Wednesday, 21 September 2022

Bills

Energy Legislation Amendment (Transition from Coal) Bill 2022

Second reading

Debate resumed on motion of Dr RATNAM:

That the bill be now read a second time.

Ms SHING (Eastern Victoria—Minister for Water, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Equality) (16:35): I always rise in this place to talk about the transition away from coal-fired power toward a renewable energy future with a sense of both optimism and frustration. On the one hand I am optimistic because of the work that has been undertaken by our government in introducing and indeed passing the Victorian renewable energy target. On that same hand I am also heartened by the work that has been done and continues to be done to bring us toward meeting and indeed exceeding our renewable energy targets and objectives. One of the things, though, I find difficult when I think about the work that has been done and the work that is underway is the fact that for the Greens it is never enough. The fact that it is never enough is based on a pretty narrow world view of the way in which our state operates, the way in which our communities live and work, the way in which our infrastructure functions and indeed the demands and pressures occasioned by a complete lack of coordination as it relates to a national energy policy.

I know as a regional member the work that it takes to bed down social licence, to provide support, encouragement and incentives to achieve net zero targets and indeed the work that is required to make sure that communities are in a position to realise the benefits and the outcomes that are generated by their changed behaviour and by their, and indeed our, collective acknowledgement of not just the importance of climate change—not just man-made, human-centred climate change—but the importance of innovation in renewable energy technology, of reduction in the use of energy and indeed making sure that the future that we craft today is based on a mix of energy resources that deliver a future that provides jobs, economic growth and certainty of supply and can fit within an overall matrix of a network and of transmission that links us all up around the country.

I am heartened and I am optimistic about that work when I look at the list of what has been achieved around this state. As a regional member, as a member in this place who represents the Latrobe Valley, I look to what has happened in that particular part of the world, my particular part of the world across Eastern Victoria Region, and I see that we have come so far since the construction of those coal-fired power stations decades ago. This has not been a journey that has been all smooth sailing. In fact nothing could be further from the truth. What we saw in the development and indeed operation of these coal-fired power stations was a reliance upon a single source of energy output. Spread across the Latrobe Valley, for example, Loy Yang A and B, Yallourn and Hazelwood were the nexus of power generation for the state of Victoria and indeed for the national grid as it relates to the eastern seaboard. What we also then saw following the privatisation of the State Electricity Commission of Victoria in the 1990s was a range of consequences which caused far-reaching devastation and occasioned a ripple effect that continues today. We saw the SECV go from employing 200 apprentices every year to its complete cessation. We saw thousands of people lose their jobs. We saw people leave the Latrobe Valley, people lose money, people put their investments into enterprises that did not succeed locally because there was no consumer spending. We have seen the consequences of that set of decisions continue to play out across the valley today. And this is where the hard work of transition and development really turns to become a priority, not just in environmental terms, not just in economic terms but in social terms, in geographic terms, in terms of health and wellbeing.

When I think about the transition work that is being undertaken in the Latrobe Valley and I think about when I walked through the streets of Morwell in 2014 when the mine was on fire, when the air was thick with smoke, when the open cut glowed red, I think about the fact that governments have a lot of work to do alongside industry to make sure that economies and communities are taken care of, that environments and futures are taken care of.

Fast-forward to today; fast-forward to that hard work taking root in transition and in development. Fast-forward to more than $2 billion invested across the Latrobe Valley region directed toward the achievement of transition and development. I will tell anybody here and I will tell anybody in the other place and indeed anybody in the community that this work continues but it is not yet done. We have construction sites and projects that have been completed. We have place-based initiatives and improvements to infrastructure. We have better health care than ever before. We have a range of opportunities through free TAFE, through vocational training and education pathways, new campuses and job opportunities, but we still have so far to go.

When we think about the way in which we need to turn our minds to a greater uptake of renewable energy, I want to also confirm that I agree wholeheartedly with the need for this approach. I agree wholeheartedly with the need to achieve our targets that face the reality that coal-fired power lacks the investment attraction appetite that was until relatively recently a key driver in investment in this sort of infrastructure globally. That has ground to a halt, and in Victoria it is grinding to a halt.

We have negotiated in relation to Yallourn power station a seven-year notice period prior to cessation of production in 2028. This is the longest notice period of anywhere in Australia. We have not done this because we wish to pay lip-service to the importance of tackling climate change. We have done this because we know full well that without proper planning a transition cannot be effective. It cannot provide the assistance, the engagement, the follow-through, the support and indeed the momentum for affected workers and their families and for the communities within which they live.

