Chapter 3Matters raised in evidence
Introduction
3.1While the bills were overwhelmingly supported in evidence, as outlined in the previous chapter, some stakeholders noted concerns and proposed potential improvements to some provisions. This included comment on the following matters that this chapter discusses in turn:
the scope and remit of the Authority, particularly regarding potential sectors, workers, and regions that fall under the remit of the Authority;
governance matters, including the appointment, membership and role of the CEO, Board, and the advisory Stakeholder Panel;
resourcing for the Authority and the administration and implementation of the Plan;
the interaction between the Energy Industry Jobs Plan (the Plan) and existing employment law and industrial relations frameworks;
community of interest processes and consultation; and
potential amendments to the Plan and its operation
3.2The chapter finishes with the committee's view and recommendations.
Scope and remit of the Authority
3.3The proposed scope and remit of the Authority was frequently raised by submitters and witnesses.
3.4While some stakeholders noted the scope was very broad, a small number of other stakeholders considered it too narrow to be effective throughout the net zero transition.
3.5The Australia Institute suggested the bill could be more effective if the current scope was reduced to better focus on the transition for workers and communities centred around the closure of coal and gas fired power stations, and strengthened to prevent new fossil fuel projects being developed.
3.6Dr Amanda Cahill, Chief Executive Officer of Next Economy advised the committee that the scope should be broadened on several fronts to future proof the Authority. She suggested the government should consider including both coalmining communities servicing the export market, as well as agricultural and forestry-dependent regions facing an uncertain net zero future. She noted many of these communities and regions were 'looking for support right now'. Moreover, she proposed explicitly tasking the Authority with providing direct support to regions, including:
…place based approaches to support investment attraction and economic diversification, workforce development across a range of industries and making sure that it is inclusive in terms of benefits and including other workers in the mix—including women, young people, people from First Nations backgrounds and people living with disabilities—informed decision-making regarding the approvals, infrastructure and supply chain development, land-use planning, managing and reporting environmental impacts and capturing meaningful community benefits that will improve the liveability of regions over a long time. You've heard today about the needs around things like housing and improving services.
These are the things that at the moment are not really listed as a function of the authority but actually will underpin whether or not any investment comes into these regions and people are able to navigate change.
3.7The Ai Group noted the remit of the Authority was very broad. MrTennant Reed, its Director of Climate Change and Energy, told the committee that it would be important to keep a focus on both the opportunities as well as managing the closures even if the two aspects do not converge geographically:
It does go to the opportunity side and to the transition pain side, and it will be very challenging to do justice to the whole of that remit. I think it will be tempting to focus on the immediate and very important challenge of managing closure of coal-fired power stations and some gas-fired power stations, but it will be important to also maintain a focus on the opportunity story, even where that does not geographically overlap with the disruption side.
3.8Some evidence drew attention to sectors that could be included in the scope of the Authority, to make it more effective, including:
export coal;
areas experiencing growth in renewable energy and critical mineral projects and;
gas networks, gas appliance manufacturing, and gasfitting.
Export Coal
3.9Mr Justin Page, a representative for the Hunter Jobs Alliance, suggested there were around 2600 export coal mine workers that could be affected by mine closures in the Hunter Valley region between 2025 to 2030, who would not be covered by the bill as currently drafted. He suggested the bill would be more equitable if it was broadened to cover these workers:
The government's Net Zero Economy Authority Bill establishes a strong process to protect workers at power stations, the mines that supply them and the businesses that support them but leaves workers in export oriented coal mines, the vast majority of coal miners in the Hunter region, exposed to sudden market changes with no protections.
3.10However, Mr Tony Maher, the General President of the Mining and Energy Union, suggested that the focus on power station closure was the right short-term priority:
This bill deals with the immediate and the known, and that's facilities that have got closure dates slapped on them, which is the whole of the coal-fired power sector. It doesn't deal with export coalmining, for example, or gas. The truth is: export coalmining is still booming. There's a labour shortage. The governments in the customer countries haven't turned things around yet. They will; we just don't know when. My view is that we should deal with the immediate and the known, and if we can deal with that successfully through this bill, then you make a compelling case to extend it to other parts of the economy if necessary.
