their everyday lives.

When you look at the NDIS, it's right up there with the great Labor reforms in our history. It's right up there with Medicare. It's right up there with the Chifley government's national taxation system and the pension system. This was certainly groundbreaking back during the Rudd-Gillard era. I recall very well that, in my own electorate, back in 2007, we had a disability forum. The then member for Maribyrnong, who was the minister for disability services, came along and said to me, 'I'm going to test something out in this room.' And he spoke to a room of approximately 150 people in my electorate who were from the disability sector—people with disabilities, parents who had children with disabilities and a whole range of people. He spoke about an insurance scheme, and I recall very well that it went down very well with everyone in that room. From there, the seed was planted for an NDIS. Of course, it took a few years through the minister, who then was Jenny Macklin. I was very proud to be here on the day the NDIS was passed unanimously through this House.

This bill builds on those important steps. As I said last night, we know that in March earlier this year we introduced legislation to the parliament to enable this important and necessary change to the NDIS. The government, by proposing this bill, is delivering on a commitment to build a strong and sustainable NDIS. We're doing this not just through words but by providing a further $468.7 million to get the NDIS back on track. These measures build on the $213.7 million to fight fraud, for example, and to co-design the NDIS reforms with people with disability announced earlier this year. The budget that was announced a few weeks ago will drive the implementation of key recommendations from the independent review of the NDIS, including reforms to the scheme transparency, participant supports, sustainability and services delivery, to get the NDIS back on track. This Albanese Labor government is committed to involve people with disability in the reforms, to improve outcomes for people with disability and to ensure the scheme is here forever and a day to support future generations of Australians with disabilities.

The NDIS is on the same pedestal, as I said earlier, as our remarkable Medicare. People with disabilities and their families know that they can trust this government to continue to protect the scheme, to make it stronger and to get the NDIS back on track. This government is committed to improving the outcomes for the NDIS participants and ensuring every single dollar goes to those who need it the most. The Albanese government will continue to work closely with the disability sector to consider the recommendations of the independent NDIS review and transition towards a disability support ecosystem capable of supporting all Australians with disability now and into the future. We've already said that we want to make it stronger and we've already begun to take that initiative and the initial, immediate steps in response to the historic review.

The investment will provide the architecture needed to bring together people with disability, government and other experts, to support those implementations and those important reforms. The key investments will include $45.5 million to establish an NDIS Evidence Advisory Committee, a clear pathway of $20 million to start consultation and design work to help people with disability navigate the services, and a fresh approach to pricing, which is very important, with $5.3 million to undertake that work to reform the NDIS pricing arrangements to help to ensure that the NDIS participants get the best deal and a fair deal and increase the transparency of how prices are set. These are all important steps. For example, the architecture to implement the reform will strengthen the governance. For co-design in fighting fraud there is $213.8 million of recently announced funding to fight fraud—to fight the things that we saw on the front page of today's Australian, and to co-design and reform this NDIS so that people with disability get the most out of it.

This government is transforming the capability of the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission to protect people with disabilities from abuse, violence and neglect, and to detect and prevent fraud. Over the next four years, starting from financial year 2024-25, the Australian government will be investing more than $160.7 million through the DART program to ensure the NDIS commission has the critical technology and the systems required to gather the intelligence and collect and analyse data to better protect the NDIS participants. It will reduce the regulatory burden on the NDIS providers and improve cybersecurity.

This investment will ensure the NDIS commission can focus its activities to better protect those people with disabilities from harm and provide for more effective data sharing between the NDIS commission and the NDIA, as well as other government agencies, to help protect those participants by reducing misuse of the system.

The government and the minister are absolutely committed. That's why they've committed $45.5 million to establish the NDIS Evidence Advisory Committee, and this is a key recommendation of the independent NDIS review. We know that the NDIS Evidence Advisory Committee will provide independent and transparent advice to government on what works for participants. The committee will also provide advice on the evidence base for therapeutic support access through the NDIS, improving outcomes and ensuring better value for participants.

We know key findings from the independent NDIS review highlighted the challenges people with disability, their families and their carers face when navigating this labyrinth to find and access vital supports and services within the current disability ecosystem. The Albanese Labor government is also investing $20 million to begin breaking down these barriers through commencing consultation and design of a new navigation service model for the disability community regardless of their eligibility to access the NDIS. The government will continue to work closely with people with disabilities and the broader disability sector to ensure that the proposed navigational model is fit for purpose and able to meet the diverse needs of the disability community both inside and outside of the NDIS.

