Wednesday, 27 November 2024

Energy policy

Nina TAYLOR (Albert Park) (17:45): I think it was entertaining for the chamber to hear the member for Caulfield reliving his DJ days, and certainly he was pretty fabulous –

A member interjected.

Nina TAYLOR: I am not sure if I can deliver on that in this moment. It is a pity it was a bit of a fact-free zone, but in any case, why am I grieving? I am grieving because the coalition quietly released their new renewable energy policy –

Members interjecting.

Nina TAYLOR: Ooooh! But the only problem is it is anti-renewables – who knew? – and an anti-investment plan. I grieve for the state of Victoria if they are ever able to implement that plan. We know they have form in this space, and I am going to speak to that a little bit and what would be the consequences. I am going to unpack it in a very detailed way, don’t you worry. We have got a little bit of time on our hands to do this.

The consequences for our state would be blackouts, higher power prices and lost jobs and investment in Victoria. I grieve deeply for their woeful energy policy. It is zeroing out when it comes to renewables. Actually, do you know what it is? It is a plan to prolong unreliable coal and open the door to Peter Dutton’s nuclear reactors. We know that there is no social licence in Victoria for that outcome. It is certainly not what the people of Victoria want. They have spoken loud and clear about investing in clean renewable energy – they have backed it all the way – and bringing back the SEC, so we are going to continue on that path.

I do need to validate my grievance, and I shall proceed to do that. Think about the dark old days of the previous coalition government when wind farms were effectively banned. I remember them well. I remember the barriers they had in place, and it seems like they want to do it again. Who could possibly understand why anyone would want to go back to those dark old days, but that is the kind of rhetoric that you get out of the coalition. Investment was smashed and over a quarter of all jobs in the sector were lost. I did promise to unpack my grievance in greater detail, so let us look at this part of the coalition policy:

Reinstate the right of appeal to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal, ensuring that community voices are heard in the planning process.

Ah, but what does that mean? I am just unpacking it here. One in five renewable projects was being dragged through VCAT, and in almost every case the original approval was upheld. This is simply their way of delaying critical projects because they do not believe in renewables – they do not like cleaner energy policy. Anyway, let me continue. Their plan is to:

Revoke planning scheme amendment VC261, instituted by Labor to strip local communities –

these are their words; this is not my thinking –

of planning powers over the high voltage transmission lines.

What is our response? Where do we stand? Transmission projects are already subject to rigorous approvals processes via the environment effects statement, the EES. This will only again – get this – delay critical projects and risk blackouts. That does not sound like a very promising idea to me.

I am going to go further. I did promise to be detailed on this issue. This is the clincher; I could not believe it when I read this one:

Institute a default 2km buffer zone around proposed wind towers to minimise the impact on residential properties and local communities.

When last in government – who knew – the 2-kilometre buffer devastated the wind industry. Victoria’s strict noise regulations already protect neighbouring properties. So they would not hesitate again to devastate the wind industry. You could not write this stuff; you could not come up with it. I thought they would have learned the first time – clearly not. They have got it in their policy. But anyway, that is what they are offering. At least we know. But they did release this plan rather quietly, and I think I know why. Anyway:

Ensure major transmission and large-scale wind and solar generation projects face a rigorous and independent planning panel assessment.

Get this – large projects are already subject to an environment effects statement (EES), so all they are trying to do is delay this critical infrastructure. If we look at the layering, how many different ways can you try to delay critical infrastructure? But it goes further:

Develop principles that ensure overhead lines adhere to strict setback requirements to minimise visual and environmental impact.

Translated, what are the principles? What effect will they have? Transmission projects are already subject to an EES. The EES for the Western Renewables Link will be the largest in the state’s history.

I have to go further. There is more:

Ensure Lower emission generators, high voltage transmission lines and large scale battery owners are be required to comply with all relevant bushfire overlays.

Why didn’t we think of that? Guess what, the CFA already provide guidance to renewable energy developers. Who knew, the wonderful CFA are already on it – they are all over it. And transmission companies in relation to bushfire overlays – well, that is a relief. It is a pity they had not consulted on that issue. You know, they just thought, ‘Oh we’ll whack it in there. That sounds good.’ Clearly, like the rest of the policy, it is rubbish, but anyway. I cannot understand why they would not have had a chat to them. But anyway, they thought they would just quietly put it out there and hope that no-one looked at it. Anyway:

Advocate to the Commonwealth that any compensation received by landowners for hosting major transmission lines, or for impacts caused by such projects, is exempt from taxation.

The Victorian government is already doing this. What? No! Oh, my goodness, we are already doing it. Taxation is ultimately a decision for the Commonwealth, so I do not know why they put that in there. They probably had to fill the space. Maybe it was for the alignment on the brochure. I do not know. Maybe it fit on the website. I do not know. They whacked it in there. They obviously did not check. Maybe they were hoping that no-one cross-examined their policy. Maybe that is it.

