Energy Legislation Amendment Bill 2025

Mr GREG WARREN ( Campbelltown ) ( 10:56 :02 ): I make a brief contribution to debate on the Energy Legislation Amendment Bill 2025, as I believe the member for Blue Mountains has already succinctly covered off the reasons for the Government's position. However, there is one particular point that I want to make: This Government believes that every resident is entitled to fair access to a clean and affordable supply of electricity and other types of energy. In this State and in this country, the politicisation of the energy debate has gone so far that I believe it is now costing consumers.

The reality is that I believe in the free market. Long story short, the market dictates what type of energy will be supplied. I used to drive coal trucks. That industry provided me an income for many years. But markets change. I did not change the market; we as politicians do not change the market. The reality is that energy prices are as high as they are because of a lapse in the technological innovation that results in cheaper electricity. As with any market, if something is expensive to produce, those costs will flow down to the end consumer, who will pay a higher price. Politicians in this country who continue to politicise the energy and climate debate have a lot to answer for. People commit their lives to researching in this space: scientists, innovators and people far smarter than I am.

My son Darcy just finished studying science at the University of Wollongong. He is a fine young chap, if I may say so. We were talking about the issue only recently. He is 21 years old, and he watches politicians carrying on on TV. He said, "Dad, I can't even believe that there are still politicians arguing about climate change and the science that surrounds it. They've got no idea what they're talking about. Do they realise they're making fools of themselves?" I said, "Mate, they either don't know because they're too dumb, or they do know and they don't care because they're nothing but fringe-dwelling populists who don't care about anything else." I believe in fronting up, no matter the issue. I do it in my electorate. Even if people do not like what they are hearing, they will respect you for being honest.

We need to get a bit of integrity, transparency and honesty back into the debate about energy supply, the energy market and climate change, because it is happening. We know it is, because nearly every scientist and every expert around the world says so. Imagine this backbench, nobody boy from Campbelltown rocking up saying, "No, sorry, you are all wrong." Why am I wrong? Because that will look good in my newsletter if I tell them they are wrong because it is a popular thing to say. That is the truth of it. Let's get fair dinkum. That is all it is about. I conclude by saying that I thank my parliamentary secretarial colleague for stating the Government's position, but we have to get fair dinkum in the country. The market is what it is. We need to supply cheaper, fairer and cleaner electricity, which I know this government is very committed to doing.

Ms KAREN McKEOWN ( Penrith ) ( 10:59 :48 ): I am proud to support the Energy Legislation Amendment Bill 2025, which is not just about energy but about securing the future of New South Wales. We are in the midst of the most significant transformation of our energy system in generations. Thanks to the Electricity Infrastructure Roadmap, that transformation is well underway. Already, projects committed or supported through the road map and the Capacity Investment Scheme will deliver more than 70 per cent of our 2030 generation target. That is real progress that means cleaner, cheaper and more reliable power for households and businesses across our State.

The NSW Consumer Trustee has run five highly competitive tender rounds, awarding agreements to 21 generation, firming and storage projects across our State. Seven of those are already built or under construction. Access rights have been granted to 10 projects in the Central-West Orana Renewable Energy Zone—enough to power 2.7 million homes—and to four projects in the South-West Renewable Energy Zone, powering another 1.6 million homes. Together, those developments will unlock $32 billion in regional investment, create 7,000 construction jobs and sustain 4,000 ongoing roles by 2035, mostly in regional New South Wales. This is not just an energy plan, it is an economic plan for our regions.

Communities are already seeing the benefits. Through the Community and Employment Benefit Program, more than $60 million has been invested in 54 local projects in the Central-West Orana region, upgrading sporting facilities, community halls and essential infrastructure. A further $6 million has gone directly to Aboriginal organisations through the First Nations Fund supporting cultural, housing and heritage initiatives. Across New South Wales, those programs are creating apprenticeships and skills training and employment pathways to help school leavers, jobseekers and those retraining for new careers to seize opportunities in clean energy industries. The road map delivers not just energy infrastructure but also stronger communities, thriving regional economies and a fairer future for all.

The Central-West Orana Renewable Energy Zone is leading the way. This landmark project is Australia's first renewable energy zone to reach planning approval and financial close. This a momentous achievement that sets the benchmark for every zone that follows. Construction began in June this year and by 2028 transmission lines will be energised, delivering new renewable energy into the grid. Ten solar and wind projects have already secured access rights. This zone proves that renewable energy is not a distant dream; it is happening now. It is turning policy into infrastructure, and infrastructure into clean, affordable and reliable power for New South Wales. We have strengthened the road map along the way. We introduced a new target for long-duration storage projects and established the Energy Security Corporation, which is a state-owned company with $1 billion in seed funding to partner with private investors on projects that keep the lights on and the grid strong.

Earlier this year, this Parliament passed the priority network projects bill, giving the Government the flexibility to act quickly when reliability or security is at risk. Those reforms make our system more resilient and ensure that we can respond to the challenges without delay. The bill is about more than energy. It is about confidence, security, and opportunity. It strengthens the frameworks that keep investment flowing, supports communities, and delivers the infrastructure that will power our economy for decades to come. As I said, the work is well under way. This bill ensures we stay on track. I commend the bill to the House.

TEMPORARY SPEAKER ( Mr Michael Kemp ): I acknowledge in the Speaker's gallery a visiting delegation from the United Services Union, led by the manager of utilities, Sandie Morthen, and senior organisers Troy Dunn and Peter Munford, who are guests of the Hon. Mark Buttigieg, MLC.

Ms JULIA FINN ( Granville ) ( 11:04 :55 ): I speak in support of the Energy Legislation Amendment Bill 2025. The bill represents a very practical step forward in delivering the energy future New South Wales needs. It builds on the foundations of the Electricity Infrastructure Roadmap and introduces reforms that are targeted, sensible and fair. At its core, the bill does three things. It accelerates delivery of new infrastructure by simplifying approvals for renewable energy zones, improving how new networks connect to the grid, and sets out a clear framework to maintain system strength. These changes will keep the grid stable as more renewable generation comes online.