Over the last 10 years, the NDIS has made an incredible difference to people's lives. It's made a very significant contribution to Australians living with a disability and their families and those who care for them. This includes many constituents who have approached my office with issues in this space. I'm sure all of us in this House, on both sides, get queries from constituents that are having issues with the NDIS or in the disability sector. One of those constituents of mine that we have assisted recently is Jane, whose occasional therapist contacted me to raise concerns for Jane's wellbeing should she not receive NDIS support. At the time, Jane was in the Royal Adelaide public hospital and was not able to be released. They would not release her until she had some ongoing care at home. Jane is chair bound and suffers from severe lymphoedema, severe arthritis and complex PTSD. At the time, I was advised that Jane had previously applied for the NDIS but was refused for various reasons. I then took it upon myself to make representations on behalf of Jane and to assist Jane out of deep concern for her wellbeing, as her carer was telling us about. The thing is that she couldn't go home without the care, so therefore she was stuck in a bed in a public hospital. It's also worth noting that a situation like this contributes to the congestion in our hospitals. People are in hospital beds because they can't access the support to go home. But I was pleased that, after approaching Minister Shorten's office, he took a keen interest in Jane's case and asked for it to be reviewed. The review resulted in Jane receiving NDIS support and returning home with the support she needed. Her quality of life has improved immensely since then. This is by no means an isolated case. In my office we regularly assist constituents to access NDIS support for themselves and for their family members.

This is why this Albanese Labor government is investing $5.3 million in 2024 and 2025 to undertake the preliminary work on possible NDIS pricing function reforms to strengthen transparency, predictability and alignment, which will then in turn offer those people with disabilities a better service. This government will continue to work very closely with the disability sector to consider the recommendations of the independent NDIS review and transition towards a disability support ecosystem capable of supporting all Australians with disabilities now and into the future.

The NDIS Implementation Advisory Committee will oversee and advise on all of the initial period of implementation and will have representatives from the wide disability sector and government and other experts with relevant experience. The committee will report to the Disability Reform Ministerial Council every six months. I was proud, 10 years ago, when the bill was passed in this place to form the NDIS. I'm still proud of the ongoing work. I know that only a Labor government can be trusted to get the NDIS back on track. (Time expired)

Long debate text truncated.

Milton Dick

The question is that the bill be read a second time.

Zali Steggall

by leave—I move amendments (1) to (18) on sheet 2, as circulated in my name, together:

(1) Clause 4, page 3 (line 24), omit "or a gas-fired power station", substitute ", gas-fired power station or other relevant facility or business".

(2) Clause 5, page 8 (after line 11), after the definition of national security information, insert:

net zero emissions economy means an Australian economy where:

(a) Australia's absolute greenhouse gas emissions have been significantly reduced to zero or to a residual level consistent with global efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5℃ above industrial levels in accordance with Articles 2 and 4 of the Paris Agreement; and

(b) any residual Australian greenhouse gas emissions are neutralised by, and continue to be neutralised after, the net zero target date.

net zero target date means the target date set out in paragraph 10(1)(b) of the Climate Change Act 2022 for Australia's net greenhouse gas emissions to reduce to zero.

(3) Clause 6, page 10 (after line 23), after subclause (2), insert:

(2A) An employer is also a closing employer if:

(a) the employer:

(i) is a constitutional corporation; and

(ii) owns (whether alone or jointly) or operates (whether alone or jointly) one or more parts of a facility that is a designated large facility for the purposes of the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007 for a financial year;

whether or not the employer employs employees to perform work at the facility; or

(b) the employer is a constitutional corporation that owns (whether alone or jointly) or operates (whether alone or jointly) one or more parts of a business specified in a determination under subsection (2B).

(2B) The Minister may, on recommendation by the Authority, determine in writing one or more classes of businesses for the purposes of paragraph (2A)(b).

(2C) The Minister must cause a copy of the determination (including as varied) to be published on the Authority's website.

(2D) A determination under subsection (2B) is not a legislative instrument.

(2E) The Authority may, by notifiable instrument, make recommendations for the purposes of subsection (2B).

(4) Clause 6, page 11 (after line 19), after subclause (4), insert:

(4A) An employer is also a dependent employer if the employer (the relevant employer):

(a) is a constitutional corporation; and

(b) has a commercial relationship with:

(i) a closing employer within the meaning of subsection (2A); or

(ii) an associated entity of such a closing employer; and

(c) will, or will be likely to, cease a substantial part of the operations carried on by the relevant employer at the facility or business concerned, or in the same geographic area in which the facility or business concerned is located, as a direct result of the eventual closure of that facility or business.

(5) Clause 7, page 12 (after line 26), after subclause (2), insert:

(2A) A transition employee, of a closing employer within the meaning of subsection 6(2A), is an employee of the closing employer who is employed to perform work at the facility or business concerned.

(6) Clause 7, page 13 (after line 5), at the end of the clause, add:

(5) A transition employee, of a dependent employer within the meaning of subsection 6(4A), is an employee of the dependent employer who is employed to perform work in the operations that will, or will be likely to, cease as mentioned in paragraph 6(4A)(c).

(7) Clause 9, page 13 (line 21), omit "or a gas-fired power station", substitute ", gas-fired power station or other relevant facility or business referred to in subsection 6(2A)".

(8) Clause 9, page 13 (line 26), omit "or a gas-fired power station", substitute ", gas-fired power station or other relevant facility or business referred to in subsection 6(2A)".