What would be the impact of the opposition’s policies? I heard earlier in the chamber a bit of a retrospective on this, and I am going to revisit that too, because it is rather horrifying. Following the implementation of the coalition’s planning restrictions in 2011, 14 wind farm projects were abandoned in 2012. The reference is AEMO, and I will provide the rest of the references for Hansard after as well. Renewable energy jobs were slashed by 25 per cent. That is horrifying. From ABS statistics, 3440 in 2011–12 versus 2490 in 2014–15. Jobs, jobs, jobs – these are important. People need jobs to have money to buy things. That might sound like a really basic assessment of why we need jobs, but it is kind of fundamental. Retail power prices increased by 34.1 per cent. That is ABS, quarter 4, 2010, versus quarter 3, 2014. And, woefully, something that absolutely I just cannot get over is that $4 billion in investment was lost, and that is referenced through the Clean Energy Council. You see, there is actually merit in investing in clean energy projects. It is not only so we have cheaper energy. It also generates money for the economy. It generates investment in our state. There are good economic reasons to do so.

In relation to the recent renewable energy policy announcement from the coalition, the Clean Energy Council has said that mapping done using this previous 2-kilometre setback:

… shows that wind energy would be essentially out-of-bounds in Victoria, which would have serious consequences for the state maintaining a reliable electricity supply and meeting climate targets.

I think in anyone’s language we can see that that would have devastating consequences for our state. We have deliberately set ambitious targets for the right reasons – because we need a safe and clean energy supply for our state, and compromising that would have devastating impacts on so many levels.

Okay, I am going to proffer the idea. The opposition have said, ‘Oh, we’ve got to strike a balance.’ But what does that actually translate to? And they support, ‘a transition away from coal’. But that is exactly the language that they used before the 2010 election. We have heard it all before. Once they were elected, what did they do? They decimated the renewable energy sector. So those lines were very limp and meaningless and translated to cleaner energy going down the plughole.

In July the former Leader of the Nationals Peter Walsh described batteries as ‘renewable rubbish’. I do not know, but I think that is a rather pejorative term, to say the least, and counterproductive when we are looking to not only generate cleaner energy but be able to store it efficiently as well. But it does also send a really strong signal as to where they stand on renewables. It is clearly not a priority. And the plan to replace our ageing coal-fired generators with wind and solar he described as an ‘unfounded and insane belief’. I kid you not. I am going to repeat that: the plan to replace our ageing coal-fired generators with wind and solar was described as an ‘unfounded and insane belief’. I am not sure where you can go from there, and you can see why I am grieving dearly about their so-called renewable energy policy with an attitude like that. Clearly, there is no priority whatsoever in driving a transition to a cleaner energy future. I will quote further:

A reality he says is proving what The Nationals have been saying for a decade – sustainable energy is light years from being a viable solution to this state’s energy needs.

That is clearly incorrect, but furthermore it is deeply disturbing, and it is not only not thinking about current, but future generations of Victorians. We have to think of their future. We cannot just stay on the same old because it is a comfortable old thing. It is like a comfortable old couch; I do not want to chuck it out because it is the couch I know. Maybe that is the premise. Maybe it is just because they do not get cleaner energy. I do not know. We can provide them with the links. I am sure that we would give them all the information they need on these wonderful technologies. I do not understand where the barriers lie.

So why do we need new generation, storage and transmission? I am going to spell it out right now. Victoria’s ageing coal-fired generators are becoming increasingly unreliable and are retiring. By 2035 the remaining 4.8 gigawatts of coal-fired generation will be gone. We cannot rely on that anymore just because it is somehow comfortable or what we have always done. At the same time, our domestic gas supplies are rapidly depleting and global fossil fuel prices are increasing. You can see the economic impacts built in there already. That is why we need to build more renewable energy and transmission to keep the lights on and the bills down, and that is exactly what we are doing.

To close out on this very important issue I do want to say that we do have a plan, which contrasts 100 per cent to the non-plan, the anti-renewables plan, of the coalition. In August the Minister for Energy and Resources released Cheaper, Cleaner, Renewable: Our Plan for Victoria’s Electricity Future.

The plan outlines how we will reach 95 per cent renewables in 2035, attracting $35 billion in capital investment and creating 59,000 jobs in the process. That sounds like a pretty decent idea. This is an enormous economic opportunity. It is not only about reducing emissions, it is actually an economic opportunity for Victoria. It will deliver direct benefits to landowners – who knew? – communities and traditional owners that host new energy infrastructure. Just think what this can do for the regions as well – oh, my goodness, so many opportunities. And more low-cost renewables means that Victoria continues to have the lowest wholesale power prices in the country.

Question agreed to.