It ensures that regional communities share in the benefits by expanding eligibility for the Community and Employment Benefit Program. Entire local government areas and local Aboriginal land council areas associated with a renewable energy zone [REZ] will now be able to access these opportunities, recognising the role they play in hosting new projects. That is a big change. Renewable energy projects have been developed in New South Wales for a quarter of a century. As the road map accelerates, it is important that local communities continue to benefit from renewable energy zones not just during construction when extra work opportunities are available but also into the future. The bill also strengthens protection for consumers by improving safeguards for households in embedded networks by guaranteeing that families with rooftop solar will not be charged on a net basis for exporting their clean energy.

These reforms make sure the rules serve consumers and not work against them, which is incredibly important. The bill will have an impact in my community. In my electorate, a number of residents live in apartment blocks that have an embedded network. They had no idea of this when they bought their units. It is cheaper for developers when they build a block of units if the building has only one connection to the grid. Once the project is completed that type of connection is retained because it is cheaper than installing metering for every single unit. But it is also incredibly unfair. People who live in those units do not have the ability to shop around for alternative providers. They are stuck and, in many cases, are charged excessive amounts for the electricity they use.

They often hate the fact that they are were not aware of that type of network connection being in place. That type of electricity supply has applied for many years following the establishment of residential parks and caravan parks. It might seem fair when the cost of maintaining network charges outweighs the cost for those who use very little power. It is not appropriate for a modern household in an apartment block. However, that is the situation at the moment, but the bill will certainly guarantee that those consumers will be treated far better and have the same consumer protections that other energy consumers have now. That is really important. The bill also includes administrative updates to keep the rollout of the road map aligned with the urgency of the energy transition.

These reforms are balanced and practical. They will deliver new generation storage and transmission on time and at the lowest possible cost. They support the regions hosting infrastructure and ensure fairness for households across the State, which is very important. The construction of new transmission lines and the energy rollout has caused a lot of concern. It is very different from the past when the choice was between having a transmission line or not having electricity at all, and people were not then opposed to having transmission lines on their property. But we need to put energy generation where the source is, and that involves installing transmission lines in new locations. To do that, we need to take the community with us by making sure that regional communities are better able to share in the benefits of the energy generation occurring in their area. That is an ambitious plan, but a necessary one. It will ensure reliable, affordable and clean energy for New South Wales for many years to come. I commend the bill to the House.

Ms JENNY LEONG ( Newtown ) ( 11:10 :01 ): I contribute to debate on the Energy Legislation Amendment Bill 2025. The Greens in the lower House support the contribution of our Greens energy spokesperson, Abigail Boyd, in the other place. The bill is part of a tripartite agreement made under the previous Government, involving a range of political parties across this Chamber, attempting to move us to a clean energy future. That is critical in view of the climate crisis we face as a community in New South Wales and across the globe. So much work needs to be done to transition as quickly as possible to a renewable energy future. We must recognise the challenges of a global problem playing out in a very local way for the communities impacted by the rollout of the renewable energy zones [REZs], and that process must be done well.

The Greens do not always agree with those on the conservative side of politics, especially in relation to the climate crisis. Indeed, some on the conservative side do not even believe the climate crisis exists. I acknowledge the contribution of the member for Campbelltown in relation to that, which was gold. We recognise the fact that communities must be consulted and on board with the changes, but the members in this place who believe in science also have a role to play in bringing our communities on board. We can either whip up more drama and hoo-ha about the challenges of the rollout of renewable energy zones, or we can recognise that, as leaders in our communities and the representatives of democracy in New South Wales, we have a role to play in demonstrating how we can work collaboratively. There is no greater challenge in our time than dealing with the climate crisis and the rollout of renewables. I recall a wonderful book by the late Peter Andren in relation to that. For context and for our regional colleagues—

Mr Paul Toole: He was my local member.

Ms JENNY LEONG: Yes, indeed. It is worth noting that when the debate around asylum seekers and refugees coming to this country was taking place Peter Andren was elected as the Federal member for Calare. In his autobiography, he talks about the role that he saw himself playing, both in listening to and delivering for the needs of his community and in bringing his community on board with new or different ideas that he thought aligned with the values and core principles of his community. He talks about taking a strong stance in relation to a humane and compassionate approach to asylum seekers and refugees in a community where that would not have been the common view.

At that time, he was also willing to second motions moved by then Greens lower House MP the member for Cunningham, who was from a very different community with different views. But Peter Andren recognised the value of taking a stance in support of compassionate issues such as marriage equality, for example, even though polling in his electorate at the time would not necessarily have revealed that same view. He saw that, as a representative, he played a dual role: to bring his community on board with changes and guide it through some of the big issues it faced and also to reflect back the needs of that community. I encourage any member who has not read his book to read it for insight on how to bring communities on board to tackle some of the biggest challenges of our time.

I turn now to some of the amendments agreed to in the other place. I acknowledge the role of my Greens colleague Ms Abigail Boyd in moving an amendment to allow for the declaration of an access area. An access area will operate in a similar way to a renewable energy zone, in that it will allow for merit criteria to be imposed on new projects. Merit criteria can include community benefit programs, local content requirements, and labour standards as determined by the Renewable Energy Sector Board. The Greens have heard evidence from stakeholders who have identified a gap: Renewable energy zone projects need to comply with those merit criteria and provide community benefit programs, but non-REZ projects do not. The legislation previously did not allow for access requirements to be imposed on non-REZ projects.

I acknowledge the support for The Greens amendments, which will establish a framework to allow community benefit requirements to be applied uniformly to projects across the State. That is very welcome. A similar framework applies in Victoria, and it has long been advocated for by the Electrical Trades Union. The Greens are proud to have secured Government support for that simple but significant improvement. I acknowledge the Minister's support and note that staff from the Minister's office are listening to this debate in the gallery.

