Get Involved - Parliament

Renewable Energy

Published on: May 2026

Record: HANSARD-1323879322-165367

Renewable Energy

Dr MARJORIE O'NEILL (Coogee) (17:00:17):

I move:

That this House:

(1)Reaffirms its commitment for New South Wales's renewable energy plan, the Electricity Infrastructure Roadmap.

(2)Acknowledges that cancelling or unnecessarily delaying renewable energy projects would drive up energy prices for New South Wales families and small businesses.

I start with something that happened this week: The Australian Energy Regulator set the cap on household power prices for next year. It is coming down. From July, it will come down by between 3.4 per cent and 7.7 per cent for households and by up to 20.9 per cent for small businesses. That does not happen by accident; it happens because wholesale prices have fallen. In the last quarter New South Wales wholesale prices were almost half what they were a year ago. The reason they fell is there is more renewable energy and storage coming into our system. We should not oversell it. Bills are still high. Families and small businesses are still under pressure and a few per cent off a cap does not fix that all on its own.

But let's be real: The direction has turned. For three years the line went one way. This is the first determination where it bends back. That matters. It is only possible because of the policy certainty we have under this Labor Government. Here is the part that no member in this House can argue with: Around 60 per cent of our electricity still comes from coal-fired power stations. They are old. They are scheduled to close by 2033—the last by 2040. They will close whether this Parliament likes it or not, because they are wearing out. The question has never been renewables or coal; the question was what replaces coal. The cheapest answer, by a very long way, is renewables, storage and firming. We are seeing that firsthand now.

The Government is not delivering the road map for ideological reasons; it is practical. This Government is getting on with it. Since the election, the capacity of large-scale wind and solar in operation is up by more than 80 per cent. To reiterate, since being elected in 2023, the Minns Labor Government has increased the capacity of wind and solar in operation by more than 80 per cent. Operational storage is up 30-fold. We have approved 10.2 gigawatts of generation, $37 billion of investment and 14,000 construction jobs, primarily in the regions. That is 14,000 homes with dinner on the table, and more renewable energy than the previous Government approved in its whole 12 years.

That brings me to the second part of the motion. The alternative to getting on with it is delay. From the debate we just had on the Energy Legislation Amendment (Prioritising Renewable Energy) Bill 2026, delay seems to be all we see from members opposite. The reality is delay has a price. Every project cancelled or stalled is generation that does not come online to replace the coal that is leaving. Let's face facts: Coal is leaving. It is getting out of date and closing down. We need energy projects to replace it, and the cheapest, most efficient way is solar and wind. That is a fact. It is not a debating point. It is about supply. Take supply out, and prices go up and reliability goes down. It is not more complicated than that. A responsible government cannot afford to reverse course or press pause on progress. The families of small businesses that this motion is about are the only ones who would pay for it.

Members on this side of the House will not pretend that everyone is happy about every single project. The reality is they are not. We are building really big things, and change is hard. Those projects are hard. But one cannot be against coal staying open, against renewables and for lower prices, all at once. That seems to be what the Coalition is all about. That is not a position. It is a wish that cannot come true. The motion says two things: Back a plan, and be honest that wrecking it will cost people money and set us up for blackouts. That is all the motion is about.

We cannot afford to see the policy chaos of the Federal Coalition come home to New South Wales. I return to where I started. For the first time ever, we are seeing energy prices start to come down. It is not by accident. It is because more renewable projects are coming online and more storage is coming into the system. The transition is far too important to leave behind. I hope this House can agree on the road map and reaffirm its commitment in a nonpartisan way forward, which has been done for the past decade. I commend the motion to the House.

Mr JAMES GRIFFIN (Manly) (17:07:06):

I move:

That the motion be amended by inserting the following:

(3)Condemns the Minns Labor Government for bungling the rollout of the Electricity Infrastructure Roadmap and failing to adequately consult and listen to regional communities.

Ms Kate Washington:

Straight out of the One Nation playbook.

