Ms O’CONNOR (Hobart) – I move –
That Statutory Rules 2024, No. 32, Hydro-Electric Corporation Regulations 2024 dated 9 July 2024 made under the Hydro-Electric Corporation Act 1995, and laid upon the Table of the Council on 6 August 2024, be disallowed as provided by section 47 of the Acts Interpretation Act 1931
This disallowance motion has been the subject of some back and forth and discussions today, and I can flag that I intend to adjourn my contribution after a short period in order that hopefully the minister for Energy will be able to provide members with a briefing on this regulation. The reason that we are moving to disallow Hydro-Electric Corporation Regulation 2024 (S.R. 2024, No. 32) is based on a fundamental principle of parliament having the power to scrutinise major developments and big decisions.
This regulation slipped through. It is a regulation attached to the Hydro-Electric Corporation Act, which, now that this regulation is operational, contains provisions for a disallowable instrument for parliament to be able to examine any major development undertaken by Hydro Tasmania of a project 40 megawatts or over. This regulation lifts that threshold to 300 megawatts. Franklin Dam was 178 megawatts of power.
What the government is asking us to do here is give Hydro Tasmania carte blanche to undertake major developments for massive projects without any recourse to parliament.
We know the role of parliament is to govern in the best interests of the people of Tasmania. We know this place has a strong and long tradition of scrutinising the legislation and regulations that come before it carefully and methodically. We will not always get it right in here, but the upper House is the check in the Westminster system in Tasmania to review laws and hold governments to account in the public interest. That is what I will be asking members to do with this disallowance motion.
It is an abrogation of our responsibilities to concede to government a request to remove the power of the parliament to scrutinise project proposals regardless of what they are. By definition, major projects have a significant impact on the state’s finances, environment and communities. The people we represent deserve to have the details of such projects aired and debated.
For the Premier to say that parliamentary approval for major developments is a cumbersome process is contemptuous and, in this case, absolutely not true. Parliament approval was required by way of a disallowable instrument, which meant that if the project was good and parliament had a look at it and determined it was a good project, it would get the tick and if it was bad it would not. Would you not want parliament to have that capacity to test the merits or otherwise of a major development being put forward by a public government business dealing in public funds? It should all be done in the public interest.
What the Premier and, presumably, the minister are saying is cut out the middleman, cut out parliament from scrutiny and decision-making over major projects undertaken by the Hydro-Electric Corporation.
Now I qualify this by saying I am sure every person in this place agrees that we need more well-located renewable energy right across the country, and to a significant extent here in Tasmania, but it is how we do it. It is how we engage with communities, and it is the policy matrix we apply over these sorts of developments.
What we have at the moment is the Robbins Island windfarm developer turns up, third or fourth crack at a company for Robbins Island, walks in to the government after they have a problem with the Tasmanian Civil and Administrative Tribunal or local government and lo and behold, suddenly we have plonked ‑
Mr Duigan – Wind projects are exempt from this regulation.
Ms O’CONNOR – Thank you, but I was just talking about a pattern of behaviour here where developers can have the ear of the government. That is just the way things kind of work. But if we are going to have the successful renewable energy future that Tasmania and the planet deserves, we have to do it better than it has been done here to date; where we will just plonk a few turbines here, plonk some over there, cut through this area of forest for our transmission lines. How about we have a well-thought-through plan that recognises it does not have to be a trade-off between more renewable power and community or the environment.
We have teachers, nurses and service providers being told there is no money, hospitals struggling to find beds, people sleeping on the domain. We are being asked, through this regulation that I am asking the Council to disallow, to give a government business enterprise carte blanche to enter into whatever financial arrangement it likes with whichever partner it chooses to build projects wherever it likes, regardless of the impacts on our budget, environment and communities. I ask members to think about it. There has been no good or clear reason advanced to support a massive increase in the size of projects that do not need parliamentary scrutiny from 40 megawatts to 300 megawatts. That is quite the jump to exclude parliament from.
When I had a chat to the minister earlier today, he indicated this is more about solar farms. Terrific, let us have more solar farms, but let us have them as part of a thought-through conversation that makes sure you are involving the local communities. Let us make sure that parliament has a capacity to look at these projects too. Just because they are renewable does not make them automatically perfect. As I said to members, the Franklin Dam was 178 megawatts, and we are being asked to give government or give Hydro carte blanche over projects up to 300 megawatts. It could be nearly two Franklin dams.
I want this debate to be highly informed. I have gone back and listened to the minister’s responses to the questions we asked about this in Estimates. There is a lack of rationale and clarity for this regulation other than being seen to do something. I encourage members to think about what this regulation seeks to do: cuts us out. That is what it does. For a GBE – which, to be fair, has had a chequered history on this island, which has been involved, for example, in overseas projects where there were massive human rights abuses, which is part of a dam construction in Queensland that has significant engineering issues associated with it – this is a highly valuable government business that has the potential, if it makes the wrong decisions, to not necessarily bankrupt the state but certainly put us under a lot of financial stress.
That is why when the Hydro-Electric Corporation Act was first written, parliament at that time obviously thought that a disallowable instrument is the way to make sure that projects have proper scrutiny. It says:
The corporation may only construct or participate in constructing a major power facility if –
And it goes through the criteria and then it says:
– a House of Parliament approves the proposal for the purposes of this section, it may pass a resolution at the end of five sitting days from when the proposal was laid before the House, if the House has not resolved to disprove the proposal and no notice of motion to disprove the proposals before the House, the House is taken to have approved the proposal at the end of that period.
This is not a cumbersome process.
If a notice of motion to disprove or disallow the proposal is before the House at the end of that period, the House is taken to have approved the proposal.
If the notice is withdrawn or the motion is negatived, or a further period of nine sitting days ends and it has not been passed within that period. We all agree we need high-quality renewables. We all agree we want Hydro Tasmania to be a successful GBE of which we are all proud and we should all agree that parliament needs to have a say in major projects, major developments being undertaken by our Hydro-Electric Corporation and that is the question I will ask members to consider over the break.
As the minister has indicated, he would be comfortable to provide us all with a briefing on the rationale for this regulation. It is the principle here that we have issue with; the Greens have issue with that.
Mr Duigan – My department has already provided a briefing to the Greens on this particular regulation.
Ms O’CONNOR – Yes, I am talking about all of the MLCs. Well, thank you for that. That is good, but this is a bigger question than the Greens. We are making this argument on a matter of principle. Parliament needs to be able to scrutinise major developments that the Hydro-Electric Corporation involves itself in. It has worked here since the act was first enacted. It is not a cumbersome process to lay a disallowable instrument on the table of parliament if you want to get a project through. If you are so confident in the project, that should not be a problem. If it is a good project, parliament will give it the tick.
Mr President, I move –
That the debate on this motion be adjourned.
The purpose of this is to allow for further briefings before we return on 11 March.
The debate is adjourned.
