Ted O'Brien
Fairfax · Liberal Party · Australia
“My question goes to the Prime Minister. Over recent weeks, shots have been fired at an Australian Border Force vessel from an illegal boat. We've seen the biggest seizure of cocaine in Australia's history, with police believing the drugs were imported by sea.”
“Too many businesses on the Sunshine Coast are closing. A local business is far more than just a business; it is the sponsor of local footy clubs. They're the ones who pay the salaries to local employees. They're the ones who do the hard work. Behind all the shopfronts we might see across the Sunshine Coast lies a personal story.”
“This is what is happening to local communities right across this country, and this government is showing absolute disregard for small business. It's why, on 8 July, I will host an 'Understanding the Budget' forum, so local businesses on the Sunshine Coast in my area of Fairfax can understand what the Labor Party is doing to them.”
“Australia is drifting. That is the conclusion from the Committee for the Economic Development of Australia's 2026 State of the nation report. Productivity, investment and innovation are going backwards. Knowledge, skills and workforce are going backwards.”
“They lie awake at night not knowing if they can make payroll. They do not know if their employees will have enough money to put food on the table for their own families. This is symptomatic of a decline of our national economy, felt on the ground at home in my communities.”
“You do not make an economy more competitive by taking away opportunities for entrepreneurs. You do not make an economy more competitive by treating profit making as a sin. If this government was so sure about increasing taxes, it should have had the courage to take it to the Australian people at last year's election. (Time expired)”
The complete record
Every one of 271 lines we hold for Ted O'Brien, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 6 of 6.
“Like everything the minister has done—with great haste driven by an ideological belief—the regulations that govern how those feasibility applications are treated were done too quickly and without scrutiny and had enormous holes in them. What the minister has ended up doing as these applications come forward, as some applications have been rejected by the minister, is fail to consider the possibility of still granting an licence for an area the applicant may not have bid for. I'll give a very simple example here. Two applicants come into a zone. One wants a development of one area and another one has an application for another area, but there is some overlap and one has more merit than the other according to assessment.”
“It was very clear that well over 90 per cent of regional communities were dissatisfied with the process. That review was tabled well over 12 months ago. Still, to this day, the minister has taken no action on it. He does not want scrutiny. All of those zones, by the way? The minister has now gone ahead and declared them as offshore wind zones, despite at no point providing transparency or answers to those most impacted. What follows once a zone is declared is that you have developers who wish to build a specific offshore wind project come forward. Developers come forward, look at a zone—a big geographical area in the ocean—and put forward applications so they can build offshore wind projects in those zones.”
“They didn't even know there was a consultation period. Those few who did know there was going to be consultation about these offshore wind zones didn't have their questions answered. We're talking about very intelligent people who know their own area. They had the potential of an offshore wind zone just off their coast. These communities brought forward very serious and reasonable questions on the economic impact, the social impact and the environmental impact on their areas. These questions were left unanswered by the government. In many cases, these communities were begging the minister to turn up and have a conversation with them, to understand the impact on their area. The minister refused. The minister then called for a community review of this process. He got the Australian Energy Infrastructure Commissioner to run this review.”
“Well, they set the arbitrary target of 82 per cent renewables by 2030 and nearly 100 per cent thereafter. They just want it done. So they made the big call: 'We're going to have lots of offshore wind.' They then identified six zones for potential declaration—one off the coast in WA, two in Victoria, one in Bass Strait and two in New South Wales. The way this government have run the community consultation process on each of those zones has been a disgrace, because they've demonstrated reckless indifference towards those local communities who will be most impacted. Some of these communities didn't even know that a zone was going to be declared until it was. When you go to places like the Hunter and the Illawarra you hear stories about residents who will have an offshore wind zone, if Labor continues this debacle, right off their own coast.”
“But let's go back a bit because we need to understand offshore wind and how the licensing process has been regulated to understand why this bill needs scrutiny and why, in the absence of scrutiny, it absolutely needs to be opposed. Firstly, the Albanese government has made it very clear that it wants offshore wind in abundance in this country. At no point has it revealed the economic impact on the Australian people or Australian businesses. At no point has the government come forward with any transparency about the economics of offshore wind. Nevertheless, it has forced, by its own rules, offshore wind, in abundance, into the operator's plan for Australia's future electricity system. 'To hell with the costs,' they think. 'We just want to do it.' Why?”