Mr JAMES GRIFFIN:

No, it is not straight out of the One Nation party. If the Minister was listening to the debate on the Energy Legislation Amendment (Prioritising Renewable Energy) Bill 2026, she would have heard member after member—including Independents and Greens—say essentially the same thing: Rural and regional communities do not feel appropriately heard, considered or compensated when it comes to the pace and manner of the rollout. There is a very important distinction between not supporting renewable energy and understanding its importance or role in the energy system and not appreciating and understanding its impact. The comments by the member for Wagga Wagga, and the group that he and the member for Albury brought to Parliament House today, were evidence of that. Those issues need to be contemplated and considered in the broader energy debate.

There are many things that we could have chosen to talk about today: the cost-of-living crisis or plummeting small business confidence. I note that confidence is the lowest since reporting began, before pandemic lows. The dominant pressure costs for businesses—what is really keeping them up at night—are rising fuel and energy costs. Business input costs of 90 per cent are also a significant concern. That demonstrates how a credible, sensible energy policy—one authored by the Coalition—would not cause people to jump in surprise at a small energy cost discount in this State.

If we had a sensible, considered rollout, we would know exactly what costs we are looking at year after year. Under this Government we have seen a steady, significant increase in the cost of delivering renewable energy zones. Those costs are ultimately passed on to consumers. There is now an average delay of three years to deliver renewable energy projects across the State. That is an unacceptable delay, which, as we have just explained at length, is being driven by poor planning decisions and the massive conflict and challenges in rolling out renewable energy in New South Wales. For the Government to put forward a public interest debate setting out those challenges brings home the serious problems in rural and regional communities. People want fewer motions and more megawatts. Like many of us on the Opposition benches, they understand and appreciate the problems of rolling out renewable energy. But this Government has perfected the art of talking on one hand about the importance of gas and on the other hand creating a gas decarbonisation policy.

On one hand Government members say that they support renewables and they want as many as possible. On the other hand they are saying they will open up gas exploration across the State. No-one is debating the need for gas. However, the Premier often conveniently leaves that message out when he is talking about the importance of renewable energy and how much is being generated in New South Wales. The public interest debate really should have been about whether the Government can and will deliver the energy transition on time and on budget. If the Government was truly honest with how it is going, it would admit that things are wildly off track. Energy industry representatives raise that with me all the time. The Government needs to have an honest discussion with people and businesses about where renewable energy will end up and how it is going. The former Government put a strong and considered renewable energy road map in place. This Government has been trying to implement it for 3½ years and, frankly, has not done a very good job. I support the amendment.

Ms JO HAYLEN (Summer Hill) (17:11:59):

It is not often that I feel sorry for members opposite. But I feel sorry for the member for Manly this afternoon. It must be so difficult to continue to walk the impossible line. His speech has perfectly illustrated the impossible conundrum the Liberal-Nationals Coalition has put itself in by creating its new alliance with One Nation. The speech of the member for Manly was so full of contradictions that he seemed to be tripping over himself within the five short minutes he was provided. Is the Government going too fast or too slow with the energy rollout? That seems to be a challenge. If we are going too slow, how has the Government now approved more renewable energy projects to create more energy and storage power than the previous Government did in 12 years? It seems to be a fairly efficient rollout to me. But apparently that is too slow for members opposite. Apparently, the effect on small business is concerning. But we have just seen today that the Australian Energy Regulator default market offer has dropped. It is a small drop, but it is a good thing for both business and households.

Again, do we want to see the move to renewables, a plan that was devised by the Cabinet that the member for Manly was part of? Is that a good or bad thing for small business? Unfortunately, the Liberal-Nationals Coalition has tied itself up in all sorts of knots. It should be incredibly easy for members opposite to support the motion. The reason why it is so—dare I say it—embarrassing is because they wrote the plan that we are implementing. The renewable energy road map was written by the Liberal-Nationals Coalition in government. In fact, it was written by members who remain a part of the Opposition. They were in the party room and the Cabinet. They devised the plan and it was legislated by this Parliament with cross-party support in 2020. That is the plan that we are effectively and efficiently rolling out across New South Wales. The other reason that it is so difficult for members opposite and why their amendment is so telling is that they do not really want to say out loud what their new policy is. We all know the policy was written by One Nation. We know where One Nation stands. Its members have said so very loudly and clearly. One can disagree with their policy on energy and all their other policies; I wholeheartedly do. But now we have to understand where the Liberals and The Nationals stand.

