Continued from 26 November 2024 (page 62)
Ms O’CONNOR (Hobart) – Mr President, I am pleased to be resuming the disallowance debate that I brought on last year. I do not do this as an expert in energy. I do this as someone who is passionate about parliament and parliament’s capacity to scrutinise government and scrutinise government businesses and state‑owned companies on behalf of the people we were elected to represent.
The regulation that the government brought in that undermines clause 8 of the Hydro‑Electric Corporation Act 1995 has no sound rationale behind it. We have just had a briefing. I do not think the briefing was in any way persuasive. What we have been made to understand, through that briefing and through various statements of the minister, is that the government regards parliamentary scrutiny – disallowable instruments, for example – as red tape, obstruction, something that gets in the way of their plans.
In their wisdom in this place when they were enacting the Hydro‑Electric Corporation Act 1995, our predecessors understood that parliamentary scrutiny of the Hydro‑Electric Corporation was essential. It is, as the government says, a sacred cow. It is the biggest of our GBEs. It is the GBE which, if it gets it wrong, could send the state broke. Our predecessors in 1995 in this place understood that we have a responsibility as elected representatives to scrutinise government businesses that are engaging in contracts and spending vast sums of public money – potentially misspending vast sums of public money. They knew that, and that is why they made an amendment to the Hydro‑Electric Corporation Act 1995.
Now 40 megawatts does not seem like a big number today, but 300 megawatts sure is a big number when it comes to power generation. As I said in the email that I sent around to my honourable colleagues last week, remember that the Franklin Dam was a 178‑megawatt energy generating project. Through a cowardly act, I think, on the part of the government, by regulation they swiftly removed parliament’s power to oversight any major energy generation project under 300 megawatts. We certainly would not have been given a say by this government in the construction of the Franklin Dam now.
I do not know if it was deliberate. I do not know if the minister just thought it was the safest path to take, but it was misleading to tell us that the regulation that the government brought in was all about solar generation. The word ‘solar’ is not in the regulation that went through last year. After the minister persistently insisted that the regulation was about solar generation, the cat was let out of the bag today in the briefing when it became clear – because all you have to do is read the regulation, which does not have the word ‘solar’ in it – that it could be a bio‑energy project. It could be like a Drax native‑forest‑burning power generator on the banks of the Tamar, it could be geothermal, it could be tidal energy. It could, in fact, when you look at the regulations – not that the people of Tasmania would cop it, I suspect – it could be a nuclear‑power generating facility that comes in at just under 300 megawatts.
This parliament would have no oversight, no say, no capacity to investigate the merits or otherwise, or the benefits to the Tasmanian people or otherwise, of that project. In a way, because it is a regulation, we are having our power as parliamentarians, which we carry in here on behalf of our communities, taken away from us by stealth and without justification. When I asked in the briefing, ‘has there ever been an example where the provision in section 8 of the Hydro‑Electric Corporation Act that provides for a disallowable instrument has held back a single power generation project in Tasmania?’ ‘No, there has not.’ Parliament has not been obstructive towards the Hydro when it is initiating major projects.
I remind the Council, however, that in examining the Basslink deal in 2009, the Auditor‑General recommended stronger parliamentary oversight of investment decisions made by Hydro. This government has ignored the Auditor‑General from 2009 and, in fact, has done the reverse. This government clearly regards the Council as a big bundle of red tape. The parliament, the House of Assembly, as a big bundle of green tape, perhaps.
Ms Forrest – I thought it was your lot that wanted to abolish the upper House at one stage.
Ms O’CONNOR – Member for Murchison, I will defend it to the death. This place as a House of review is extremely important and essential to the people of Tasmania, as we saw with the way that we dispatched with the development assessment panels legislation last year.
I know other members will want to speak here, but the act, section 8 about construction of a major power facility, says:
(1) The Corporation may only construct, or participate in constructing, a major power facility if –
(a) the construction of the major power facility is specifically authorised by an Act; or
(b) the proposal to establish the major power facility has been laid before both Houses of Parliament and both Houses have approved the proposal.