“Prior to my words here, we had another debate in this chamber about this very bill, because the Labor Party doesn't want scrutiny on it. Again, this is the only bill in this portfolio area, in this sitting of parliament, and where is the minister? Where is the Minister for Climate Change and Energy? He's not here. He came into this parliament last week and introduced this bill at record speed. He was at that dispatch box on—off. He couldn't have been quicker. Why? He doesn't want scrutiny of this. And, when you look at what this bill does, you can see why. The substance of this bill is to legislate the retrospective application of the regulations that the minister put into place last December.”
“Labor, as it goes forward in trying to have 82 per cent renewables on the grid by 2030 and nearly 100 per cent thereafter, is effectively closing down an electricity system which has been working, before it has a replacement ready to go. It's only going to get worse. This context is key to this debate today, because, of all of those issues faced by Australians and the Australian economy, this government has chosen to introduce legislation, the Electricity Infrastructure Legislation Amendment Bill 2025, which addresses none of these things—none of them; not one iota. They've chosen to use the final sitting of the parliament to introduce an amendment to the act which manages offshore wind projects, and that amendment does one thing: it mops up the mess made by the Minister for Climate Change and Energy.”
“These same companies need to be competitive. They need energy costs to come down. It's a handbrake on their activity in a world where they must get costs down to remain competitive. These are the serious issues of the energy crisis Australia is facing, and there is not one serious commentator who isn't estimating it getting worse. I cannot find one commentator, other than the minister, the Prime Minister and some on the Labor benches—no commentator, no serious energy expert or analyst—who is saying that Labor's all-eggs-in-one-basket, renewables-only approach is going to bring prices down. All of those problems that I've outlined are only going to get worse, because prices will continue to skyrocket on a renewables-only, entirely-weather-dependent system.”
“We have seen 27,000 businesses go insolvent—27,000!—largely because they cannot handle the costs, and one of the biggest costs, we know, has been the increased cost of energy. We are seeing Australia now hollowing out its industrial capability as our manufacturers are either closing their doors or saying they need to because the cost of energy keeps going up and up. Australia is losing its energy security. Australia is becoming more and more reliant on foreign powers to keep the lights on. The warnings about blackouts are growing worse by the day. Everyday Australians now have heightened anxiety about not just the price of electricity but the potential for blackouts. There's been much talk over the last 24 hours about tariffs potentially being slapped on Australian industry from the United States.”
“The measure on energy that the government has chosen to introduce to the Australian parliament in the final sitting of this government is to mop up the mess of the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. That's why we're here. Think about that for a moment. We only have to look at the last two weeks to know the damage which is being done, self-inflicted by government, across the economy because of poor energy policy. Australians were promised a $275 reduction in household power bills, but households are paying up to $1,000 more than what they were promised. On average, we have seen around 600 families every single week, since Labor came to office, signing up to hardship arrangements with their energy retailer because these families cannot pay the bills.”
“Australia is currently amidst an energy crisis, the likes of which it has not seen before. Indeed, not only is it on the front page of nearly every newspaper and in every talkback radio, but this energy crisis is being felt in every home across this country and in every business. The economy is getting weaker by the day. And here we are, in the final sitting week of this term of government, and the government brings in only one measure for consideration by the parliament about this energy crisis—only one measure. That measure does nothing to reduce the price of energy for households. That measure does nothing to make energy more affordable for Australian businesses. That measure does nothing to avoid the blackouts which the operator is warning about.”
“I've never seen a faster speech than the one he made last week—in and out. No scrutiny did he want—none at all. And now, today, when we have a line-up of speakers on this very legislation—he's not even here! He's in his room. Seriously! There's no scrutiny. They want to pass this off to the Federation Chamber. It is a disgrace! We need to have the debate here in this chamber. We need scrutiny on this legislation. Anything that has retrospective application at least deserves the scrutiny of the parliament. Even the regulations from last year are still yet to be scrutinised by the Senate committee. Thus, I put this motion to the House.”
“On 12 December last year, after parliament had risen, he changed the regulations to make sure that that power no longer existed. The thing is that that change in regulation, because it would have an adverse impact on others, could not be applied retrospectively. So he made a mess in the first place with the regulations, and then he tried to mop up that mess with a change in regulations—and, in mopping it up, he failed because he could not apply it retrospectively. What he really wants to do is change all the rules for the proponents who came before. So what has he done? Last week he walked into this chamber and introduced the bill that should be debated here today. I'm talking here about the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, by the way, who will never lose a moment in front of that microphone.”