Believe me, people have tried to find out what the Liberal-Nationals plan is. Do they back the Electricity Infrastructure Roadmap that they wrote and that was legislated in 2020 or not? Do they still back the policy that they designed, or are they walking away from it? We really cannot say for sure. The other thing that is so important is that this is not just a debating point or something that politicians are spending time on for the sake of it. It is critical for the future of our State and economy because uncertainty is not free. There is a cost to delay—choking supply and pushing prices up. That is what happens when there is uncertainty. We are talking about $37 billion of private investment and 14,000 jobs riding on the future of our renewable energy rollout. Investors do not put money into a grid if an alternate government might rip up the plan and do something completely different.

We do not know if that is what the Liberals and The Nationals would do because they will not say. They are trying to amend the motion because they do not know where they stand. They are all over the shop, and there is a real potential cost to the State and community. The Liberals and The Nationals need to come clean. If they were in government tomorrow, would they keep building the Central-West Orana and New England renewable energy zones, or would they pause? These are critical questions that they cannot answer with just a slogan. They cannot keep the lights on with a slogan either. Members opposite will not come clean.

Mr DAVID LAYZELL (Upper Hunter) (17:17:08):

I thank the member for Coogee for bringing the debate to the House. I really enjoy talking about renewable energy, particularly the renewable energy rollout, when Labor is stuffing it up so badly. I will talk all day long about how badly Labor is stuffing it up. I owe the member for Coogee a beer and will buy her one next time I see her because I cannot believe how badly it is going under Labor. It is a great opportunity for us to take a moment because the chimneys of the grand old dame of the Upper Hunter, Liddell Power Station, were demolished today. It is a big day for the Upper Hunter. That coal-fired power station was one of the ones that were closed a few years ago.

We all know that the renewable energy rollout is happening. When Labor is stuffing it up as badly as it is, it is no wonder that the people of New South Wales are calling out, "This is no good. We want the Government to take action. We want them to sort out the problems we have on the ground." But what are we getting from the Government? They say, "People need to be quiet; this is important. We're going to roll over the top of you." That is what we keep hearing. We do not have a government that is listening to the people, and that is very disappointing, especially when there are cowboy organisations trying to whip up projects that they can sell on to the next person. It is a bit of a gold rush. What has the Labor Government done about that? It has done absolutely nothing to address that problem. That is one of the key issues that has eroded social licence all over the State.

Government members love to talk about One Nation. In fact, I am surprised that this public interest debate is not more focused on One Nation. I thought members opposite were becoming a bit obsessed. I have heard plenty of their speeches and they love talking about it. One Nation is coming up because of the actions of the Labor Government and because of what it is not doing to sort out those problems. The Government is not leading properly. It is not looking after the people of New South Wales. It is no wonder.

The New England REZ Transmission Project is happening. EnergyCo works for the Government—it basically is the Government. We have seen some of the behaviour of EnergyCo. People in coffee shops are bagging out local identities. They are bagging out EnergyCo themselves. People are wandering around. Staff members are hiding and sneaking onto properties, pretending that they do not work for EnergyCo. Pressure tactics have been applied on some landholders. That is what the Government is doing to the people. In Parliament, we have to listen to Government members patting themselves on the back and saying, "What a wonderful job we are doing." It is unbelievable.

Why does the Government not fix the problems on the ground? Then we could get a good rollout happening. I am sure a Coalition government would have sorted out the problems by now. It would have listened to the people. The other day there was an open call to get everyone to submit something about the New England transmission line, and 97 per cent were opposed to the project. Still, the Government barrels all the way through. It does not listen to any of the problems. However, a few people are listening. The Coalition is definitely listening to some of the problems out there. A few others are also listening. Karl Stefanovic has gone up there—he is listening. Ben Fordham has been listening. He has been phoning them all.

Dr Hugh McDermott:

Barnaby is listening.