(9) Clause 16, page 17 (after line 15), after paragraph (1)(b), insert:

(ba) with the Climate Change Authority and in consultation with industry, communities and the public and private sector—to proactively plan, coordinate and advise on the phasing out of fossil fuels, including their exploration, extraction and export and their use in Australia;

(10) Clause 16, page 18 (lines 3 to 6), omit subclause (2), substitute:

(2) In performing the Authority's functions, the Authority must have regard to the following principles:

(a) the principle of prioritising communities, regions, industries and workers that are or will be:

(i) concerned with manufacturing, installing or maintaining equipment, appliances, vehicles or devices that consume fossil fuels; or

(ii) otherwise significantly affected by Australia's transition to a net zero emissions economy;

(b) the principles of:

(i) economic efficiency; and

(ii) environmental effectiveness; and

(iii) equity; and

(iv) the public interest; and

(v) the impact on households, businesses, workers and communities; and

(vi) an effective global response to climate change; and

(vii) consistency with Australia's foreign policy and trade objectives; and

(viii) complying with Articles 2, 4, 8 and 12 of the Paris Agreement; and

(ix) boosting economic, employment and social benefits, including for rural and regional Australia; and

(x) achieving the safeguard outcome in paragraph 3(2)(d) of the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007;

(c) any other principles that the Authority considers relevant.

This subsection has effect subject to subsections (4) and (5).

(11) Clause 21, page 23 (line 5), omit "5", substitute "7".

(12) Clause 23, page 24 (after line 26), after paragraph (3)(f), insert:

(fa) climate science;

(fb) engineering;

(13) Clause 54, page 40 (line 5), omit "or a gas-fired power station", substitute ", gas-fired power station or other relevant facility or business".

(14) Clause 55, page 42 (line 29), omit "or a gas-fired power station", substitute ", gas-fired power station or other relevant facility or business".

(15) Clause 56, page 43 (line 24), omit "or gas-fired power station", substitute ", gas-fired power station, facility or business".

(16) Clause 56, page 45 (line 2), after "power station", insert ", facility or business".

(17) Clause 57, page 47 (line 11), after "power station", insert ", facility or business".

(18) Clause 57, page 47 (line 25), after "power station", insert ", facility or business".

I'm actually disappointed that I need to move these amendments. When we look at the consideration in detail of this bill, where many on the crossbench have attempted to improve the effect and powers of the Net Zero Economy Authority, alleged, under this bill, it's clear that the government is still very limited and very blinkered with regard to which industries and which specific workers it's willing to help.

That's why I moved my amendments. They will amend the name of this bill to what it in fact is: the 'coal and gas-fired worker transition authority' bill. It's necessary for the government to be very clear and not to mislead people and communities as to the very limited extent of support that its bill offers. Coalmining communities, such as those in the Hunter and in other areas around Australia, that work in mines where the product is for export, might be mistaken in thinking that a just transition would be afforded to them under this bill. That's not the case, and that needs to be made clear. This House has not voted to accept amendments moved by many here that would provide a mechanism to do that or, at the very least, a mechanism to ensure it's possible within the powers of the authority to do it—or even that it would be within the terms of review, to broaden the scope and powers of the authority over time. Then it would be in keeping with the alleged name 'Net Zero Economy Authority'.

Instead, we have seen industries, especially those that we know will phase out as a result of the transition to a low-carbon economy, left out. We know that our economy is changing, that it needs to and that it needs to change fast. In fact, we need to put an end to coal and gas. We need no new coal and gas; we need to end those export industries and transition to others. The first step in that is recognising it. The year 2023 was the first where temperatures on land exceeded two degrees above pre-industrial levels. Joel Gergis' quarterly essay named 'Highway to Hell: Climate Change and Australia's Future' outlines a grim scientific account of what we are facing. Transition will, and must, occur, and we need to support our economy, communities and workers in doing so. The International Energy Agency forecasts that the world is decarbonising, that our trading partners are decarbonising and that the demand for our fossil fuels is going to change and decline, so we need to address this and assist those communities. It would be remiss only to pick, narrowly, a few winners—a few communities which deserve the power of the authority and not others. That's why, reluctantly, we need to ensure that this bill is only directed to those who it's actually empowered to assist. It will not impact many others in the fossil fuel industries who will be impacted by the transition to net zero.

We see a lot of greenwashing across a lot of industries,. The use of the term, 'net zero' is a nice phrase. It rings, and makes people reading it think that it's addressing a very specific thing. I know there's a very real reason why the government drafters used that term in the name of this authority, and that's why I've moved these amendments to change it. I think we need to be really clear that a net zero economy is much broader than just coal and gas workers in the fossil fuel energy industry. If we're genuinely going to say that it's a net zero economy, it must be much broader. That's why I have moved these amendments, to ensure that we don't leave anyone behind. I want to make sure that no-one is misled by the title of this bill; that it's in fact very clear and that communities know the importance of the terminology 'net zero'. There's a growing awareness about this, and they know that the use of the term is also associated with much greenwashing. We need to make sure that consistency and climate commitment are attached to the term.