Renewable Energy Zones and Critical Minerals
3.11Several stakeholders advocated for the Authority to oversee transformation in areas other than coal and gas energy generation. For example, Mr Tennant Reed of the Ai Group stated that:
There are tremendous opportunities, for instance in north-western Western Australia and in North Queensland, for the growth of export-oriented clean economy industries and those opportunities are no less important despite not overlapping with much of the expected disruption side…It is an important [matter] to manage as this entity comes into being.
3.12Submitters and witnesses also pointed out that even regions undergoing renewable energy or critical minerals-based booms would need infrastructure, communications and assistance to manage the scale and intensity of transitions. For example, the Next Economy, while noting the need for immediate targeted support for regions facing coal and gas power station closures, also argued the Authority should have a focus on:
Other areas in need of support to manage the scale and pace of change include mining areas such as Mt Isa, that are poised to take advantage of a growing demand for transit ion/critical minerals, but only if they can attract the right kind of investment to upgrade local infrastructure and processing facilities, and train and attract the workers they need.
3.13Mr Andrew Bray the National Director of RE-Alliance stated at the public hearing 'there are now many traditionally agricultural regions that are now becoming electricity-producing regions for the first time. These regions also have structural challenges that could be addressed by a Net Zero Economy Authority with a broad remit'. He suggested that in some of these areas, locals may not even be aware that they are living in a renewable energy zone (REZ), let alone be aware of the opportunities available.
Gas networks, gas appliance manufacturing, and gasfitting
3.14In its submission, Rewiring Australia recommended the scope of the bill be broadened to include gas networks and gas appliance manufacturing, as the electrification of Australian households is an ongoing trend that will only increase as renewable energy continues to be a cheaper alternative to fossil fuels.
3.15Additionally, the Grattan Institute raised concerns over 'plumbers and gasfitters, whose jobs will disappear as gas becomes a smaller part of the energy mix'. It recommended that the bill's definition of 'emissions-intensive industry' be broadened to include relevant activities, such as gas appliance manufacturing, gas fitting, and diesel mechanics'.
The CEO, Board and Stakeholder Panel
3.16Some stakeholders raised concerns about the membership of the Board and Stakeholder Panel, as well as the broader transparency of the Authority's decision-making and advisory processes.
3.17Some submitters and witnesses called for the bill to include a stipulation that the Board include members with various expertise and experience, including from:
adequate representation of First Nations Australians;
experts in public policy, science—including greenhouse gas emission reduction—and health;
social welfare and community sectors;
regional development, community development and/or the social sector;
a mix of gender, socio-economic, age and cultural groups; and
experts in 'greenhouse gas emissions reduction pathways, technologies or policy' or climate change and 'upskilling the workforce for the renewable energy transition'.
3.18The Environmental Defenders Office office raised concerns regarding the transparency around the process of ministers selecting board members and the ability for the stakeholders and the public to scrutinise appointments. It advised that:
The Bill should provide greater clarity as to appointment processes for Board members. Board nominations should be announced publicly and statutory timeframes should allow for public awareness and scrutiny of the procedure.
3.19Several submitters provided recommendations on the composition of the advisory Stakeholder Panel. For example, the Australian Council of Social Service recommended that the Stakeholder Panel include 'community and community sector representation, including First Nations Australians and people with lived experience of disadvantage'.
3.20The Climate Future submission raised concerns that the advice provided by the Stakeholder Panel could be ignored by the Board, commenting:
…any decision to ignore the advice or information of the Panel should be subject to democratic scrutiny… [and] that an additional provision be included…requiring that [the] Board make all advice or information provided by the Stakeholder Panel publicly available.
3.21PM&C addressed these concerns at the public hearing:
Consistent with good governance practice, the board will be expertise based. The bill specifies the fields of expertise that board members must have and requires a balance across those fields. Clause 23 of the bill sets out that up to four members of the board will need to have experience in the areas listed, including regional development and Indigenous engagement and leadership. The members of the board will be appointed by the minister on a part-time basis for up to five years. Added to this, the bill requires that the board establish a stakeholder panel comprising people with knowledge and expertise in fields relevant to the work of the authority, and the authority has the discretion to establish other advisory and engagement structures that will be useful for its work.
Resourcing for the Authority and implementation of the Plan
3.22Similarly, some evidence questioned the resourcing that had been set aside, both for the Authority and the administration and implementation of the Plan. Submitters and witnesses raised concerns that the Authority would not have a long-term legislated budget, and that this may make it less effective.