Mr DAVID LAYZELL:

He is the local member. He has been listening. A lot of people are going up there to listen. The Leader of the Opposition has listened to the people. So has the leader of The Nationals in New South Wales. Who is not listening at all? It is the Premier, who refused to meet with anyone from the Upper Hunter and the Walcha region. The planning Minister refused to meet with or listen to them. The Government is refusing to listen to what is happening on the ground. It is not fixing the problems. Government members sit in their glass castles and are not doing anything about the problems. It is no wonder that Labor is bungling the renewables rollout.

Dr HUGH McDERMOTT (Prospect) (17:22:12):

Let us tackle head‑on the part of the debate that members opposite want to talk about the most. Building this much energy infrastructure this quickly provides challenges. The Government does not dismiss those concerns and it never has, despite what the member for Upper Hunter said. But we need to be realistic about the need for the infrastructure and the stakes that are at play for our economy and the future of New South Wales. I will not claim that every step has been smooth. No government could ever promise that. However, unlike the previous Government, this Government is actually doing something.

This is where I part company with members opposite. They want to use the problems as a reason to stop. The Government introduced the Renewable Energy Planning Framework, which provides standards for benefit‑sharing arrangements with councils. We have delivered $12 billion for road upgrades between the Port of Newcastle and Central‑West Orana, and we are delivering tens of millions of dollars in benefits to host communities. Since EnergyCo refined the route in New England, only 20 dwellings remain within half a kilometre of the transmission line. The number of landholders affected has reduced by 25 per cent, from 200 down to 150. The environmentally sensitive areas at Timor Caves are completely avoided. That is not by accident. It will not satisfy everyone, but it is a process. EnergyCo is doing its job.

The Government knows that there is more to do. We will continue to work on those issues. We will work with communities to make sure we get through those challenges and those problems. The Opposition has moved an amendment dressed up as concern for communities. It should be looked at closely. The Nationals members are clear that they want to stop development in its tracks, as we heard the previous member say. They call for a moratorium on the work. I am not in any doubt about where One Nation stands—none at all. But, after the contribution of the member for Manly, where do the Liberals stand? They flip and they flop. We have no idea what they actually want to do, apart from stopping this much-needed plan.

We know that Opposition members are worried about One Nation, just like their Federal colleagues. In New South Wales, it looks like The Nationals tail is finally wagging the Liberal Party dog all over the countryside. Both halves are chasing the new party of opposition—the true opposition is One Nation. It is not an energy policy; it is a party management problem. They cannot run a power grid, let alone a State, if they cannot manage themselves within their own political party.

Let us consider what the Minns Labor Government has done to get renewables in the system. The Government has enshrined the 2030, 2035 and 2050 emissions targets in law. It was the Liberals who pushed for the 2035 target to be included in the legislation. More than one-third of electricity generation in New South Wales already comes from renewable resources. Over 80 per cent of the electricity used to come from coal‑fired power; now that is down to 60 per cent. The amount of large‑scale solar and wind in operation New South Wales has increased by more than 80 per cent since the election, and the amount of storage installed has increased thirtyfold. Over one-third of New South Wales households now have solar installed.

The Minns Labor Government has approved more renewable energy and storage power than the previous Government did over an entire 12 years. Advanced, government-backed projects will move us over three‑quarters of the way to our 2030 renewable energy generation goal. The reality is that household electricity bills increased under the former Government. Annual costs rose from around $1,200 in 2013 to approximately $1,700 by 2020. By 2022 the average annual electricity bill had exceeded $2,000 in many households—an increase of roughly 65 per cent.

While we have this debate, let us not lose sight of who is waiting on the outcome: the families in Western Sydney opening a power bill, the small business owners deciding whether to keep someone on and the apprentices on regional worksites whose jobs exist because of these projects. They do not benefit from delays. They do not benefit from a grid that we are not committed enough to finish. They benefit from cheaper, reliable power—and the surest way to deny that is to press pause on the infrastructure program delivering it. I commend the motion to the House.