In the absence of broadening the scope of the authority to provide work plans which address the other industries that will be impacted by the net zero transition, it's necessary to call a spade a spade and to say that the operating provisions of this act should be reflected in its name. This is why I have moved these amendments.

Patrick Gorman

The government does not accept the proposed amendments. Indeed, to accept them would be to mislead about the intent of this bill or the provisions within it. We have just spent almost two hours considering this bill in detail. I have stood here and outlined the broad powers that sit within the Net Zero Economy Authority. If we were to accept this change, which in my view talks down to workers in a range of essential industries for our economy, it would not reflect the bill that is in front of us. It would not reflect the ambitions that the government has for this authority and it would not reflect the expectations of this parliament, who I hope will soon vote for this bill. It would not reflect our ambitions for what that authority needs to go on and do.

I outlined the powers in section 16 and I outlined the hundreds of millions of dollars the government has put in the budget for this authority to do all of that work, so to simply try and divide Australians by saying, 'This is just for a small section of workers,' is completely wrong. The amendment would not reflect the bill as it is on the table right there, and I would urge the member for Warringah—who I know comes and does, as I seek to, raise the standard of political debate—that I don't think that this is an appropriate way to raise the standard of political debate. It narrows the title of the bill and it narrows the title of the authority in a way that actually doesn't reflect the work that it will do. I agree with the Member for Warringah when she says it's time to stand up for integrity and accountability and restore trust in Australian politics. This change would not do that.

I know that the Member for Warringah has done a lot of work when it comes to increasing accountability for those of us elected to parliament and when it comes to integrity in political advertising. In my view, it would be a lie in terms of what this authority does if we were to change it to this name. It's so much bigger in scope. The transformation is so much bigger than the simple title change that's proposed. The government doesn't support it and I don't think anyone in this parliament should.

Zali Steggall

I have a question for the assistant minister. If it is the intent of the government to generally have an authority that addresses an entire net zero economy transition—which means going broadly across a lot of areas—could the minister clarify why part 5, Energy Industry Jobs Plan, is limited in section 54 to only those relating to the closure of the whole or part of a coal-fired power station or gas-fired power station, and that is the only requirement to trigger the creation of an energy industry job plan?

Long debate text truncated.

Zali Steggall

by leave—I move amendments (1) to (18) as circulated in my name:

(1) Clause 4, page 3 (line 24), omit "or a gas-fired power station", substitute ", gas-fired power station or other relevant facility or business".

(2) Clause 5, page 8 (after line 11), after the definition of national security information, insert:

net zero emissions economy means an Australian economy where:

(a) Australia's absolute greenhouse gas emissions have been significantly reduced to zero or to a residual level consistent with global efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5℃ above industrial levels in accordance with Articles 2 and 4 of the Paris Agreement; and

(b) any residual Australian greenhouse gas emissions are neutralised by, and continue to be neutralised after, the net zero target date.

net zero target date means the target date set out in paragraph 10(1)(b) of the Climate Change Act 2022 for Australia's net greenhouse gas emissions to reduce to zero.

(3) Clause 6, page 10 (after line 23), after subclause (2), insert:

(2A) An employer is also a closing employer if:

(a) the employer:

(i) is a constitutional corporation; and

(ii) owns (whether alone or jointly) or operates (whether alone or jointly) one or more parts of a facility that is a designated large facility for the purposes of the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007 for a financial year;

whether or not the employer employs employees to perform work at the facility; or

(b) the employer is a constitutional corporation that owns (whether alone or jointly) or operates (whether alone or jointly) one or more parts of a business specified in a determination under subsection (2B).

(2B) The Minister may, on recommendation by the Authority, determine in writing one or more classes of businesses for the purposes of paragraph (2A)(b).

(2C) The Minister must cause a copy of the determination (including as varied) to be published on the Authority's website.

(2D) A determination under subsection (2B) is not a legislative instrument.

(2E) The Authority may, by notifiable instrument, make recommendations for the purposes of subsection (2B).

(4) Clause 6, page 11 (after line 19), after subclause (4), insert:

(4A) An employer is also a dependent employer if the employer (the relevant employer):

(a) is a constitutional corporation; and

(b) has a commercial relationship with:

(i) a closing employer within the meaning of subsection (2A); or

(ii) an associated entity of such a closing employer; and

(c) will, or will be likely to, cease a substantial part of the operations carried on by the relevant employer at the facility or business concerned, or in the same geographic area in which the facility or business concerned is located, as a direct result of the eventual closure of that facility or business.

(5) Clause 7, page 12 (after line 26), after subclause (2), insert:

(2A) A transition employee, of a closing employer within the meaning of subsection 6(2A), is an employee of the closing employer who is employed to perform work at the facility or business concerned.