3.23For example, the Grattan Institute submitted that the Authority's budget 'should be legislated for 10 years', as:
To take a true place-based approach that creates real change and strengthens regional economies, the Authority must be able to take a long-term view. It will not be able to design or commit to long-term activities if it does not have budget certainty beyond three-year funding envelopes.
3.24Ms Catherine Bolger, Director, Collieries' Staff Division, Association of Professional Scientists, Engineers and Managers Australia, also called for long term funding:
…the Authority needs to be funded for as long as possible. This massive change in our economy is not going to happen quickly, so, as we transition, we need an Authority to guide us as well.
3.25Dr Rochelle Braaf, Senior Advisor, Australian Council of Social Service, emphasised the importance of reviewing the funding mechanism of the Authority as it develops:
…long-term funding is required because this is going to be a long-term process. There is also an opportunity to have annual and perhaps periodic reviews of the funding mechanism and its adequacy to meet the requirements. I imagine that in the initial start-up phase, the Authority's purview is going to be more narrow, but it is likely to expand over time, given the scale of the tasks required.
3.26Mr Andrew Bray, National Director, RE-Alliance called for adequate funding not only for the Authority, but also for its ongoing work with communities in transition. Citing the transition process in Gladstone, Mr Bray commented:
It was a great process; I got to witness it firsthand. But what is the accountability going forward? That's where the resourcing needs to be much more consistent across different places, and that is a great opportunity for the authority in this regard to be able to resource those place-based processes, have the structures in place to see them through and then follow up on the outcomes and deliver some accountability for communities.
3.27Mr Tony Maher of the MEU noted that the long-term goal of the Authority should be protected and bipartisan. He told the committee that long-term funding was a 'pretty good idea', because if the Authority turns out to be:
…a one-term wonder it's of no benefit to anyone. Net zero is bipartisan; we have to remember that. So you want the management of that process, that fundamental restructuring, to last as long as it's needed. As I say, I think it's a good question. Some longer-term commitment to funding would be greatly appreciated. I don't think the bill deals with that, but that's something that could be considered.
Flexibility of scope and adequacy of resourcing
3.28Some stakeholders considered that the scope was adequate for the immediate challenge of managing the transition from coal and gas power generation. For example, Mr Michael Wright, the National Secretary of the Electrical Trades Union, told the committee:
From our perspective, the most important thing to do is to ensure that we get the model right first. This is an inordinately difficult challenge we have before us, as Senator Colbeck touched upon. In principle, do we want to have a well working model applied to such closures? Absolutely. But I think the good and appropriate thing to do first is to get the Authority stood up and ensure that it is that, because, whilst the market can move quickly—and noting that major trading partners of ours have made net zero commitments for 2050, and presumably that will result in the closure of export coal, export gas, in due course—the hope would be that this does become a model for creating thriving workforces and communities that can then be applied to those in the future. But step [one] is: do what's right in front of us, and get it done and land it properly.
3.29The Australian Workers' Union also advocated for this approach, suggesting that the statutory review of the implemented Authority should include consideration of its scope beyond coal- and gas-fired power stations. 'These facilities are an appropriate focus for [the Authority] in the immediate term', it submitted, but its remit should be widened 'when necessary to do so'.
3.30Mr Trevor Power, the Acting Chief Executive Officer of the Net Zero Economy Agency, addressed the concerns on the scope of the Authority that had been expressed in evidence:
The bill provides a broad remit for the authority to facilitate the net zero transition Australia-wide. However, it does require the Authority to prioritise particular regions, workers and industries that may be significantly affected by the transition. This provides flexibility for the board to prioritise efforts where it's most needed. Some submissions discuss the Authority's support for workers beyond closing power stations. The energy industry jobs plan is one mechanism that targets support to power station workers. However, the Authority's role in coordinating targeted support for workers extends beyond this, both in terms of the types of support and also the workers supported. The bill provides a broad role for the Authority to support workers in emissions intensive industries to transition to new working opportunities.
3.31Further, Mr Power confirmed that this could include some aspects of export industries, should this be deemed necessary by the Board:
…the bill deliberately casts the functions of the Authority quite broadly, in recognition that the net zero transformation is a long-term one that will play out differently for different regions. There is no one-size-fits-all approach, as we've just heard. The operating model will be to build on locally led efforts, from the bottom up, and authority's work will be tailored to the context of where it's working.