We know that Yallourn will also build a large-scale battery on site as it moves through that notice period—300 kilowatts, huge. We also know that off the coast of Gippsland, the Star of the South project, in prime position for offshore wind generation, is working through a set of conversations with the state government and indeed the Commonwealth government to provide that better mix of energy resources, harnessing some of the cleanest and best and most reliable energy generation of all. We know also that our work to provide incentives, updates, information and encouragement to people to access solar panel rebates and solar hot-water rebates and indeed to access the best possible deals on their power through the power saving bonus are having an effect. I know as Minister for Water that the work that we have done through our water authorities—those nine catchment management authorities and 18 water corporations—to agree to, sign up to and indeed begin to implement the statement of obligation will take us to a target where by 2035 there will be 100 per cent net zero emissions. We will have achieved that target by 2035.

When I think about the overall mix of what has been achieved and I think about the work led by Minister D’Ambrosio in the other place, it has been squarely balanced between our ambition to secure effective, considered and durable actions that tackle climate change and acknowledge the reality of changes in our economic fabric and in the fabric of infrastructure and indeed the demands and requirements of our economies to secure supply.

I look at the fact that the Victorian renewable energy target was opposed by those opposite and that this work is continuing not because of them but despite them, and I think about the fact that it is all too easy to move a bill like this here today and to seek the stars and the moon without acknowledging what is happening on the ground. We are not blind to the realities of climate change, we are not blind to the impact that these volatile conditions are having on our daily life, on biodiversity, on the way in which we live and work, on access to services, on health care and on life expectancy. We are not blind to the modelling that talks to an increase in mean temperature and what that will mean at that critical 1.5-degree mark. But a bill like this says that it is either perfection or it is nothing, and perfection, if we are to take it to its logical conclusion, requires government to abandon communities who for generations have been linked to existing industries—industries such as coal-fired power generation in the Latrobe Valley, Portland and Alcoa—and the other work that continues around the state to transition to renewable energy and says that that should be enough, that that must be enough and indeed that it can be an all-or-nothing prospect, and that ignores the reality of the world in which we live.

In the Latrobe Valley and across the Gippsland Climate Change Network there is a huge appetite for solar. People are installing PV panels like never before. People are using this technology alongside batteries and domestic battery and storage opportunities to reduce their power bills, to make a positive difference in their immediate environments and indeed to share in that social licence which continues to gather pace around the state and indeed Australia and the world. We work towards an achievement of those targets with a sense of urgency, investment and care that enables us to bring people and communities along the journey with us.

I cannot stand here and accept the fact that an all-or-nothing proposal towards a transition from coal-fired power generation is responsible or appropriate when it means that we will effectively, if this bill applies itself to the reality of the world around us and to the reality of the world particularly in Eastern Victoria Region and particularly in the Latrobe Valley, overnight see hundreds more workers—direct workers, downstream workers and workers in the supply chain—displaced. I cannot stand here in good conscience and say that there is an appropriate basis within this bill, as proposed, to facilitate this transition at a pace that goes beyond the urgency with which we are already working. We have invested record amounts of money into renewable energy uptake. We have invested record amounts of time and often frustration into arguing with a very difficult Commonwealth government over the last nine years in the absence of a national energy policy. We have had numerous attempts to engage with a former government that thought that a Prime Minister who brought in a lump of coal was a good idea. We faced a steady and uphill battle around the wilful blindness of those sitting within Liberal-National ranks to the reality of the world in which we live. And yet instead of actually taking issue with the completely immovable approach taken by those in the coalition, we get a bill like this that says that we are not doing enough because it is not happening fast enough, because it is not happening overnight, because we do not have a magical solution that fixes everything in place now, and that there are no other considerations that should be at play because the objectives of this bill trump everything else.

It requires a level of maturity to face the reality of the world in which we live now and the direction that it is heading. I would hazard a guess, and I am not sure—I hope that Dr Ratnam will correct me—but it would appear that Dr Ratnam is wearing a scarf. I have seen many of these scarfs before knitted in the colours of climate change and climate and mean temperature variations over the course of a period of time. If it is not one of those scarves, I do stand to be corrected. But what I would say is symbols like this are important, but actions are in fact more important. What you can do is talk and wear a scarf and go to the heart of the fact that government is not doing enough, but it then comes down to the fact that that scarf is not going to enable a family to feed themselves, to send their kids to school or indeed to take up the opportunities that everyone around the state deserves because of that all-or-nothing approach.