(6) Clause 7, page 13 (after line 5), at the end of the clause, add:

(5) A transition employee, of a dependent employer within the meaning of subsection 6(4A), is an employee of the dependent employer who is employed to perform work in the operations that will, or will be likely to, cease as mentioned in paragraph 6(4A)(c).

(7) Clause 9, page 13 (line 21), omit "or a gas-fired power station", substitute ", gas-fired power station or other relevant facility or business referred to in subsection 6(2A)".

(8) Clause 9, page 13 (line 26), omit "or a gas-fired power station", substitute ", gas-fired power station or other relevant facility or business referred to in subsection 6(2A)".

(9) Clause 16, page 17 (after line 15), after paragraph (1)(b), insert:

(ba) with the Climate Change Authority and in consultation with industry, communities and the public and private sector—to proactively plan, coordinate and advise on the phasing out of fossil fuels, including their exploration, extraction and export and their use in Australia;

(10) Clause 16, page 18 (lines 3 to 6), omit subclause (2), substitute:

(2) In performing the Authority's functions, the Authority must have regard to the following principles:

(a) the principle of prioritising communities, regions, industries and workers that are or will be:

(i) concerned with manufacturing, installing or maintaining equipment, appliances, vehicles or devices that consume fossil fuels; or

(ii) otherwise significantly affected by Australia's transition to a net zero emissions economy;

(b) the principles of:

(i) economic efficiency; and

(ii) environmental effectiveness; and

(iii) equity; and

(iv) the public interest; and

(v) the impact on households, businesses, workers and communities; and

(vi) an effective global response to climate change; and

(vii) consistency with Australia's foreign policy and trade objectives; and

(viii) complying with Articles 2, 4, 8 and 12 of the Paris Agreement; and

(ix) boosting economic, employment and social benefits, including for rural and regional Australia; and

(x) achieving the safeguard outcome in paragraph 3(2)(d) of the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007;

(c) any other principles that the Authority considers relevant.

This subsection has effect subject to subsections (4) and (5).

(11) Clause 21, page 23 (line 5), omit "5", substitute "7".

(12) Clause 23, page 24 (after line 26), after paragraph (3)(f), insert:

(fa) climate science;

(fb) engineering;

(13) Clause 54, page 40 (line 5), omit "or a gas-fired power station", substitute ", gas-fired power station or other relevant facility or business".

(14) Clause 55, page 42 (line 29), omit "or a gas-fired power station", substitute ", gas-fired power station or other relevant facility or business".

(15) Clause 56, page 43 (line 24), omit "or gas-fired power station", substitute ", gas-fired power station, facility or business".

(16) Clause 56, page 45 (line 2), after "power station", insert ", facility or business".

(17) Clause 57, page 47 (line 11), after "power station", insert ", facility or business".

(18) Clause 57, page 47 (line 25), after "power station", insert ", facility or business".

These amendments, along with many that have been put forward by the crossbench, are seeking to improve this legislation. Earlier this week, I spoke on the Net Zero Economy Authority Bill 2024, and today these amendments are trying to address the issues there are with that bill. As the bill currently stands, it has a narrow and hypertargeted scope that fails to provide the authority with what is necessary to genuinely support a net zero economy transition. This bill restricts the type of employer or worker that is afforded that just transition to support under the act, specifically limited only to those transitioning from coal- and gas-fired power stations.

In stark contrast to the broad objects of this bill, the operating provisions for worker transition are incredibly limited. Time and time again, members of the Labor government came into this place, talking about no worker being left behind. With respect, that is simply not true. The title of this bill is a shameless attempt to greenwash the effect of this bill. For all the rhetoric about leaving no-one behind in the transition and framing this bill as the Net Zero Economy Authority, the government is leaving many workers and industries behind—and regions, as the member for Indi has pointed out through her amendments. It's limited to helping approximately 5,000 workers, ignoring at least 110,000 others from export coal, oil and gas industries and ignoring a further 100,000-plus workers if we considers the mechanics, gas fitters and other geographically dispersed but emissions-intensive industries that will be subject to transition and that could also be supported by this authority. Even members of the government, like the member for Newcastle, identified that the bill will neglect almost 90 per cent of coalmine workers in the Hunter. The Hunter Jobs Alliance highlights that, in that region alone, an additional 2,600 workers between now and 2030 will be affected by coalmine closures, yet they do not get the benefit of a jobs plan or the real powers for the authority in this bill. The bill should be broadened to include workers who are part of emissions-intensive industries. Examples include gas networks or gas supply and manufacturing businesses, and mechanics for fossil-fuel-powered vehicles. Or, at the very least, the bill should include a mechanism to broaden the scope of powers of the authority to include more workers.

It's not only for workers that this bill is too narrow. The bill currently outlines a Net Zero Economy Authority with wide, overarching objectives. It is critical that these functions are not just aspirational but that they are actually achievable and have teeth or powers associated. It's crucial that the authority is mandated to proactively plan, coordinate and advise on the phase-out of fossil fuels, including their exploration and extraction for export as well as domestic use—something the government seems to remain in denial about. It will acknowledge closure of fossil-fuel energy plants, but it will not acknowledge the likely and very real closure of fossil-fuel export industries.