Ms FELICITY WILSON (North Shore) (17:27:20):

The self‑congratulatory posturing from Labor is laughable but unsurprising, as the Government continues to ignore communities across New South Wales and vandalise its way across the State. That includes, as has recently come to light, the destruction of culturally significant Indigenous sites. The Minns Labor Government inherited the former Government's Electricity Infrastructure Roadmap. We designed it to keep the lights on across New South Wales—to lower prices and deliver a renewable energy transition. That is what the Liberals and The Nationals have done in New South Wales. By contrast, Labor has turned it into confusion, delays and cost blowouts.

Regional communities across New South Wales are now paying the price for Labor's lack of planning and coordination. The Australian Energy Infrastructure Commissioner has warned that the scale of Labor's rollout is placing unprecedented pressure on communities in regional New South Wales. If the Government was listening to those communities, it would know that. The irony is that New South Wales should be leading the nation on energy reliability and investment. However, under this Labor Government, confidence in the Electricity Infrastructure Roadmap continues to weaken.

The Minns Labor Government claims that the road map is about "respecting communities", yet we know that is simply not true. The Government finally came clean about its mismanagement of the Central‑West Orana Renewable Energy Zone. A culturally significant Indigenous site was damaged beyond recovery by renewables company ACEREZ during access track works for transmission infrastructure. Government members are not talking about that today, are they? Workers on the project have totally obliterated an irreplaceable Wiradjuri rock shelter near Cope Road between Gulgong and Ulan. This was not an unknown site. The company itself admitted that the rock shelter had already been identified in the project's planning approval documentation. Why was this project allowed to trounce that irreplaceable site? Wiradjuri representatives are appalled and outraged by that act of wanton vandalism, and they have real concerns that there are potentially many more sites that have been damaged and mismanaged.

The Labor Government cannot keep claiming those projects are being delivered carefully while culturally significant sites are being bulldozed. That incident raises serious questions about the Minns Labor Government's supervision of the companies it has contracted to undertake those works. Minister Sharpe in the other place says that she is furious. You know what? We are furious with her, and we are furious with this Government. Maybe the Government should have less fury and more accountability and transparency. Where are the consequences for the Government's mismanagement and vandalism of Indigenous sites? The question must be asked: Where was the oversight before an irreplaceable piece of cultural heritage was destroyed? How do we know that more culturally sensitive sites will not be damaged or have not been damaged already?

How can we trust the Labor Government to roll out the renewable infrastructure road map—the largest infrastructure transformation in New South Wales history—when it will not even listen to regional communities, when it will not listen to the Wiradjuri people, and when it completely steamrolls culturally sensitive sites? Where are the Government's consequences? Communities across New South Wales are increasingly worried that the Minns Labor Government is prioritising speed, political announcements, self-aggrandising and self-proclaimed success over the need for proper planning and accountability. New South Wales can and needs to transition to renewable energy, but not through a process that steamrolls communities, ignores consultation and destroys irreplaceable cultural heritage.

The Government has managed to achieve higher costs, slower delivery, weaker confidence and irreversible damage to Indigenous heritage, which it has only now admitted to. We know that the people of New South Wales support sensible renewable investment, but they do not support incompetence masquerading as progress. That is what the Government is delivering. The Minns Labor Government has lost control of the renewable energy rollout, and the people of New South Wales know it.

Ms JENNY LEONG (Newtown) (17:31:22):

On behalf of The Greens, I contribute to the public interest debate introduced by the member for Coogee, and I offer The Greens' support, reaffirming our commitment to renewable energy plans in New South Wales. I also highlight the complete hypocrisy that we have heard from the Liberal-Nationals Opposition in relation to this. All of a sudden, we hear the Liberals and The Nationals caring about communities and wanting to listen to communities. We hear them caring about cultural sites and the impact on First Nations heritage and communities. All of a sudden, The Nationals are pretending to care about listening to community.

For 12 long years under the Liberal-Nationals Government we saw nothing but arrogance. National Party members ignored regional communities so they could get spots on the Government frontbench with ministerial salaries. Then, all of a sudden, they shut up about the needs of the bush. They did not open their mouths about any of the needs of the bush because they were only interested in doing whatever the Liberals wanted in the interests of keeping their ministerial salaries, their fancy little offices on level 12 and, indeed, all the trappings of what it is to be in an elite political party in government in New South Wales.