There is an opportunity to consider collaboration in our approach to the climate crisis in New South Wales, and whether we choose to whip up community concern. There is fearmongering around renewable energy and net zero. While it might be amusing to see the Liberal Party and The Nationals divided over net zero, that is not necessarily in the interests of the broader community. I hope that finding a point of consensus in our commitment to address the climate crisis and speed up the rollout of renewable energy will be considered more important than political pointscoring from here on.

We are about to head into the summer months. Members know that we have experienced devastating natural and climate‑caused disasters, including devastating floods. Extreme weather events have occurred in New South Wales and around the world. I acknowledge that some regional areas have been much more impacted than my community in Newtown. We must recognise that we are heading into a season where we will potentially see more extreme weather events, including significant urban heat impacts in Western Sydney as a result of climate change, and the risk of fires.

Unless we work in a collaborative way across Parliament to show our communities how we can lead in addressing the climate crisis, those regional and remote communities will suffer the most. We do not want that damage to happen. We need to stop trying to score political points and instead recognise the reality of what is occurring. We should stop the opening of new coal and gas mines, stop the influence of the polluting fossil fuel industry on our democracy, and take the necessary action to address the climate crisis. Rolling out renewables at speed is one of the best ways we can do that.

Mr PAUL TOOLE ( Bathurst ) ( 11:18 :24 ): I contribute to debate on the Energy Legislation Amendment Bill 2025. I state at the outset that the Opposition moved a number of amendments in the other place, two of which are very important amendments about acknowledging that the Electricity Infrastructure Roadmap is failing many regional communities in New South Wales. It fails to recognise the concerns put forward by many farmers, individuals and communities. The Labor governments, both Federal and State, are more interested in getting renewables projects off the ground, without proper consultation or planning and without actually hearing the concerns of the people who are impacted.

When the energy road map was created in 2020, yes, it had bipartisan support. At the time of its announcement, three renewable energy zones were declared in the State. Those three renewable energy zones were designed to have enough power supply to power up New South Wales as coal-fired power stations come offline over the next 10, 20 or 30 years. Three gigawatts of power was designated to the Central-West Orana Renewable Energy Zone, while eight gigawatts of power was designated to the New England Renewable Energy Zone. Regional New South Wales has been doing its fair share by allowing those projects to be looked at. But that planning and that road map has completely fallen apart. That road map is no longer relevant to what is being rolled out today.

Take the Central-West Orana Renewable Energy Zone. It has gone from three gigawatts to nearly eight gigawatts—the amount of power coming out of that region has nearly tripled in size. That means more solar farms, more wind turbines and more projects impacting on that community. Outside of those areas, those foreign-owned companies do not care about the farmers. They do not care about the communities or what people are actually putting forward and saying. If they can tap into a transmission line and they can provide power, then that is all they care about. They are not listening to the voices of our communities. The whole planning process is completely bungled, which is at the moment only ensuring that regional communities do not have a voice. Many of our communities feel that this is just a box-ticking exercise.

The other problem is that the majority of the projects were meant to go to renewable energy zones. However, more projects are being approved outside of renewable energy zones, and therefore planning controls are no longer in place to ensure that those projects are being controlled. Wherever their land is, every farmer across the State who has a transmission line going through their property or close by is possibly a target for a renewable energy company. Those communities are targets for renewable energy companies, and it is simply not good enough. I get that Government members will say, "It is nimbyism. We have given you all these benefits." Well, guess what? There are not many benefits outside of the renewable energy zones. They can talk about all the money being invested back into those projects. They tell the communities that they think it is a good idea and that it is a good step forward. Let us look at those members who have spoken so far. We heard from the member for Blue Mountains, the member for Campbelltown, the member for Penrith and the member for Newtown.

Mr Edmond Atalla: Good members.

Mr PAUL TOOLE: If they are good members, let us put those wind turbines in their electorates and see how that goes.

Ms Tamara Smith: I will have some.

Mr PAUL TOOLE: The member for Ballina says she will have some. Let us change the planning system and place those projects in national parks in the Blue Mountains or in Newtown. If those members want to help with the road map, that is fine. But let us spread our fair share across the State, even in the city. Those transmission lines going through farms and properties are not small turbines like they were 20 years ago when they were 47 metres high. Today in those communities they are around 300 metres high—as tall as the Sydney Centrepoint tower. Those farmers have been farming their land for decades, and those communities have been enjoying the environment that they live in. All of a sudden, they look out the kitchen window and wind turbines are being placed in and around the landscape of their local communities. That is simply not good enough.

Those projects were actually carefully considered before the last election, and 18 of them were approved before March 2023. Since then, over 60 projects have been given the green light, with many more currently in the planning system. Affected communities feel that they do not have a say, they do not have a voice and, in many cases, they feel that the concerns they are putting forward are not being heard. This week in the House the member for Summer Hill and the member for Newcastle spoke about not slowing down renewable projects. That is another example of members talking about renewable projects that do not impact their communities. Government Ministers, including the Minister for Planning and Public Spaces, have visited those communities and stood in front of 500 or 1,000 people at public meetings. I invite the member for Blue Mountains to come along to one of them. I will let the people of those areas know that by backing in this bill she is showing she does not care about them and is ensuring that their voices are not heard.

Foreign-owned companies are trampling over the top of regional communities, and the people are sick and tired of it. They are fed up. The people of New South Wales are being marched towards an energy disaster. I ask members opposite who claim that renewable projects are a good thing: Who will be responsible for paying to remove the sewage and the waste created by the couple of thousand workers living in the camps that will be set up? It will be up to the council and paid for by ratepayers. The companies are not footing the bill. The construction of the turbines will require thousands of truck movements in and out of those communities. The State's regional roads are already falling apart, unable to cope with existing traffic, so the heavy vehicle and truck movements will make the roads crumble further and fall apart. Water supply in those areas will also be an issue, due to the incredible amount of concrete needed for the projects.

