Electricity Infrastructure Legislation Amendment Bill 2025; Second Reading

Pearce opposed the bill, arguing it threatened Tasmania's coastlines and shipping lanes with large wind turbines despite the state already being 100 per cent renewable. Pearce claimed the legislation bypassed proper community consultation and due process, imposing infrastructure on residents without their consent. Pearce advocated for the Marinus Link project to export hydroelectric power instead of adding offshore wind. Pearce criticised the government for rushing the bill without respecting local views.

Marino opposed the bill, highlighting the burden of renewables infrastructure on rural and regional Australia, including land use conflicts and rising energy costs. Marino raised concerns about farmers having to declare livestock grazing under solar panels and wind turbines under new assurance programs. Marino criticised the lack of genuine consultation in Western Australia, noting strong community opposition to proposed wind zones. Marino argued the government's policy was failing businesses and households, leading to closures and higher bills.

Van Manen opposed the bill, describing it as a rushed measure that ignored industry stakeholders and created uncertainty for investors. Manen argued the government had failed to disclose the true costs of its energy plan, leading to significant price increases for households and businesses. Van Manen cited environmental concerns regarding offshore wind impacts on marine life and habitats. Manen characterised the government's renewable projects as wasteful and politically motivated, lacking economic feasibility.

McCormack opposed the bill, expressing concern over the retrospective application of changes and the lack of industry consultation. McCormack argued that state-significant infrastructure projects often override local community concerns and damage agricultural land. McCormack highlighted the stress on farmers from energy policies and water management issues. McCormack warned that the bill facilitated political announcements during the election campaign rather than addressing genuine community needs.

Tehan opposed the bill, committing to rescind the proposed offshore wind zone off the coast of Warrnambool and Port Fairy if the coalition won the next election. Tehan argued the government had failed to consult communities or conduct proper environmental impact statements. Tehan claimed the retrospective legislation was an attempt to hide ministerial incompetence and broken promises regarding electricity bill reductions. Tehan cited strong local opposition and internal departmental concerns about environmental impacts.

Stevens opposed the bill, criticising the government's failure to deliver promised electricity bill savings and its chaotic energy policy. Stevens highlighted the abandonment of hydrogen projects and the reliance on natural gas in South Australia as evidence of policy failure. Stevens argued that nuclear energy was essential for achieving net zero emissions and providing reliable power. Stevens urged the House to defeat the bill and support the coalition's comprehensive energy plan.

Webster argued that the government had failed to deliver promised power bill reductions, with wholesale prices rising significantly. Webster criticised the reliance on foreign-owned wind projects and the lack of transparency regarding costs, advocating instead for nuclear energy and gas extraction. Webster supported a separate bill requiring rehabilitation bonds for energy infrastructure to ensure developers clean up after themselves.

Buchholz stated that regional areas were early adopters of renewable technology but argued the current government's approach was making energy more expensive. Buchholz highlighted the disparity between rules applied to farmers and those for developers, and noted the rising cost of living affecting families. Buchholz opposed the bill due to its lack of scrutiny and the government's failure to address energy affordability.

Ramsey pointed out that South Australia, despite high renewable capacity, had the highest retail electricity prices due to hidden subsidies and grid instability. Ramsey argued that offshore wind was more expensive and faced community resistance, while noting the decline of green hydrogen projects. Ramsey advocated for a mature debate on nuclear energy and opposed the ministerial override powers in the bill.

Joyce criticised the environmental and economic impacts of wind turbines, including decommissioning costs and microplastic pollution. Joyce argued that the energy market structure allowed intermittent power providers to profit while imposing costs on consumers and farmers. Joyce called for transparency regarding capacity investment schemes and questioned the government's management of energy policy.

Pike argued that the bill was a retrospective fix for regulatory mistakes made by the minister, lacking proper industry consultation. Pike expressed concern about the procedural irregularity of applying regulations to existing licence applications without committee review. Pike proposed referring the legislation to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for proper assessment.

Ware explained that the bill responded to a Federal Court ruling allowing the minister to grant partial feasibility licences for offshore wind. Ware criticised the government's refusal to consider nuclear energy despite its safety and existing use in medicine and defence. Ware argued that the renewables-only approach was failing and advocated for a hybrid energy mix including nuclear, gas, and solar.