The bill gives flexibility to the expert based governing board of the authority to determine the priorities in the ways of working. The Authority will be required to publish and table in parliament a corporate plan, an annual report each year, setting out a strategy, its work plan and its performance. There will also be regular accountability through the Senate estimates process. More broadly, the Commonwealth governance structures policy requires that new entities, like the authority, are subject to a comprehensive review at least every 10 years to ensure that they are continuing to be fit for purpose.
3.32Mr Power also addressed concerns that the Authority would not be adequately resourced:
As part of the recent additional estimates process the government has allocated ongoing funding for the authority in the order of $52 million per year. This will support the ongoing operations of the Authority at around 150 full-time equivalent employees.
As part of its work, the Authority will work across government to co-ordinate programs and facilities to support the net zero transformation. The Authority will also have the opportunity to bring proposals to government through the normal budget processes and provide advice to government on the need for new programs or policies.
3.33The Prime Minister, the Hon Anthony Albanese MP, announced on 27 March 2024 a sum of $189.3 million over four years from 2023-24 (and $53.3million per year ongoing) in resourcing for the Authority.
The interaction between the Plan and existing employment law
3.34Several stakeholders expressed concerns about how the Authority's role and powers would interact with existing employment legislative and institutional frameworks, which are outlined in the first chapter of this report.
3.35Concerns were raised about the ability of the Authority to compel transition arrangements, should it consider that an employer is not providing adequate support for workers in facilities that are closing, and that the new provisions would be duplicative of existing employment frameworks.
3.36Noting that the Plan had not been part of the original proposal for a dedicated net zero transition body, Mr David Feeney of the Australian Energy Council explained to the committee that consultation had not been adequate for including the Plan in the bill:
I think what's important is that there's as much visibility, consultation and transparency with those measures as possible. Some earlier witnesses were talking about potential overlap with existing arrangements. The last thing you want to see is confusion and duplication, so I think that would need to be worked through.
From our perspective, we're conscious that our members are already working really hard with their communities in planning when the different closures will happen and are offering the sorts of things that are anticipated in this bill anyway. It would be a shame to have a one-size-fits-all approach coming over the top of arrangements that members are already initiating with their communities.
3.37The Ai Group, which supported many elements of the bill, noted potential duplication and disputation arising from the interaction between Australia's workplace relations framework and the Plan. Ai Group submitted this initiative 'treads on sensitive ground' as:
[Part 5 provisions] will impose intolerably unclear, unjustified, and problematic obligations on employers. Aspects of this Part of the Bill will overlap with, and undermine, longstanding and carefully developed aspects of current workplace relation laws dealing matters related to redundancy. As framed, it is a recipe for disputation with the potential to expose employers to costly proceedings in the Fair Work Commission at a time when they will be facing significant hardships.
3.38Origin Energy suggested that, while it shared 'many of the values' central to the Plan:
transition arrangements should be managed under the existing employment safety net framework;
the Plan overlaps with existing industrial obligations, without dealing with how these obligations interact;
other industrial instruments contain greater safeguards and resolution mechanisms; and,
the bill requires amending to limit the Plan's application, and to 'remove uncertainty, clarify operation and limit overlap'.
3.39Similarly, while supporting a 'just transition' and adequate support for affected workers in impacted regions, the BCA suggested that the bill may cause some duplicative and potentially confusing processes with existing industrial law:
Many employers have already put in place significant engagement with their workforce and have plans in place to provide an extensive range of support. However, there are some concerns with the content of practical implementation of the energy industry jobs plan in part 5 of the bill. These concerns are primarily focused on the practical implementation of the policy framework the bill seeks to give effect to rather than the overarching benefits intended for employees and their communities. The obligations in the jobs plan have considerable overlap with existing obligations in Australia's industrial relations framework. In that regard, we believe increased clarity could assist to provide greater certainty for both employers and employees.
Community of interest processes and consultation
3.40Some concerns were expressed over the community-of-interest processes and protections in the bill, and the importance of effective communication and consultation in the development of local policy solutions. For example, the Hunter Jobs Alliance questioned why consultation with the broader affected community of interest in closure transitions was 'discretionary, while it is mandatory for affected businesses and unions'.