We are currently hearing endless talk about One Nation, and everyone in the bush is freaking out about it. There is a direct link between the push for a renewable energy rollout and the rise of One Nation, and her name is Gina Rinehart, who delivered a private jet to the leader of One Nation. The reality for that wave of so-called regional folk—the elite farmer class in regional New South Wales—is that One Nation flies around in jets provided by Gina Rinehart. Apparently, that is how to get down with people in the working-class communities of regional New South Wales. I note that during the debate the member for Upper Hunter offered to buy the Government a beer for its bungled rollout. Interestingly, the member for Upper Hunter would pay tax on that beer. But the Federal Labor Government is refusing to place a 25 per cent tax on gas exports—as it should. We are being taxed on our beer every day, yet the gas corporations that are exporting gas are not taxed at the level they could be, which would raise billions of dollars.

I acknowledge the incredible work of the Australian Conservation Foundation, GetUp, Friends of the Earth, Climate Action Network Australia, Green Music and, indeed, the incredible community campaigns that have been running to tax gas exports across this country at 25 per cent. Just today in the other place The Greens have been debating the fact that—never to be outdone by the Prime Minister—Premier Chris Minns is actually giving a 98 per cent discount for gas corporations to facilitate fracking in New South Wales. It seems that the New South Wales Labor Party, the Federal Labor Party and the Liberal-Nationals Coalition all want to talk the talk on renewables but, at the end of the day, the reality is the only ones not meeting and doing dirty deals with the fossil fuel industry are The Greens.

Mr ROY BUTLER (Barwon) (17:35:54):

By leave: I contribute to this public interest debate and address the motion before the House. Let me be clear: I understand the need to plan for the future of our energy system, and I acknowledge the importance of investment and certainty in the sector. However, supporting the broader objective does not require us to uncritically endorse every element of the Government's approach, nor does it require us to ignore the real and growing concerns of regional communities. The motion asks this House to reaffirm its commitment to New South Wales's renewable energy plan, the Electricity Infrastructure Roadmap. But such a reaffirmation, without qualification, assumes that the plan is being implemented fairly, effectively and with due regard to those impacted. That is simply not the case.

The reality on the ground is that the rollout is not experienced equally across the State. The renewable energy transformation is in large part designed to supply electricity to the major population centres along the east coast in our cities and urban corridors, where demand is highest. Yet the infrastructure that makes that possible is overwhelmingly located in regional New South Wales. Wind farms, solar arrays, transmission lines and associated infrastructure are not being built in the suburbs of Sydney. They are being built in our farming communities on productive land and in areas where people's livelihoods and lifestyles are directly affected. For many of those communities, renewable energy zones are coming to be seen not as opportunities but as sacrifice zones—places where the impacts on local people are minimised in the planning process so that benefits can be delivered elsewhere. That imbalance matters, and it is not addressed by simply reaffirming a commitment to the current plan. In fact, doing so without acknowledging those concerns risks deepening the sense of frustration and disconnection felt in the regions.

Further, the motion asks us to accept the premise that cancelling or unnecessarily delaying renewable energy projects would drive up energy prices for families and small businesses. I do not dispute that certainty and investment are important in an energy system, but the framing of this argument is overly simplistic. It presents a false choice between speed and affordability as though the only way to protect households is to push ahead at pace regardless of the consequences. It fails to recognise that poorly planned projects implemented in the wrong locations can themselves create costs that are borne not just by regional communities but by the system as a whole.

The placement of renewable energy zones was a missed opportunity. In the Far West there are vast grazing properties that span enormous areas. Those landscapes are well suited to accommodating renewable infrastructure with minimal disruption to day-to-day grazing operations. The opportunity for local landholders to diversify their income is welcome. Instead, we have seen a concentration of renewable energy zones in the east on smaller parcels of highly productive cropping land. Those are intensively farmed areas, where the introduction of wind turbines and associated infrastructure is far more intrusive. That affects how farmers operate. It affects the efficiency of planting and harvesting. It fragments paddocks and complicates logistics, and it places pressure on communities that are already dealing with a range of other challenges.