Again, I thank our predecessors in this place in 1995, for making sure that this provision was in the act. A proposal, which is the instrument that would come before members of parliament under the act, and that this government is seeking to remove, would contain these things, which the people of Tasmania have a right to know about. In 8(2) of the act it says,
(2) A proposal under subsection 1B must be accompanied by details of –
(a) the nature of the major power facility; and
(b) its capacity to generate electricity; and
(c) where the major power facility is to be situated; and
(d) the estimated cost of constructing the major power facility, the extent to which the cost is to be met by the Corporation and the amount of loan finance the Corporation will need to obtain to meet the cost, or its share of the cost, of the major power facility.
They are the questions that our predecessors in this place in 1995 recognised that the parliament has a responsibility, and is obliged, to ask the Hydro-Electric Corporation. Now, I know that a number of my colleagues, in fact I hope all my colleagues, receive correspondence from former Tasmanian Greens leader, former Australian Greens leader, Christine Milne, AO and, finally, after four or five attempts, inducted onto the Tasmanian Honour Roll of Women, where she certainly belongs – but this correspondence from Christine Milne is worth considering deeply as we debate this disallowance motion. She has urged us to support the disallowance. She has acknowledged the important role of the Legislative Council as a House of review and to act as a check and balance on the executive of the day. That is what we are trying to do here today through this disallowance. She reminds us that the people of Tasmania own Hydro Tasmania. It is one of Tasmania’s most valuable and critical assets. The people expect parliament will ensure it is managed in their best interests, both in terms of electricity security and utilisation of profit.
The dividend paid by Hydro Tasmania to the Consolidated Fund is a major contributor to funding public services such as education, health, police, and emergency services. While the government might direct or pressure Hydro Tasmania to pursue a certain course of action consistent with the government’s objectives, it is the role of the parliament to ensure that what is proposed does not risk the financial viability of the organisation or its role as an energy generator. Regarding parliamentary scrutiny as a barrier demonstrates the contempt the government has for the upper House, but more particularly the people of Tasmania who have already suffered because there was not enough scrutiny of projects like Basslink rather than too much.
Then she goes on to talk about the power purchasing agreement that the former minister, Matthew Groom directed Hydro Tasmania to undertake in 2017 with the Granville Harbour Wind Farm project, an onerous loss-making contract. Again, too little oversight. We have been reminded here and we were reminded again in the briefing today that this regulation, this act, this cowardly act of regulation and not amending the act itself, was not requested by Hydro Tasmania. It said that there is no project on its current radar that would require this change. Christine points out that Hydro Tasmania also did not determine that the increase would be from 40 megawatts to 300 megawatts, a number that was pulled out of somebody’s bottom. It was a decision of a government department based on what it determined constitutes a large‑scale commercial project and it was a decision of the minister and the former minister, I might say, Mr Ferguson, on the regulation.
She has implored us to uphold parliament’s oversight role here. If you want to understand the risks of cutting parliament out of the oversight picture for contracts that Hydro might enter into or major energy construction projects that it might initiate itself, have a look at what happened at the Karuma Dam in Uganda. After initially regarding the project as, quote, ‘a high risk project because of the political instability and potential human rights implications,’ the hydro insurer partnered with Power China to build a dam in Uganda. That was a decision that saw people shot, and extreme human rights abuses of workers, many of whom had come from mainland China to work on that project, their rights completely not protected. Tasmania was part of that. We were part of that stain on human rights globally. I am ever thankful to my colleague and our leader, Dr Rosalie Woodruff, for prosecuting this issue through the parliament for a number of years and holding Hydro to account at every opportunity.
We engaged in a dodgy dam construction in Uganda that saw people die and brought shame on Hydro Tasmania and Entura, its consulting company. But we have also partnered on a project just outside Bundaberg in Queensland in the early 2000s where Hydro Tasmania partnered on the Paradise Dam. The Paradise Dam is falling apart. It is a dam that was constructed between 2003 and 2005. It was a consortium which comprised Hydro Tasmania, SMEC Australia, McMahon Contractors, the Walter Construction Group. This group was called the Hydro Tasmania Consortium. They lodged an expression of interest to build the Paradise Dam, which now shows that the dam wall itself is unstable and will require replacing.