3.41Similarly, Isaac Regional Council submitted:
Effective community engagement is essential for ensuring impacted communities are fully informed and have the opportunity to share grassroots knowledge regarding the impacts of closure operations.
By broadening the scope of the community interest process, the NZEA Bill can facilitate meaningful dialogue and collaboration between stakeholders, leading to more informed decision-making and better outcomes for communities.
3.42Several submitters told the committee that the success of the Authority and the Plan, as well as the decarbonisation challenge, hinged on effective, long-term, and meaningful consultation and engagement with regions and communities affected by the transition.
3.43Dr Amanda Cahill, the Chief Executive Officer of the Next Economy, suggested that the Authority's work with regions should be building resilience and capacity more broadly:
We need to make sure that the Authority, which is a federal authority, can channel government resources and funding, which is part of its function now, to where it's needed in a timely and efficient manner. We need to build the capacity of local leaders, and regions need representative bodies to plan to do this over time. This goes beyond the functions that are listed at the moment in the current legislation, which refers to the community element as 'delivering educational and promotional initiatives to promote an understanding of transition'. This is not just a communication exercise; it's an engagement exercise. Regions need the processes and structures to manage this well.
3.44Ms Desiree Cai, the National Director of Tomorrow Movement, said:
There's a risk here that obviously we need a bunch of social licence to make these changes, and if we erode that social licence by not bringing people along, that's a huge risk to the transition in general.
3.45Mr Power from the Net Zero Economy Agency and PM&C reiterated that the Authority would engage with affected communities over a substantial period, and in a considered way:
There's a broader plan for that whole community, that whole set of industries and ecosystem, when you look across the employees in both power stations but also other transitioning coalmines in places like Gladstone, for example, where you've got a lot of emissions-intensive industries. The question the Authority, I think, would engage with more broadly—so the energy industry jobs plan would sit within this—in those regions is, 'What is the transition the whole region will go through and over what time frame? What are the current characteristics of those regions, from their economic diversity, the depth of their labour markets, the amount of investment that is either planned to go into those regions or—for example—is lacking?'
We would work with those communities from the bottom up, in terms of what they are seeking from the Commonwealth. Importantly, we'd also work with the state governments and the local governments that are in those areas so that those planning processes are put in place, are solid and have the buy-in of the community. Then what we would do, as the Authority—from the Commonwealth point of view—is bring the Commonwealth's resources to the task of that overall transition.
Potential amendments to the Plan and its operation
3.46The BCA noted several amendments to the bill that the government should consider. These related to resolving overlap and potential inconsistencies, which it said could lead to 'unintended consequences'.
3.47The Ai Group identified several potential amendments in its submission, including inserting a new section to provide a mechanism for addressing overlapping industrial obligations where it arises under the Plan, and clarifying several definitions in the bill and proposed Plan processes.
3.48At the hearing, Mr Ferguson of Ai Group drew the committee's attention to one amendment regarding casual workers falling under the Plan, saying:
On any reasonable assessment, it wouldn't be sensible for some of these sorts of obligations to be extended to casual workers. The idea that they'd be afforded paid time off and so forth when there is no, under the current and soon to be operative definition of casual employment, ongoing commitment from either side in relation to work.
3.49Mr Ferguson noted the high demand for skilled and unskilled labour, and suggested that this militated against the need to compel participation from employers:
…is a powerful argument against there being some sort of need to compel employers to be participating as receiving employers, if that's what you're coming to. I think the better approach on that is to make sure there are no disincentives to employers wanting to participate proactively in the scheme... Let's make sure that we don't have any disincentives to employers actively involving themselves in trying to be part of the solution to this.
3.50Energy Australia recommended that the bill be amended to 'exclude small businesses, as these organisations are unlikely to have the resources or capacity to administer the services outlined in the Bill'.
3.51On the penalties, whereas the BCA suggested that potential civil penalties for breaches of community of interest determinations were too high, and 'out of proportion to analogous breaches in the FW Act', the ACTU suggested they could be 'strengthened'.
3.52The ACTU also proposed several amendments which it suggested would strengthen the bill, including to:
clarify that the FWC has the power to deal with disputes made under a Determination (in ss 60 or 61);
bring the remedies for breach of a determination in line with the well-established FWC process; and
enable a relevant employer, potential employer, or relevant union to apply to the FWC seeking a review of the CEO's decision not to make an application for a Community of Interest Determination.