There are also issues around decommissioning. As an example, some projects with 60-metre towers, which may have been in place for 10 to 15 years, are about to come offline and be replaced with 160-metre towers. Government members claim that they care for, and ask us to remember that this is all good for, the environment, but the projects will leave the concrete and the rare earth oxides in the ground, build another big hole and destroy the land even further. We hear this bunkum about the projects being good for the environment, but I can tell members right now that the Government does not care about the environment in those communities. [Extension of time]

The way that the foreign-owned companies treat communities like Sunny Corner, Oberon and Trunkey Creek is an absolute disgrace. They arrogantly roll into those communities and secretively put contracts in front of individual farmers and landholders. They have zero respect for the people whose lives will be upturned by the projects. Those companies do not care that the projects are dumped next to villages, homes and farms. Their idea of consultation is a letter in people's mailboxes and glossy PR sessions, where they give the community no real answers. Let us call this what it is. It is not consultation. At the end of the day, it is coercion. Some of the contracts that the companies have put out propose to build wind turbines 1.35 kilometres away from the nearest house or village, instead of one kilometre, but only if 75 per cent of the residents in the village agree to the project. That is a threat. It is a threat being made by those companies to these communities of everyday people who are not equipped to fight companies that have legal and marketing teams but who have to go out and try to find the evidence and support needed to stand up against those companies.

We have seen some of the contracts. Stromlo Energy, the company behind the Pines Wind Farm, has been handing out multiple versions of contracts. Some contradict each other and some contain major errors. One does not even have an end date, so signing it could actually mean handing over property rights forever. These are continuing issues for many communities across regional and rural New South Wales. I am happy for Government members to express their views. But they should also start listening to the views of the communities that are directly impacted by this every day and think about how the lives of regional people have been turned upside down fighting these particular projects over the past two to three years.

As I said, they are everyday farmers and everyday mums and dads, who are fighting corporations that blow into their communities and do not care about the thoughts or views of those people. The Electricity Infrastructure Roadmap, which was developed in 2020, actually had planning rules around it and actually meant something. Today it means nothing. So let's all stop kidding ourselves and hanging off something that is no longer relevant, something that is now continuing to basically—I will call it what it is—screw our communities over. That is exactly what it is doing. I say two things to every member who says it is a great idea: First, I invite those members to come and visit the impacted communities across the State and front up and tell them that; and, secondly, there need to be changes so that our communities have a greater say.

I will continue to stand up for communities across the State. I will continue to call out the bullying and deception of, and the disrespect being shown to, people in many of our communities. Those people are not anti‑renewables; they are pro‑respect, pro-community and pro-honesty. They have every right to demand fairness and proper process from any company wanting to plant its flag in the region. Until that happens, we will keep fighting loudly and proudly. I end by saying to those in the city: Let's start seeing renewables in your backyard. Let's start seeing them offshore. Let's start seeing them in your local government areas because, at the end of the day, the complete burden is being carried by people in the regions, who are providing all the benefits back to the city.

Mr NATHAN HAGARTY ( Leppington ) ( 11:32 :33 ): I make a quick contribution in relation to the Energy Legislation Amendment Bill 2025. The purpose of the bill is to support the efficient and timely delivery of critical electricity infrastructure while strengthening fairness for consumers and communities. We know that we need to move to more renewable energy. We know that coal‑fired power stations are coming to end of life. The previous Government set us on this road; this Government is doing what it can to support the transition because it knows that lights need to be kept on and energy bills need to be lower.

Once again, we have been treated to a screed from the member for Bathurst. Normally we get a five- to 10-minute screed but this time we got 15 minutes. I like to call him "one trick Toolie" because he only has one, which is to basically try to pitch the city against the country. He likes to whip up rural voters, to try to scare them, because he has no policies and no ideas—that is why he did not get the leadership of The Nationals earlier this week. In his 15-minute screed he talked about all the bad things. Of course this process will not go perfectly. Obviously there will be some disruptions, which is why the Government has brought this bill to the House. We want to make it as smooth as possible and we want to take people on the journey. If a private enterprise wants to put in windmills or solar panels, it clearly takes a landowner to agree to that. There is support out in the regions.

Obviously, any major piece of infrastructure or development needs to meet certain standards. We heard 15 minutes from the member for the Bathurst about why the bill is so bad, but not long from now we will have an opportunity to vote. The member should put his money where his mouth is and tell us where he really stands on renewable energy, because for months he has been running out of the Chamber and voting on this side and voting on that side. His colleagues in Canberra have torn themselves apart. In a few minutes from now he will have the chance to put his money where his mouth is and tell us how he will vote on this bill. It is a good bill.

Dr JOE McGIRR ( Wagga Wagga ) ( 11:35 :10 ): I make a brief contribution to debate on the Energy Legislation Amendment Bill 2025. There is no doubt that the major issues we face as a State and as a nation are around climate change and energy security. We have had debates in Parliament on that topic already this week, and we will no doubt continue to have those debates in the future. We need to tackle the issue of climate change and make a contribution to its mitigation. Frankly, we also have issues with energy security with the downgrading of our coal‑fired power plants. We need to act, and the renewable energy infrastructure that is being rolled out is extremely important, both to the State and to the nation. There is no alternative. But at the moment we face a really significant barrier, and that is social licence. No-one thought about it when we started doing the rollout.

In my area we had to deal with the Transgrid HumeLink project. I spoke about that in this place in 2020. I was a lone voice signalling to everybody that that massive rollout of renewable energy infrastructure across the State would need a social licence—that people live in regional and rural communities, and they needed to be consulted and to receive appropriate compensation. At that stage we had sold off Transgrid. In retrospect it is unbelievable that we actually sold off our network distribution coming into this decade, but we did. Not only that, but we also set it up so that the only thing that the regulator had to look at was the price of electricity. There was no consideration of social licence in any of it.