Those are not abstract concerns. They are practical, real-world impacts and they should have been central to the planning process from the outset. If we ignore those impacts and continue to press ahead without adjustment, we risk creating greater resistance, more project delays and, ultimately, a less efficient and more costly rollout. In other words, doing it badly does not save money; it costs more in the long run. Finally, I address what sits behind this motion: the implicit push to accelerate the rollout of renewable energy projects. Let us be honest about what that means in practice. When we hear calls to move faster, to streamline processes and to remove barriers, what many regional communities hear is something quite different. They hear that their concerns will be given less time, less weight and less consideration. They hear that consultation will be shorter, scrutiny will be reduced and decisions will be made more quickly but not necessarily more carefully.

In effect, they hear that the needs and lifestyles of people more directly affected will take a back seat to broader objectives. That is not a sustainable way to deliver a transformation of this scale. Speed in and of itself is not a virtue if it comes at the expense of fairness and good decision-making. Reaffirming the current plan without acknowledging its shortcomings does nothing to improve it. Framing any delays as inherently harmful overlooks the real costs of getting it wrong. Pushing ahead without adequately considering regional impacts risks undermining the social licence on which the entire transition depends. Regional communities are not obstacles to progress; they are central to it. But they should not be treated as places where impacts are simply absorbed for the benefit of others. For those reasons, I cannot support the motion as it stands. I also cannot support the Opposition's amendment. I support a more balanced approach, one that delivers renewable energy in a way that is fair, better planned and genuinely responsive to the people who are most affected.

Dr MARJORIE O'NEILL (Coogee) (17:40:43):

In reply: I thought I had moved a fairly benign motion for the House to reaffirm its commitment to the Electricity Infrastructure Roadmap, which the Coalition designed. Three years ago the Coalition created it and backed it. That is the reality. This is how far members opposite have gone. This is the previous Government's road map. It drives me crazy. Over and over the Coalition says, "Communities are left behind." The Energy Legislation Amendment (Prioritising Renewable Energy) Bill 2026 will embed wealth sharing into legislation. The Opposition has an absolute opportunity—

Mr Michael Kemp:

Put it in Coogee.

Dr MARJORIE O'NEILL:

Mate, I have already said they are already around where my farm is and there has been no wealth sharing there.

TEMPORARY SPEAKER (Ms Donna Davis):

Order! I call the member for Upper Hunter to order for the first time.

Dr MARJORIE O'NEILL:

It is uncomfortable for you—go keep chasing Gina Rinehart. Go and chase that cashola. Get on that private jet. You are just a bit jealous that you do not have it yet. The prioritising renewable energy bill before the House addresses so many of the things that Opposition members are saying about their communities being left behind. I get it. I said in my contribution to the second reading debate that communities have absolutely been left behind—because the Opposition botched the rollout in the more than a decade that they were in government. There was no wealth sharing with regional communities. Crookwell got none of that wealth from those kinds of areas. There are some other facts that are a bit uncomfortable for members opposite.

TEMPORARY SPEAKER (Ms Donna Davis):

I remind the member for Coffs Harbour that he is on three calls to order.

Dr MARJORIE O'NEILL:

Let us be very clear that the transition would have been a lot better if the Libs and Nats had not privatised the electricity network. Let us put some facts on the table. In the more than a decade that members opposite were in power, they privatised the electricity market and energy prices went up. For the first time ever, energy prices are going down. That is being linked to more investment in clean, renewable energy. Coal is not here to stay. Coal-fired power stations are scheduled to close by 2033, the last by 2040. Doing nothing is not an option. Sitting on our hands is not an option. They will close whether this Parliament likes it or not. It is going to happen. The question is what do we replace it with? The cheapest answer is renewables, storage and firming. Get with the program.

TEMPORARY SPEAKER (Ms Donna Davis):

The member for Coogee has moved a motion, to which the member for Manly has moved an amendment. The question is that the amendment be agreed to.

The House divided.

Ayes36

Noes48

Majority12

Amendment negatived.

TEMPORARY SPEAKER (Ms Donna Davis):

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

The House divided.

Ayes71

Noes14

Majority57

Motion agreed to.