3.53Several submitters raised concerns about how the Plan would interact with the Privacy Act 1988 (Privacy Act), given the bill contains provision for the CEO to be provided with any information, including personal information, from closing or dependent employer, and to disclose this to a closing, dependent and/or receiving employers.
3.54For example, The Ai Group submitted:
Section 66 establishes a framework for the CEO to disclose information to closing, dependent or receiving employers. The EM states that the collection and disclosure of personal information by the CEO would be subject to the consent of the employee to whom it belongs and subject to the Privacy Act. This is not made clear on the face of the Bill. Section 66 should be amended to confirm this is the case, either by way of legislative note or through inserting a new subsection referring to the Privacy Act.
3.55 Similarly, Origin Energy proposed that:
…any requirement to produce information in respect of employees is limited to those documents which fall within the employee records exemption under Australian privacy laws or by agreement with the relevant employee, particularly in circumstances where this information can be onshared by the CEO to a receiving employer by virtue of section 66. It also proposes that protections should apply to employee information that is shared with the CEO to ensure that it is appropriately protected as part of any freedom of information request.
Evidence provided by PM&C on the Plan
3.56PM&C addressed the way the Plan would interact with existing employment frameworks in evidence presented at the committee's hearing. Ms Emily Martin, the Acting First Assistant Secretary of the Regions and Workers Division of the Authority, stated that the Plan's strength was that it had been designed to work within existing employment frameworks, and that it had a broad flexibility to allow it to accommodate divergent needs from industry stakeholders:
The plan is designed to work within the existing frameworks, like for example the Fair Work Act. The energy industry jobs plan sets out the obligations employers will have in supporting their employees to work upon closure of coal or gas fired power stations. It's designed to be broad and flexible, to meet the different circumstances that exist, and it has been informed by consultations with large electricity gentailers, energy network and distribution companies, unions, industries, and peak bodies.
3.57Ms Martin outlined further details of how this would be implemented:
Under the energy industry jobs plan both the CEO of the NZEA and the Fair Work Commission [FWC] in making determinations are required to consult with employers and must have regard to the supports that employers are already providing to employees. That's set out in clauses 56 and 57. The [FWC] has an important role in determining which employers will be included in a pooled redundancy or redeployment arrangement, supported by the criteria in the bill. The commission can also be used as a channel for formalising or resolving disputes about an employer's obligations under the [Energy Industry Jobs Plan].
3.58Mr Power also noted that this legislation would not impact small businesses, as it was focused on 'very large entities', and confirmed that consultation will occur in the community of interest process:
...the entities we are talking about here, in the bulk, are very large Australian corporates, in some cases international, and dependent mining entities…As we talked about before, in the community of interest process there are requirements for consultation, so obviously that will occur and we need to make sure that occurs, taking into account both the provisions that those entities have in place for the employees, and also, for example, their size and therefore whether any obligations, if they were placed on those entities, would be reasonable and able to be discharged. The other point that is worth remembering is: any entities that will be involved need to have, for example, a very significant part of their business impacted…
3.59Finally, the bill stipulates that the CEO must undertake a review of the Plan, but only after the first trigger notice has been issued. The Explanatory Memorandum states that the:
…CEO will conduct or commission a review into the operation of Part 5 of the NZEA Bill. The review will provide the opportunity to assess the likely effectiveness of the Plan and determine whether it will operate as intended. It is expected that at least one trigger notice will have been received by this time, and the Authority will undertake a real-time assessment of the Plan's operation through close consultation with employers and affected stakeholders. The timing of the review will support outcomes from the first relevant power station closure to contribute to the future direction of the Plan.
Committee view
3.60The shift to decarbonise the global economy and achieve net zero emissions by 2050 is the most significant challenge that countries around the world face. However, decarbonisation also presents Australia with an opportunity to take advantage of the many upsides offered by the transformation, including the potential to become a renewable energy superpower.
Broad support for the bills and the Authority
3.61The committee is pleased to note the evidence that it received expressed near-unanimous support for the task of transitioning to net zero by 2050. Similarly, the committee notes that the Authority was recognised by almost all stakeholders as an essential part of managing the scale and complexity of the change, while also taking advantage of the opportunities it affords.
3.62As much of the evidence observed, this is not a challenge we must face in the future, but rather one we must meet in the present.