The regulator is not accountable to any Parliament. By selling off Transgrid, we established a private operator. So when we faced the major challenge of climate change, we had basically outsourced government. But that was in the past; we are where we are. The former Government—and I have to acknowledge the work of the Coalition—came up with the Electricity Infrastructure Roadmap. I believe that was a recognition by the then energy Minister, Matt Keane, that the Government had to do something to grab back some ability to control the rollout and make sure communities were looked after. As a result of that, the renewable energy zones were established, with bipartisan support.

I support the changes today that will make the process fairer for renewable energy zone communities. I think we can do a lot more, but at least we are starting that process. I am encouraged by The Greens amendments that the Government accepted around community frameworks outside of renewable energy zones, but I come back to this point: Outside the renewable energy zones, there is a massive renewable energy infrastructure continues. It affects my community, and the mechanisms of compensation and consultation are not good enough. Communities are not treated well.

The corporations that come into renewable energy zones regard community consultation as one box in the approval process, whereas they should start with that. It is just a box to tick, and usually it is an outsourced exercise. The Community Engagement Review by the previous Australian Energy Infrastructure Commissioner offered an outstanding solution to this. I know the Government is working on it. I just want the Government to work faster. We need to accredit the companies doing renewable energy projects so their consultation with the community is appropriate and meaningful. That is an important step.

I come back to the issue of compensation outside renewable energy zones, and there is an example of that with the Transgrid HumeLink project. Thanks to my advocacy, the previous Government came up with a scheme of strategic benefit payments for affected landholders. That was good. We also managed to get better community consultation. There is no question Transgrid has improved its community consultation. Transgrid went back to the regulator for $15 million in community consultation funding. It said that that was the largest amount of community funding ever for a project but, sadly, it is a pittance when compared with the $500 million project being rolled out. So we have asked for that to be increased.

I recently had discussions with Transgrid and the five affected councils. It is clearly important. Under our complex regulatory system, Transgrid cannot just go back and ask for the additional funds, and the regulator is not allowed to approve funding willy-nilly—it has to have a proposal from Transgrid. So we find ourselves in a bizarre, catch 22 situation. A proposal cannot be approved until it comes from Transgrid, but Transgrid does not have the capacity to make that proposal for additional community benefits. The councils in my area believe they are entitled to compensation for hosting the Transgrid powerlines. If those councils received those benefits, it would have an enormous impact on their communities and change the dynamics for that project.

It would improve the social licence of the project, and people would start to say, "We've got these powerlines, but we can see the benefits to our communities. Our councils now have additional funds for the necessary infrastructure that they are, frankly, struggling to afford." I know the councils are struggling, because a number of them are merged—and we know what merged councils ended up with. That was another tax on rural communities. Snowy Valleys Council is holding a referendum next week and, hopefully, locals will vote to demerge. But that is by the by; let us not go down that rabbit hole.

In the meantime, our local rural councils could benefit enormously from renewable energy infrastructure projects like HumeLink. I would like to see the Government amend the legislation to require Transgrid to add that community benefit to its cost base and trigger it to go to the regulator to get approval for additional funding. I believe there is a way forward on that. It would be such an important breakthrough. I am encouraged that the Minister recognises more needs to be done in areas outside the renewable energy zones. The member for Bathurst explained eloquently what is happening outside renewable energy zones. Let us get the compensation right. Let us get the consultation with our communities right. Let us get the respect right, not only in the renewable energy zones but also throughout regional and rural New South Wales, which will bear a significant burden in the renewable energy journey that we have embarked upon.

Mr BRENDAN MOYLAN ( Northern Tablelands ) ( 11:42 :56 ): Unlike many other members, I have a renewable energy zone in my electorate. Following on from what the member for Wagga Wagga and the member for Bathurst said, people in my electorate are not anti-renewables by any stretch. But this rollout is not going well. I support the amendments moved by the Opposition in the upper House to try to make the rollout better but, in my respectful opinion, this legislation does not go far enough to address the problems with the rollout. I am not trying to politicise this issue. There is genuine concern in my electorate. Every week I receive phone calls from farmers, usually from the Walcha area and some closer to Uralla. Some are in tears. Most are at their wits' end. All of them are incredibly frustrated and feel like they have not been listened to because of the actions of EnergyCo and the complete lack of consultation, the complete lack of basic human respect and the complete lack of any empathy or understanding as to how this rollout is impacting communities. And I am not talking about a renewable energy project here; I am just talking about powerlines.

Members opposite talk about all of the benefits to regional communities. I have been the member for my electorate now for about 15 months, and I have not seen any genuine benefits. What I have seen in my position is frustration, anger and sadness. It is at the point now where in Walcha, for example, people who have grown up together and played footy and cricket together are on opposite sides of the fence and now do not talk to each other. Neighbours on roads in the Walcha and Uralla shires for the last 20 to 30 years have held Christmas parties, much like the Christmas parties I attended when I was a kid at home, where all the neighbours get together, the mums and dads put on a barbecue, everyone chips in, one of the locals dresses up as Santa, and each kid get a present. Those parties are not happening anymore, because of the divide caused in my communities both by renewable energy projects and the transmission infrastructure.

It frustrates me that members in this place point fingers and say, "You guys bad, us good. You guys are doing it badly. We were doing it better. You guys are sending it off track." What actually needs to happen here is for the Government to sit down with the Opposition and say, "We are rolling out this road map. How can we do it better?" I will tell members how we can do it better. Firstly, we must actually take into account and legislate proper cumulative impact studies because, when the renewable energy zone in New England starts being built, we will have massive problems with council roads. Our council road network now is too big and the rate base is not big enough for the councils in my electorate to maintain their roads. When these renewable projects are being built, those roads will be absolutely hammered. That is the first point.