“The minister went ahead with those regulations and introduced them, not having done his homework. Those regulations have since been proven to be flawed. As the minister was applying those regulations, he was rejecting proposals in these offshore wind zones. Once a proposal was rejected it was out of the game—until the minister was taken to court, and the court found that, in fact, the minister had the power to still grant feasibility licences to those proponents he had rejected. So now the minister's in big strife. He raced ahead, he introduced those regulations and he was busted; he was caught out. So what did he do? He decided to change the regulations. When did he do that? Did he do that with scrutiny? Did he engage with industry? Did he engage with the coalition? No, he didn't. He did it sneakily instead.”
“Now, the bill before the House, which Labor wants to duckshove over to the Senate and ignore scrutiny on again, goes to offshore wind. For those who don't know what this is all about, I will explain. After the act was introduced under the former coalition government, it was the now Labor Minister for Climate Change and Energy who created the regulations which govern how feasibility licences are granted to developers who wish to build offshore wind projects in zones that are declared. The now Labor minister created regulations for how that is managed. This is consistent with everything Labor does in this portfolio—with haste and ideological rigour; to just steamroll ahead—because it set its arbitrary target of 82 per cent renewables in the grid by 2030.”
“These local communities have raised very fair and reasonable concerns around the economic impact, the social impact and the environmental impact of these zones. On each of these occasions, in each of those zones which I've mentioned, communities have been steamrolled by a minister who has adopted a process of avoiding scrutiny and refusing to have serious questions answered. This has been the story of offshore wind under the Labor government from the time they came to office. They do not want scrutiny. Community after community with which I have met have come out with examples of very simple questions asked of government for which they do not get an answer. Why is it that the Albanese Labor government is so hell-bent on disrespecting regional communities when it comes to offshore wind?”
“I think most people who've been following the issues of offshore wind know that Labor has already made a mess of this right across the country. Regional Australia has already been hit and hurt through a community engagement process on offshore wind which has been completely flawed, with reckless indifference shown to those communities. The government has never come forward with an explanation of the economic merits of offshore wind. But what has been most hurtful is how quickly they have disregarded concerns from regional Australia—the very people who will be most impacted from some of their offshore wind zones. I'm talking about the offshore wind zones off the coast of WA; Victoria; and New South Wales—in the Illawarra and the Hunter.”
“When has that ever happened? I'm looking squarely at the Labor members who are in this chamber today. I welcome them to name the precedent, of all those bills that had retrospective application, that was so uncontroversial it was sent to the Federation Chamber. But that's what they're trying to do. Now, the best thing that you can say about the attempt of the Labor Party to move this bill to the Federation Chamber is that it is consistent with the minister's approach to date—to hide from scrutiny when it comes to the issues that are in that bill. The issues in that bill relate to how the government manages offshore wind zones. This is only the latest example in a completely bungled mess which is the result of the incompetence of the Minister for Climate Change and Energy.”
“In order for a bill to go from the House to the Federation Chamber as a substitute for debate, it would typically involve both the opposition and the government agreeing to it being passed over to the Federation Chamber. That usually happens when it's not controversial. But the bill that we want to have debated in this House introduces a form of retrospectivity in its application—that is, the Minister for Climate Change and Energy has put forward a piece of legislation which will change the rules of the game. He's done so in the form of the legislation, which should be debated in this chamber, but we now know from the government that they want to shove it under the carpet and send it up to the Federation Chamber so it is not fairly debated. Since when has legislation which has retrospective application been non-controversial? Since when?”
“I move: That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Electricity Infrastructure Legislation Amendment Bill 2025, having earlier been referred to the Federation Chamber by way of a programming declaration, being returned to the House immediately, and all debate occurring in this Chamber. I don't know what sort of protection racket the Labor Party is running here, but, based on the actions to date on the issues reflected in this bill, we have had a deliberate attempt on the part of the responsible minister to avoid scrutiny, and there is no chance that this bill is to be considered uncontroversial.”
“My question goes to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister provide a single example of an Australian family that has received a $275 cut to their power bill, as was promised before the last election nearly 100 times?”