3.63Further, the costs of inaction are far higher than acting now to make and embed an orderly change to net zero that will pay dividends for our economy, while also supporting broad positive employment, social and community health, and better environmental outcomes for all Australians.
3.64The Authority was welcomed by the broad range of stakeholders that provided the committee with evidence, including worker representatives, employers and the energy sector, investors who need certainty to base their decisions upon, social organisations supporting the health of our communities, and environmental groups.
Concerns raised in evidence to the inquiry
3.65There were concerns raised about the Authority, even by those who supported it wholeheartedly. However, these concerns were not clear cut.
Scope of the Authority
3.66On its scope, while some stakeholders considered that the Authority's remit should be broadened to include other areas such as the coal export industry or areas benefitting from a boom in renewable energy, other stakeholders thought its scope should be narrower.
3.67On the matter of scope, the committee considers the bills get the balance about right. Moreover, the committee notes the flexibility in the Authority's design, allowing for review of its implementation, and for a refocusing of its activities and function, should this be necessary.
Energy Industry Jobs Plan
3.68While some stakeholders argued that the Energy Industry Jobs Plan was too onerous upon employers closing coal- and gas-fired power stations, other stakeholders thought that it could be amended to further protect workers.
3.69The committee has considered the issues raised by unions and business particularly with respect to clarifying various elements of the Energy Industry Jobs Plan including the alignment of the Energy Industry Jobs Plan with the Fair Work Act 2009, as well as how existing obligations under enterprising agreements will be considered.
3.70The committee also considered the issues raised by business with respect to how personal information collected by the Authority will interact with the Privacy Act.
3.71The committee therefore suggests that the Australian Government consider amendments to:
bring the operation of the Energy Industry Jobs Plan into greater alignment with existing dispute settlement and enforcement settings under the Fair Work Act 2009;
further clarify how existing obligations under enterprise agreements and other instruments will be considered at various stages of the Energy Industry Jobs Plan;
ensure employers and their representatives are adequately consulted and have time to comply with the obligations under the Energy Industry Jobs Plan; and
clarify how personal information collected by the Authority will interact with the Privacy Act.
Definitional matters, Board membership, funding, and review
3.72The committee notes the amendments proposed by stakeholders to this bill in submissions, particularly where they raise definitional matters, or where they have proposed potential drafting oversights.
3.73On concerns raised about the membership of the Board, the committee notes the Minister is bound by the bill to consider a diverse board with members that can assist the Authority to achieve its objectives.
3.74On the issue of funding, the committee notes the government has committed to $189.3 million over four years from 2023–24 (and $53.3 million per year ongoing) in resourcing for the Authority.
3.75The committee notes, as stated by PM&C above, that new agencies such as the Authority must be reviewed after commencement within the first ten years of operation, and that they are subject to oversight through several mechanisms including annual reports and Senate estimates. The committee also notes that the CEO must review the Plan, but only following the issuing of the first trigger notice.
3.76The government may also wish to consider reviewing the broader operation and activities of the Authority at this time. This would provide an ideal opportunity to evaluate the Authority's activities beyond the Energy Industry Jobs Plan, to assess the support offered to broader communities, businesses and other organisations involved in the net zero transition, and to allow the Commonwealth to track progress in funding the Authority's remit.
3.77On balance, the committee welcomes the overwhelming support for the Authority in the evidence it received and considers that the bills should be passed as soon as practically possible.
3.78The committee recommends that the bills be passed as soon as practically possible.
3.79The committee recommends that the Australian Government consider the introduction of technical amendments to bring the operation of the Energy Industry Jobs Plan into greater alignment with existing dispute settlement and enforcement settings under the Fair Work Act 2009.
3.80The committee recommends that the Australian Government consider the introduction of amendments to further clarify how existing obligations under enterprise agreements and other instruments will be considered at various stages of the Energy Industry Jobs Plan.
3.81The committee recommends that the Australian Government consider the introduction of amendments to ensure that employers and their representatives are adequately consulted and have reasonable time to comply with their obligations under the Energy Industry Jobs Plan.
3.82The committee recommends that the Australian Government consider the introduction of amendments that clarify how personal information collected by the Net Zero Economy Authority will interact with provisions of the Privacy Act 1988.
Senator Louise Pratt
Chair
Labor Senator for Western Australia