The second point is water. We already have water security problems in New England. Even at absolute best capacity in Armidale, when everything is full, we have capacity for around 80 per cent water security. Some projects are said to need 40 per cent of Armidale's total water. What will happen when it inevitably turns dry? We have had a run of five good seasons. It must turn dry at some point. It will turn dry again. What will happen to the water? What will happen to housing for workers? Who will actually build this? There are all of these problems. Then we have cumulative visual impact. For eight gigawatts of dispatchable power from the New England Renewable Energy Zone, you need a whole lot more than eight gigawatts worth of infrastructure. To get eight gigawatts, we will need somewhere around 16, which is a hell of a lot of infrastructure in a very small part of New South Wales. We have a huge State with significant wind resources. We do not have to plonk it all on one spot. All that is doing is dividing communities.

The amendments the Opposition put through in the upper House are good and go some way to addressing these problems, but this rollout is not going well. It is dividing communities. It is pitting neighbour against neighbour. We need to do so much better as a Parliament. For the life of me, I wish we could get some bipartisanship on this. Otherwise we will just have regional members on one side saying that it is not going well and Sydney members on the other side telling us that we are all nimbys and climate denialists. We are not climate denialists. We are not nimbys. We just want it done fairly. We do not want our people to get rolled over. We want our people to be listened to. We want a fair go, and it is not happening. I urge the Government to work with us, for God's sake, because it is losing regional New South Wales in this renewable rollout.

Mr DAVID LAYZELL ( Upper Hunter ) ( 11:49 :29 ): I contribute to debate on the Energy Legislation Amendment Bill 2025. I note the amendments that have been moved and debated in the other place. I support those amendments. I wish that the Government had listened to those ideas that were presented but rejected. The rollout of the NSW Electricity Infrastructure Roadmap is having a huge impact on our local areas. It is a massive challenge. Members are hearing all the time from local advocates who oppose the change, and from those who support it. There is a lot of information out there. Trying to work out the best way forward is challenging.

Too often this debate is getting bogged down in the idea that we cannot criticise the road map or its rollout, because to do so somehow means we are denying climate change and supporting floods and bushfires. The Premier used exactly those arguments in the House earlier this week to try to shut down any criticism of the rollout. This is an important issue and probably one of the biggest challenges of our generation. Are we all supposed to just put our head in the sand and pretend that everything is going swimmingly? Nothing can be improved without having true conversations about how it can be done better, and there is a lot that can be done better.

When the road map was first introduced, it was all about affordable, cheap power. We were speaking about the jobs, the investment and the huge opportunities in manufacturing that it would bring. To date, we have not seen any of that. That is something we have to address, and we have to do it now. It is not something we can just ignore and say, "Well, you guys said it, so you have to own it." Along this journey there are adjustments that we have to make. That is what The Nationals are advocating for now, because there are huge issues in our rural and regional communities. We have spoken about them again and again. I reiterate the call by the member for Northern Tablelands for members across this Chamber to have better conversations about getting some improvement in those areas.

We cannot have a situation where city colleagues in this House are completely divorced from the realities of what is happening in regional New South Wales with the rollout of renewable energy. There are huge issues with the transmission line rollout. We have seen that recently in my area. There was a huge mistake made by EnergyCo, and a total lack of respect shown for the people affected, insofar as any documents produced that might explain the reason why a particular decision was made have been redacted. For the life of us, we cannot see why that decision was made. No costings have been provided. The attitude was completely different when we worked together on the Central‑West Orana Renewable Energy Zone.

I worked through that in careful detail with a different team in EnergyCo, and we solved the problems with that one. But this team in EnergyCo does not seem to care and, unfortunately, the Government and the Minister are not pulling it up and making sure it does things properly. They are giving EnergyCo free blank cheques to go and do whatever it wishes. There is huge pressure in our communities as a result. People are quite right to complain about and question the entire road map when these types of issues continue to pop up. Another project I am working through with EnergyCo and stakeholders is the Hunter Transmission Project. We have consulted with most of the stakeholders; we are down to the final two.

The parties have done a good job. I commend them all the time for the job they have done. I talk to them about the legacy for our community and leaving something behind from a multibillion-dollar project—and we still do not know what it will cost. How about when we build the workers camp in the middle of a housing crisis we apply the same logic that was used when Snowy Hydro was built? Workers camps were built for that project. Those houses still exist and are still being used. But for some reason when we build the workers camp in the Hunter Valley no housing can be left for the future. They are going to remove all the houses—in the middle of a housing crisis—all the roads, all the sewerage and all the water. Billions of dollars are being spent and people say, "You should feel lucky about that investment in your area." But a lot of the infrastructure will be ripped out. We will not see a benefit, which is just crazy. We are not having a proper conversation about how we can improve so that we create a legacy.

Another example is a solar farm project in my electorate. It involves a road upgrade so the solar freight and panels can be brought in. The company refused to allow any civil contractors from the Hunter Valley to bid for the road project because it had existing relationships with other contractors. Guess what? Those contractors are from Queensland. So that civil job was done by Queenslanders, who brought in their own people. We wonder why local communities are absolutely frustrated. A number of members have spoken about the number of proponents. There has to be a way to control that because there are far too many. Proponents reach an agreement with a particular farmer to use their land and then produce a brochure explaining what they are going to do. However, I know that those projects will not go ahead because they have not thought about how to get the transmission lines through or about a whole bunch of different aspects.

They are only interested in producing a brochure and selling the project to someone else to make a bit of profit. They are overseas entities that have no interest in our community. But the community ends up completely divided and at war over the project. I cannot tell people that the project will not ever happen because it is not practical and does not make sense. Instead, I have to say, "Look, there's a chance it will go ahead." Communities are being pulled into this huge issue across the board. Decommissioning of windfarms is another major concern. Despite a number of conversations, our guidelines on windfarm decommissioning have still not been produced. The only thing that was dealt with is the inclusion of a decommissioning cost calculator.