Independence is also an essential to achieve the goals and for the public to have confidence in how we transform our economy. So the independent body and the board of this new authority must be independent and made up of people with the right mix of expertise and experience. In that respect, I note a number of amendments have been made by members on the crossbenches, again seeking to improve this legislation, but these have not been taken up by the government. At the moment, ironically and quite extraordinarily, this bill doesn't require a board member to have climate or engineering experience, and yet it is a body that's said to be delivering a net zero economy. Without even having that kind of experience, it's hard to imagine that this board will in fact be fit for purpose to meet the very broad and aspirational challenge that it has been set. I would ask the government to rethink the approach. It needs to consider amendments that will enhance the recruitment of board members, ensure their independence and avoid captain's picks.

Finally, we still have the issue that there is good greenwashing in the title of this bill by calling it the Net Zero Economy Authority. Ironically, 'net zero' is still not defined, and I've had discussions with the assistant minister in this respect. The difficulty we have is that there are a lot of other industries that come into play, particularly carbon capture and storage. So it is important to start defining net zero to ensure we don't have industries involved that are not really in the purview of this authority.

Long debate text truncated.

Helen Haines

by leave—I move amendments (12) and (13) on the sheet revised 29 May 2024, as circulated in my name, together:

(12) Clause 23, page 24 (lines 11 to 13), omit paragraph (2)(d), substitute:

(d) 1 other Board member with expertise or experience, professional credibility and significant standing in the field mentioned in paragraph (3)(h); and

(e) up to 3 other Board members with expertise or experience, professional credibility and significant standing in any of the fields mentioned in subsection (3).

(13) Clause 23, page 24 (lines 14 and 15), omit "Paragraphs (b) and (c) do not by implication limit paragraph (a) or (d).", substitute "Paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) do not by implication limit paragraph (a) or (e).".

These amendments would ensure the board, which provides advice to the authority, includes a member with expertise or experience, professional credibility and significant standing in regional development. These amendments are an obvious improvement to the bill. Without these amendments, having a board member with regional development credentials would only be optional. But regional development experience on the board is vital to the success of the authority; it shouldn't be optional. To properly support regional communities, the authority must actually hear from a member from these communities. The authority must work with communities to determine what they need and want from the net zero energy transformation, and having somebody on the board who comes from the regions will help achieve this.

It's not just living in the regions that will make this board member valuable; it's about having experience in regional development too. When I talk about regional development, I'm talking about thriving, prosperous communities. I want to see this board member advocate for the transformational opportunity the net zero economy presents for regional communities—things like quality health care, available child care and well-paid, long-term jobs. I'm also talking about stable phone and internet connections, roads that aren't riddled with potholes and a cheap, reliable source of energy that's shared locally. This is what regional communities must expect from the net zero transformation, but it's not being shown to them right now. A board member with regional development expertise is a step towards realising prosperous livelihoods in the regions in a net zero economy.

I don't want to steal the minister's thunder here, but I think I'm going to do it again because it's important I say this: I understand the government will support these amendments, and I'm pleased that they will, of course. I thank the Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister himself for meeting with me and discussing what is something I feel very passionate about. I want to emphasise—and I really want you to listen carefully to this—that having a regional member on the board of the authority will only be as useful as the authority itself. A regional board member must not be there to only support the regional communities transitioning out of fossil fuel industries. At the same time, the board and the authority must direct its work to the regional communities transitioning into renewable energy; I'm going to keep saying it because it's critical. I'm talking about the regional communities that are being told they are in renewable energy zones but don't know what this means. These are communities that are suddenly being told that they are in 'ideal' locations for grid-scale solar farms with turbines and large battery storage systems—told, not invited to plan and participate in this massive transformation. Communities are not being given the opportunity to plan their futures right now. To achieve net zero with these communities, we must reframe the question from, 'How do we gain their social licence?' to 'How do we achieve regional development and prosperity for them?' I'm going to keep saying that too, because it's just so critical.

My other amendments to this bill provide the pathways towards showing regional development—not merely writing it down in words but actually showing it. They're about action. I'm disappointed that the government is not supporting them at this time, but I look forward to continued discussions with the government, including with the Prime Minister and the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, about how this can be realised. A board member with regional development experience is a good start, but we have a long way to go to ensure that their expertise is going to be utilised. I will be watching this very, very closely.

Patrick Gorman

I thank the member for Indi, not just for moving these amendments but also for separating them from her other amendments so that, as she foreshadowed, in very kind terms, the government is prepared to agree to these amendments. We have already indicated that to the member for Indi in conversations between myself, the Prime Minister and the member.