Let us be really clear here. Hydro does not always get it right. This government business, which we should all be so proud of because it is an economic foundation of the state, sends clean energy to the mainland, but its operations and its governance can only be improved by having fair‑minded – not onerous – parliamentary oversight. This is particularly when you have situations where a minister of the day might direct Hydro Tasmania to undertake or to embark on a loss‑making venture or to partner with another corporation which has an egregious human rights record. Parliament should not give away its authority which is given to us by the people to scrutinise government businesses and state-owned companies.
While the minister’s frustration in that briefing this afternoon was evident, the briefing itself was very revealing. We learnt that it is not just about solar power, we learnt that it can be about any form of energy, except for wind which has an exemption. This is not about correcting an anomaly, as we have been told by the President. This is about taking the power of the parliament away and therefore the power of the people of Tasmania away from having an oversight role in major energy development undertaken by Hydro Tasmania, which has a good track record in general, but an imperfect track record. It is also a foundation of the state’s financial wellbeing.
I implore members to support disallowance, then the government could, for example, approach this honestly. Come in with an amendment to section 8 of the Hydro‑Electric Corporation Act 1995. Make something specific to solar if it is just about solar, or have a conversation with the parliament about adjusting the megawattage. If 40 megawatts are too low today, have an honest conversation with the elected representatives of the Tasmanian people about what the right number might be. I thank my colleagues this afternoon in the briefing for asking why the government did not bring in an amendment to the act. It slid this in by regulation, kind of hoping we would not notice maybe. I do not know, but it is a very big thing to do to take away the power of parliament in the interests of a political agenda.
That is what this is. We, this parliament, should never give away the powers we have to scrutinise and oversight, because if we do not do it nobody will. All over the world we are seeing democracy under assault. We are seeing corporations buying governments. We are seeing the foundations of democratic systems being eroded by capricious captured governments and corporations.
For heaven’s sake we have even set up our own DOGE here and a government that thinks that is going to go down well in the community. Well, it has gone down like stink here, like it has gone down in the United States.
My point is that democracy is precious and fragile, but it is the only system of governance we have where people’s freedoms and human rights are respected and protected to a significant extent – where people through their elected representatives in their parliaments can get answers, can hold government to account, can to the greatest extent possible have some transparency about government decision-making and the expenditure of government businesses or state‑owned companies, which the minister needs to be reminded again belong to the people of Tasmania.
I remind government members in this place that at the last election you got a big smack over your arrogance, your neglect of the necessities of the lives of the people of Tasmania and your pigheaded determination to build a stadium on Macquarie Point. When I was door‑knocking for the state election campaign for my colleagues and for the Hobart election about this time last year, there was a very common thread about this government’s arrogance. We have got another display of it, a shocking display of it this week in one of the most pathetic state of the state speeches I have ever heard, where this government that just scraped in by the seat of its pants has announced a massive privatisation agenda of everything, apparently except our sacred cow Hydro. Now, well earlier, they want to remove parliament from having a very important oversight role of this GBE.
We should not give up our power. It is vested in us by the people of Tasmania. It is critical to democracy that there be proper oversight of the actions and expenditures of our government businesses and I implore parliamentarians to support this disallowance. I have had conversations with Labor members that were extremely dispiriting. I have had conversations with upper and lower House Labor members on this subject and they are fearful.
They have taken a timid approach to this disallowance motion because they think that they will get a whack by the government which is so on the rack and desperate to deflect from its own poor standards of governance that it would give Labor a whack for standing up for parliamentary scrutiny of Hydro, for example.
What happens with democracy is that people who do not like it because they do not like being answerable to the wider community, they just chip away at it. They just chip away little bits here, little bits there and this is an example of it. This regulation is an example of it. It was just slid in a sneaky and dishonest way and it has been sold dishonestly ever since. Oh, it is just about solar. Rubbish. We know it is not just about solar because the word solar is not in the regulation. This is a problem with this government: lack of honesty, lack of transparency. Have a look at what is happening with the fish farming – undermines public trust. If you have nothing to hide if you really believe this regulation is essential, do not be dishonest about it, because, of course, that makes people suspicious and it wastes more of your time in the long run. If you really believed that a change like this is essential to the future operating of Hydro Tasmania, you would have taken the honest and open course of action and amended the act itself. Let us hold our power, as elected representatives and support disallowance.