Like many other industries have done before, the proponents say, "Don't worry. The recycling value of all this will almost pay for the whole decommissioning." That sounds very much like certain petrochemical companies that operate in West Africa. It is crazy that the Government is still falling for that baloney—the idea that we will be able to recycle everything and make enough money to cover the cost. Those companies will go under. A company will operate a project for 80 per cent to 90 per cent of its lifespan and then sell it to a parent holding company or some sort of shell company. That company will go under and then, all of a sudden, the administrator will come in. They will pull the copper head out of the top—which is the only thing of value—and leave the rest to the landholder. That is a major concern. It is a tried and tested method used in many different industries throughout the world. Now it is happening in the renewable energy space. There are considerable challenges at the moment, certainly with the New England Renewable Energy Zone, because the road map has failed to identify the areas which are appropriate for some of these projects. [Extension of time.]

When the road map was rolled out, industry noted which were the best areas for wind and solar resources, but the social licence and community impact were not taken into consideration. We know more now and understand the true impacts. That is why we need to look at this road map and whether these areas are the appropriate areas. Maybe we need to redesign some of the road map. Instead of picking farming areas on 1,000‑ to1,500-acre blocks, maybe we go to areas with much larger concerns. Then we can build these projects with a social licence and with more understanding of what the community will be able to put up with.

By far the biggest issue with this rollout is this Government's great idea to speed the whole thing up. At a time when we are trying to work through all the social licence and community issues, those opposite keep saying, "We've got to speed it up." This week the Premier said, "I will continue to fight talk like that." It shows absolutely no respect for the people who are going through pain in these areas. I plead with members to remember that these are people they are talking about. I know they do not live in electorates held by the Government, but they are still people of New South Wales who we must respect and continue to work with.

Every time the Government says it will speed it up, people hear, "We're going to roll over the top of you." That is painful for people all across regional New South Wales at the moment. There is a lot of pain out there as a result of this, but the Premier stands there and says, "I'm going to speed it up. I'm going to make this happen because we have no choice." Bayswater Power Station is in my electorate. Five hundred people work on that site. Five hundred other contractors work on that site. We just finished a $300 million upgrade to keep the power station running through to 2033. The town was full of workers and experts all working on the maintenance of that power station. But no more will money spent on it now because we keep telling them, "You're going to shut." We have the option to discuss extending that deadline. It can be extended.

When I was a young builder, I worked on an old coal-fired power station in the United Kingdom that had been shut for two years. The UK Government said, "We need the power so we're going to restart it. We need to keep it going." The power station got going again until another one came online. These things are possible. I do not accept the Premier's view that we have no choice. We do have choices. We want the Premier to look at those choices and have a sensible conversation. We all want a renewables future, but we need time to get there. The faster the rollout goes, the more pressure is put on our local communities and the more we will lose the social licence.

We need to make sure this rollout is right. It is time to regroup and look into the road map to ensure that it is the right one for New South Wales. We need decent conversations, rather than accusations that we are nimbies or do not care about the climate. That does not help. It inflames the whole conversation. We want a good conversation about how to make our energy system work for everyone in New South Wales and for future generations. I ask the Government to start doing that with us.

Mr PHILIP DONATO ( Orange ) ( 12:04 :02 ): I make a brief contribution to debate on the Energy Legislation Amendment Bill 2025. I did not intend to participate in debate, but having heard other members' speeches I think it is important to raise a few issues. I support the bill and the amendments passed in the Legislative Council. The member for Manly mentioned that those amendments certainly improved the bill. I represent an area that does not have a renewable energy zone [REZ], although it is very close to the Orana REZ at Dubbo and Wellington. However, we have seen an influx of renewable energy projects in my community in and around Orange, namely solar farms and wind farms. I will just tap into what some other members have said in this debate, particularly the member for Northern Tablelands.

The implementation issues have been very difficult to deal with and very divisive among communities. It has turned communities against each other and families against each other, where family farms have been split up. For example, one brother has one allocation of the property and his brother has a separate allocation. One brother has agreed to have wind turbines on his farm and the other brother has not agreed. It is having a huge impact on regional communities. I am not saying regional communities are anti‑renewables at all, but there needs to be improved consultation between relevant parties and the communities to achieve a better understanding of exactly where the wind turbines will be situated, the impacts they will have, their distance and setbacks and profiles to other properties and what will happen in relation to transmission lines and easements. People also need to know what will happen with decommissioning. At the moment it is happening fairly quickly and a lot of the issues I have mentioned are not being appropriately addressed.

We are talking about large wind turbines that are 300-odd metres high or close to it, which is the approximate height of the Sydney Tower. I suggest members to pause and think about that. When I drive to Sydney to come to Parliament every sitting week, I can see Sydney Tower from essentially the bottom of the Blue Mountains as I drive down the hill. The member for Blue Mountains is present in the Chamber and may confirm that. It might be from Wentworth Falls or maybe areas a bit lower than that, but on a clear day I can see the Sydney skyline and make out Sydney Tower from probably 50 kilometres away as the crow flies. The height of wind turbines is comparable to the height of Sydney Tower. I invite members to let that comparison sink in because that will be the visual impact.

This week I had a briefing with a company that is proposing to put some wind turbines in State forests in and around Mount Canobolas. Two wind turbine projects are being considered that will be on public land, not private property. It is forestry land where trees are harvested. The project is being considered for two locations—Four Mile Creek and Glenwood State Forest—and each will have 30‑odd turbines. Each project will cost about half a billion dollars for a total $1 billion project. It is still in the very early stages, but I made my position quite clear. Specifically, my community and I do not want to see wind turbines on the summit of Mount Canobolas. I am not saying that is going to happen. The location being discussed is on the southern side of Canobolas. Those State forests are used by mountain bikers, people who do trail running and people who go bushwalking. Obviously the projects will cause significant disruption to other access in those State forests during the construction stage.