We agree that there's benefit in requiring that one member of the authority has significant expertise in regional development. We see that this will ensure that the board—and we've already outlined those broad areas we want—has the right skills mix. I of course note that the government's obligations that will apply to this member of the board will be exactly the same as for all other members of the board. We do recognise that an important piece of the work of this authority will be to prioritise communities in regions that are, or will be, significantly affected by Australia's transition to a net zero economy.

I thank the member for Indi for her engagement on this and for outlining her reasons for these particular amendments, effectively persuading the Prime Minister and others in the government. We're pleased to support these amendments.

Allegra Spender

I rise in support of the work of the member for Indi on this, and also for all the amendments that she has put forward on this bill. I represent a community which is, physically, one of the smallest communities in the country, and probably one of the least rural or regional in the country. But what my community constantly tells me is that they care about regional Australia and that they care about rural Australia. They don't only care about their own patch. Across this parliament, we always need to be looking just outside our own patches and making sure that we don't try to create divisions between different parts of the country, but use opportunities to bring these together. I think that the work the member for Indi is doing in this is excellent, because what she's doing is saying, 'This transition will benefit the whole country.'

In my area, we don't have the capacity for the solar farms and the other changes required to power my area. We will get benefit from this, but we want to make sure that regional communities get benefits too. Otherwise, it will fall down. This is beyond asking for social licence; it's saying, 'Let's use this as an opportunity to bring real benefit to our communities and to build the next evolution of our thriving regional communities.'

I thank the government for supporting these amendments and I urge it to consider the other very useful amendments the member has put forward, because I think this is about building community engagement across the country in this absolutely vital change.

Question agreed to.

Long debate text truncated.

Long debate text truncated.

Allegra Spender

I move the amendment circulated in my name:

(1) Page 79 (after line 7), after clause 80, insert:

80A Review of the operation of this Act

(1) Every 4 years, the Minister must cause an independent review to be conducted of the operation of this Act.

(2) Without limiting subsection (1), the review must:

(a) examine the effectiveness of the Authority in performing its functions, including against the object of this Act in section 3; and

(b) having regard to the object of this Act, examine the appropriateness of the following definitions in section 5:

(i) closing employer;

(ii) dependent employer;

(iii) receiving employer; and

(c) make provision for public consultation.

(3) The first review must commence as soon as practicable after the end of the period of 4 years after the day this Act commences.

(4) The persons who conduct the review must give the Minister a written report of the review as soon as practicable and, in any event, not later than 9 months after commencement of the review.

(5) The Minister must cause a copy of the report to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the report is given to the Minister.

All the indicators are flashing red when it comes to the climate crisis. The year 2023 was the hottest year on record, and this record already looks like being broken in 2024. Climate scientists are telling us we're going to blast past 2.5 degrees, and the Great Barrier Reef is experiencing yet another mass bleaching event. To avert the worst impacts of global heating, we need to rapidly accelerate the transition. We need to get off fossil fuels, build the green industries of the future and help workers and communities through the process.

The clean energy transition will be a big challenge for the Australian economy. We'll need to shift people and resources out of coal and gas, massively ramp up renewable energy and develop the workforce to power the industries of the future. It's a transition that won't happen overnight, won't always be easy to manage and won't succeed without proper coordination, and that's what this bill is all about.

The aim of the Net Zero Economy Authority is to help facilitate investment, coordinate policy and help workers and communities through the transition from fossil fuels to the industries of the future. It's vital we get this right. If we don't, regional communities will be left behind, support for the transition will be fatally undermined and we'll miss out on a huge economic opportunity. The new authority has big responsibilities: keeping communities together, ensuring the benefits of the transition are shared, and listening to and learning from communities when we don't get things right. This is what the authority and this legislation must deliver.

This is a good bill and it has broad support from the climate movement, business groups and unions. That's a great place to start. But there is no doubt this bill could be improved, and my amendment seeks to do this. In particular, I'm concerned the authority's scope is too narrow, focusing exclusively on coal-fired power station workers and the mines that supply them. With 90 per cent of coal going offline in the next decade, it's right that these workers are the first priority for support. But for the authority to have enduring impact it will need to work across a broader range of industries over time and adapt its activities as our economy transitions. For example, we know that, as the world economy decarbonises, demand for our fossil fuel exports will reduce; yet, as currently drafted, this legislation precludes the authority from supporting people working in coal and gas mining for exports. A worker in the Hunter Valley at a coalmine associated with a power station would be eligible for support, but a worker in the same region at an exporting coalmine would not. That's despite those two people doing the same job, facing the challenges if their mines close, and perhaps even living next door to each other. The government should have drafted legislation that was broader in the scope of industries the authority could support and mandated an annual plan to ensure focus of the authority's activities from year to year.

If this can't be done right now, the government should at least be open to revisiting the scope of the authority's activities in future. My amendment helps to achieve this by inserting a review clause into the legislation. The review would require periodic assessment of whether the scope of industries supported is appropriate and whether the broader objectives set out in the legislation are being achieved. The first review would take place after four years, enabling the authority to support several coal closures before looking at how things could be done better.

