Today in Parliament, Abigail contributed to a debate fighting for workers rights. Sadly, Labor are hellbent on keeping with the status quo and didn't support the Greens amendments.
Abigail said:
On behalf of The Greens I contribute to debate on the Energy Security Corporation Bill 2024. It is wonderful to see investment and leadership to address climate change from the Government. There is a clear and obvious link between climate change and energy policy, and dedicated effort and resources are required to deliver a safe and prosperous future for us all. There is also a devastatingly clear link between unsustainable energy prices and issues with a steady and staged energy transition, which are a direct result of the catastrophic decision to privatise the energy network in our State. But, as always, there is a silver lining. As the coal power stations that have been taken from public ownership and put into private hands are replaced, we have the opportunity to reintroduce public ownership into our energy mix by increment with new renewables projects. Using public procurement for public good is a desirable path to pursue, taking equity and an ownership stake in the delivery of an essential service, which will also deliver a core underlying revenue base for the State in the years and decades to come. It is sensible economic and ecological management, and the Government should be pursuing this path.
The Labor Government will say that the Energy Security Corporation is its delivery of an election commitment, but, unfortunately, that is not quite the case. What was promised in the NSW Labor platform that it took to the election was to "publicly invest in large-scale renewable energy by creating a State-owned corporation that will put the public and its interests first in New South Wales' transition". The corporation would "build, invest, own and operate large-scale renewable energy and storage technologies whilst modernising the grid". This bill, and the Energy Security Corporation, is not quite the same thing. Instead, we are told that the Energy Security Corporation is an investment vehicle designed to underwrite and assist the delivery of private investment, perpetuating the privatised energy network in this State for future generations. That is, to put it mildly, undesirable. We are also told that the Energy Security Corporation is closely modelled on the Clean Energy Finance Corporation [CEFC]. Well, that was already enough to get The Greens' hackles up, because we have learnt the lessons from the CEFC. The Greens will move a suite of amendments to help address some of the shortcomings of that model, and I will speak in greater detail on them during the Committee stage.
I will draw out a couple of case studies of what can go wrong with public investment without appropriate safeguards, particularly for workers' rights. The Clean Energy Finance Corporation, just like the proposed Energy Security Corporation, has no statutory responsibilities to ensure that it creates secure jobs with decent working conditions. The corporation has invested $125 million in Snowy Hydro 2.0. Unions involved in the project report workplace issues including no safe access to and egress from site; no mechanical protection of electrical cables; no emergency lighting installed; noncompliant switchboards with exposed live electrical parts; no lighting; a high‑voltage switch room that exploded after unqualified workers were allowed on site to work on high-voltage equipment; no cleaning of toilets and no running water; power outages in the site camp because the company failed to fill generators, leaving workers having to sleep in their cars for heating; rodent infestations so severe that workers were getting bitten by mice in their sleep at night in the camp; poor fatigue management, with workers doing long rosters because they are forced to travel to and from the job in their own time; lunch rooms with not enough seats that are not cleaned regularly; and food provided onsite at the camp that is often old, spoiled and, at times, rotten.
The amenities for women are non-existent. There are no sanitary bins and the company was charging $7.50 for a box of six tampons out of a vending machine. Subcontractors failed to supply winter jackets, and the emergency access was flooded. The company did nothing to find an alternative access. SafeWork NSW has issued a series of enforcement notices concerning work health and safety relating to the Snowy 2.0 project. Despite all this, there is no meaningful way to raise these concerns with the CEFC, nor are any conditions tied to its investment requiring Snowy Hydro to address these issues.
Similarly, the CEFC has invested $295 million in Project Energy Connect. The conditions at Project Energy Connect have been similarly dire. Union organisers have been denied entry. When they did eventually gain access, they discovered serious issues reported by workers. They report:
Food
- Repetitive camp food prepared with no effort to make meals appropriate for the cultural and dietary requirements of foreign workers.
- Workers not allowed to cook for themselves or supply their own meals.
- Site lunches being the unrefrigerated leftovers from the previous night's camp dinner offered without facilities to reheat meals.
Amenities
- No toilets or amenities with access to running hot or cold water were available on or near work sites
- No rooms or shelter provided on site for food or rest breaks
Site Safety
- Workers had been bitten by farm animals present on site and seen several snakes
- There was no evidence of suitable emergency evacuation plans developed or implemented in consultation with the workforce and medical assistance was only available within an hour's drive
- Some sections of the project are uncontactable by radio or phone during work
- No provision of mats or anti-slip measures on site following periods of rainfall
Underpayments
- 2hrs per day travel time to and from site from camp is not being paid.
- Some workers have had their $40/day camp allowance unilaterally withdrawn despite receiving one on commencement and still meeting the required conditions to receive it.
Punishing Workers for Raising Concerns
- Workers on the project under subcontract arrangements have been sent abusive and threatening messages including threats of dismissal for speaking up about safety and workplace issues
- Workers claimed that many of those who spoke up were immediately transferred off the job elsewhere
When the Electrical Trades Union sought to engage with contractors related to the project about issues, it came away even more concerned. One particularly laughable anecdote that cuts contrary to the supposed values of the Government was when it came to addressing barriers to female participation. When asked what was being done to identify barriers and opportunities for female participation, the contractors claimed that the work on offer was "too physical" for women, that women were somehow less suited for work at heights, and that women would not be interested in these careers anyway.
How we can be comfortable with public money being associated with these conditions is beyond me. It seems relatively simple to address and start shifting the dial back in the right direction once more. We cannot allow ourselves to make the same mistakes of the CEFC with the ESC. As I spoke about yesterday in defence of Electrical Trades Union members engaged in protected action against their employer, TransGrid, the delivery of our new renewable projects is too important to undermine with poor labour practices. I will repeat the relevant statements of Australian Council of Trade Unions president Michele O'Neill. She said:
The future for a liveable planet is with renewables. To protect the interests of all workers, two things are non-negotiable: that transition happens at the pace required by science, and that it doesn't leave workers or communities behind. Change needs to be both fast and fair.
The fundamental issue at the heart of this is that fast has been prioritised over fair. I will repeat what I said yesterday: We are all desperate to get on with and speed up the transition. I think The Greens more than most are anxious to pick up the pace, and we do not want to see obstacles being thrown in the way. But consultation with workers, and transparency and accountability with public money should not be seen as an obstacle. Workers and the public should be partners, not barriers, to this revolution to our energy network.
I hope and suspect the Labor Party would prefer that to be the case as well. There is no need for the old status quo approach to delivering these infrastructure projects. We know how successful a tripartite approach to government can be, and I hope we can see our energy transition begin to more closely reflect the aspirations of a genuinely just, worker-led and worker-focused energy transition. I fear we are doomed to fail if it is any other way.
Abigail went on to move 17 amendments to the Bill on behalf of the Greens, to ensure worker inclusion, safety, rights and fiduciary compliance, unsurprisingly, the Labor government only supported 3 of them.