I do not quite know how they will construct those wind turbines in State forests because the forestry network of trails and fire trails is quite narrow. Barely one car could fit down those windy and steep trails. I do not know how trucks will be able to carry infrastructure into the State forests. Perhaps consideration of the projects has not advanced that far, but it is another issue. As I said, regional communities are not anti‑renewables—far from it—but there needs to be a controlled balance in how the projects are rolled out. There needs to be better, greater and genuine community consultation, not letterbox drops that people miss or do not receive. There needs to be a greater public awareness of exactly what is happening in the project, the decommissioning plans and community benefit. The community benefit side of the projects is an important issue as well. Communities and councils—especially regional councils—are all struggling for funding. They do not have a large rate base to draw upon. If the Government wants to win over communities and get the social licence that I have heard other members talk about, one way of doing that is to significantly increase the community benefit for those local councils and communities so they can improve their roads and infrastructure.

At the moment, the community benefit is almost tokenistic. It is not genuine. The people in the country look at it through the following lens. For example, we have a waste-to-energy proposal in Parkes. People in the region seem to be having such things forced upon them on an ever-increasing basis. I do not want to divide the city and the country, but it is important to note this: The people in the city who are the greatest users of the electricity are not the ones with the wind turbines off the coast or in their backyards. If it were to happen that there were wind turbines off Bondi Beach, Wollongong or the northern beaches, there would be a huge uproar from those communities. There needs to be a greater level of fairness, compassion, respect and honesty when dealing with regional communities. That is all I want to raise in relation to the bill.

Mrs WENDY TUCKERMAN ( Goulburn ) ( 12:10 :54 ): I contribute to debate on the Energy Legislation Amendment Bill 2025 and, more importantly, I place on record the very real and immediate implications of the bill for the communities of the Goulburn electorate. For several years families across Goulburn, Crookwell, Bannister, Rye Park, Binda, Collector, Bannaby, Gunning and the Yass Valley have raised concerns about the rapid and poorly managed expansion of energy infrastructure across our region. Residents have consistently raised issues about land-use conflicts, the loss of productive agricultural land, insufficient community consultation, the absence of cumulative impact assessment and the growing sense that regional communities are being treated as an extraction zone for metropolitan energy demand.

The community is also deeply concerned about the ongoing lack of accountability in the planning system. We have heard departments admit that they have not read community submissions. We have seen assessors unaware of critical planning instruments like the transport and infrastructure State environmental planning policy. Landmark cases such as the Mudgee decision, where a solar farm was refused for being fundamentally incompatible with its rural setting, have been ignored by proponents and regulators alike. The bill does nothing to address the cultural problem we face.

Our region has contributed far more than our fair share to the State's energy transition. We understand the need for reliable and affordable electricity, but regional New South Wales must not be sacrificed. It must be respected. That is the issue. I want members to understand that things are not going well on the ground, and we need to address those concerns. This is not about trying to stop the energy transition; it is about being fair to our communities. My area is outside a renewable energy zone [REZ], but we are taking hits left, right and centre. The bill seeks to expand the community benefits for local government areas and local Aboriginal land council areas connected to REZs. That is an improvement to the current system and we welcome it, but we are talking about my area. Regional communities continue to raise concerns about community benefit schemes.

I have spoken about the influx of projects in Yass Valley on many occasions—up to 700 wind turbines in one small area. Yass Valley is a prime example of a community hosting renewable energy infrastructure projects using adjacent transmission infrastructure, but receiving zero community benefit because it falls just outside the REZ boundary. The REZs exist because energy planners identified them as strategically optimal locations for renewable energy development. What about the projects in other areas? Community benefits requirements should be standardised and improved for projects outside REZs, particularly those projects that benefit from REZ connected infrastructure or that impact nearby communities. Better planning equals more renewable megawatts on the grid faster and more responsibly.

It is important to note that those concerns have been brought to the Government by the regional mayors. I acknowledge that the Minister in the upper House said that the Government would look at that in the future. However, we need to do it sooner. We need to understand how to improve what is happening on the ground and respect the communities that are impacted. I emphasise that we need to regulate the guidelines for community impact and ensure that those guidelines are adhered to. We need to come up with a test that tells us how much is too much in an area, and we need to ensure that our communities are protected.

From the conversations I have had with people in my electorate, I know they are not against renewable energy. It is about the planning framework on the ground. They feel like they are being ignored. There is no consistency around where the projects are going, and that is the issue. Unless we address that on the ground within the planning framework, the transition will not happen quickly. That is the bottom line. It was evident this year: No major infrastructure projects were approved. We have to get that right.

I personally invited the Premier to speak to some of my constituents. Some of them got to him at the Bush Summit this year. He has called and spoken to a couple of people, but the feedback from those constituents was that the Premier does not really understand what is happening on the ground. I understand that the Premier is a busy guy and he has a Minister who is supposed to take care of that, but he needs to really understand how the planning framework is working and what the pitfalls are so that we can make it better.

I ask the Government not to dismiss what our communities are telling us and how we represent them. I tell the Government now that we need to make sure the planning framework is fit for purpose in order to see a successful transition. I am happy to work with any Minister who is happy to listen to what our communities are saying in order to make it better. We need to ensure that those developers are accountable for how they consult and for the attitude they bring to the table. That is what is really annoying people on the ground—they are being dismissed, their concerns are not being heard, and there is no logic around it.

There are instances of neighbours being blackmailed into signing neighbourhood agreements before any environmental impact statement [EIS] has been put on the table for submissions. They have been told, "Sign the documents, but that means that you can't make a submission on the EIS." Are you kidding me? I have a prime example of one developer doing that in my area. One cannot operate fairly under that system. They need to be held accountable, left, right and centre, about what they are doing and how they are consulting with our communities. They come with the attitude of, "The Government just wants to see this happen, and we will do whatever we can. We do not care about you." I have heard that from a developer in a town hall meeting of over 500 people. It does not wash with us. It is not good enough. I urge the Government to work with us to make this right, get the answers that we need and make sure that the planning framework is fair, accountable and does the best things by our communities.