I understand that the government won't be supporting this amendment, but the reasons for this are unclear. I know the bill requires the CEO to conduct a narrowly focused internal review of the Energy Industry Jobs Plan within 12 months, but this is not the kind of substantive, independent review that also looks at the scope of activities and whether the authority is delivering results, so I encourage the government to think again and support this commonsense amendment.

Kylea Tink

I rise in support of the amendment moved by the member for Wentworth because I think it is infinitely reasonable. If there's one thing we know, it's that the people of Australia are looking to this government and this parliament to move faster when it comes to climate action. The introduction of the Net Zero Economy Authority is something that many see as a really positive step. But it is bamboozling for many to try to get their heads around why you would limit the potential of this authority to guide us through this transition period. We all know that to hit net zero by 2050 we're going to have to tackle every single part of our economy. If this is to be the organisation that sets due north for our society, our economy, our communities—really importantly, our regional communities, who are looking to their future—why would we not make the scope of this authority broader?

I commend the member's amendment and seek the same clarification she seeks from the minister: why not step into this in a bold way, rather than a contained way that's like a whimper?

Patrick Gorman

I welcome the comments from the member for Wentworth, who emphasised the importance of listening and learning as we go through this global transition and the unique way that Australia will experience it. I also want to thank the member for North Sydney, who rightly pointed out that many see this bill as a really positive step.

I want to address where the government has already committed to reviews of the work of the authority. They include a statutory review of the Energy Industry Jobs Plan framework, which will be completed within 12 months of the establishment of the authority. We've said very clearly that we hope the authority will be established by 1 July. That would see that work being done by the middle of next year. That would allow us to assess the plan. It would allow early engagement with regional employers to see how that piece of the legislation is working and allow us to talk to communities and unions. Further, I think it's important for the House to be aware that there will also be a review of the authority conducted in accordance with the Commonwealth Governance Structures Policy. That requires that there be a review at least every 10 years—and I note that it can be done more regularly—to ensure flexibility of the functions that are set out in the bill and that there is opportunity for further engagement.

Of course, it is always up to the parliament—this House and the Senate—to engage on legislation that's passed at any point in time. In terms of the authority's engagement with the parliament, each year a corporate plan will be tabled, setting out objectives, priorities and the intended work plan, in accordance with the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act. We would expect there to be thorough examination of the work of the authority by senators, and indeed that questions, either in question time or on notice, would be asked.

Finally, I want to note that the powers that are in this bill, outside of the energy industry jobs plan, are very broad. The bill gives power to a new authority that can coordinate across government to lower emissions and to support the net zero transition. It can facilitate public and private investment in transformational net zero initiatives not just in the regions but anywhere in Australia where it is in our national interest to do so. It ensures that communities will better understand and be able to participate in this economic transformation, and, again, the authority has the powers to do that. There's specific mention in the objects of the bill to ensure Indigenous Australians participate in and benefit from this transition to net zero, and this amendment seeks, as indeed does the government, a real focus on ensuring workers in emissions-intensive industries can access new skills and new employment opportunities that come with net zero. In saying that, the government doesn't support this amendment, as we believe that both the powers in the bill as it stands and the existing review mechanisms are adequate.

Helen Haines

I have a question for the minister with regard to a 10-year review period. This is a wide-ranging Net Zero Economy Authority undertaking expertise and transformation across a range of technologies, as you say, and those technologies change rapidly. Ten years seems like an extraordinary length of time before the authority has a solid look at itself. If we're talking about communities participating or giving feedback or if we're talking about what works and what doesn't, it seems extraordinary to me that the review period, as the minister just described, would be after 10 years. Could I ask the minister to expand on that and give me and, I'm sure, other people some assurance that there would be periods before 10 years when the authority actually makes changes, iterations or adjustments?

Patrick Gorman

I welcome the opportunity to outline that, in the first 365 days of the operation of the authority, there will be the review of one large component of the authority's work. That's a review of the energy industry jobs plan framework. With regard to my reference to the Commonwealth's governance structures policy, which requires a review every 10 years, that's 'at least' every 10 years; it can be done earlier and, indeed, it could be done much earlier, but I'm not in a position to say when that would be. Obviously, it requires the parliament to legislate for the authority to be enacted in the first place.

We do recognise that it is both a long-term transition and also something with some very-fast-moving changes in technology and something where some communities can experience what the change means to local communities, local employment and local economies very quickly. We do believe that this gets the balance right in addition to all those standard parliamentary accountability mechanisms, including the annual tabling of the corporate plan.

Allegra Spender

Thank you, Minister, for your comments. You refer to the energy industry jobs plan review, which would be undertaken within the first year. However, my understanding is that it does not go to scope and so, therefore, is not relevant to the question that I raised in my speech, which was basically that a significant group of workers would not be included as part of that internal review and, therefore, that review doesn't go to the core question that I'm raising in my amendment.

Milton Dick

The question before the House is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Wentworth be agreed to.