Climate change is real. Man-made climate change—absolutely real. We have just declared a third La Niña. We are looking at record-high storage levels in our water catchments, but that is not going to last. Look at what is happening in the Northern Hemisphere. The Thames has run dry. The Rhône is exposing ships and boats that sunk decades and generations ago. The Po in Italy—again, it has run dry. People in the United States are running out of water. Cartage is now the new normal. Water bills are astronomically high. Water is the new commodity that is at its highest value in an environment where prolonged drought bites hard. I do not walk away from that reality. Nobody on these benches walks away from that reality. What we do need to make sure that we do, though, is commit to steadfast action, durable action, action that fundamentally changes the way in which people use energy, the way in which people innovate to take up additional technology that reduces consumption and indeed that provides better options for uptake across a mix of energy resources. What we need to do is to continue to facilitate and to build that social licence. We are not sitting on our hands. It would be a cheap shot to suggest that we are, and yet I suspect that in bringing a bill like this we are looking at cheap shots.

A 1.2-degree Celsius increase since 1910 is no small matter. It is what has indeed prompted Minister Lily D’Ambrosio to fight as long and as hard and as loudly as she can—and that is loudly and that is with an extraordinary sense of stamina and tenacity—for a policy position joined with other jurisdictions that leans in to the reality of where we are. We need to make sure, as we take action to avoid doubling the number of very hot days in our state by the 2050s—and I know and everyone here knows that that is the reality of what we are facing—that a high-emissions scenario is not a viable option. I will say that again: a high-emissions scenario is not a viable option. But in order to actually bring our emissions down, the work is hard. The work requires incremental, careful, thorough, diligently researched and adequately resourced approaches in a framework that covers the entire state, in a framework that addresses socio-economic circumstances within various communities, particularly in rural and regional communities and particularly as it relates to transition from a highly carbon-intensive economy to one that has, as we know here in Victoria, cut emissions by almost 30 per cent since 2005 while growing our economy.

We have, and Minister D’Ambrosio is rightly proud of this on behalf of Victoria because it has been a collective effort, smashed our 2020 emissions reduction target. We have reduced emissions by almost double our initial 2020 emissions reduction target of between 15 and 20 per cent below 2005 levels. Thanks to us, in 2020 the state was responsible for fewer emissions per person than all of the other states and territories except for Tasmania and the ACT. Our emissions dropped almost 6 per cent between 2019 and 2020, and that was while the population and indeed the economy continued to grow. We know that renewable energy uptake makes sense economically, we know that it makes sense environmentally. We also know, and I know firsthand, that transition needs to be developed and delivered carefully and thoroughly and done with a process that engages with communities and delivers social licence—that social licence that is so critical to not only transition but the development of the entirety of our state.

We have delivered on climate change initiatives, including through the Climate Change Act 2017, to make it our goal to achieve net zero emissions in Victoria by 2050. We were one of the first jurisdictions in the world to take that step. This is not lip-service to the very real situation in which we find ourselves. This is not a token gesture to some idea that if we tick a box we can move on. We have walked the talk in every way as it relates to leaning in to the problems, the challenges and the realities of climate change. But to my mind the problems, the challenges and the opportunities of leaning in to climate change are multifaceted. They are not just about a scarf. They are about making sure that we have new targets around Australia, making sure that the contribution that we have made is by extension able to be adopted and implemented by other jurisdictions.

Those opposite voted against the Climate Change Act, and yet in bringing this bill it is we who have not done enough. We are doing what needs to be done to create something that lasts, to create something that indeed takes as many steps in as many ways as we possibly can to cut emissions, to bring our targets down to zero, to get beyond the momentum that we have already delivered to smash those targets further whilst also securing jobs, whilst also securing economic development for our regions and whilst looking after those who are bitten hardest by climate change. It is not the wealthy who are at the forefront of managing climate change, it is poor people. It is poor people not only in parts of the state or of Australia but indeed around the world who face those challenges in a way that means that they deserve the care and the wraparound assistance of governments to make sure that their needs are met immediately as they relate to job creation, the provision of assistance to retrofit energy-efficiency mechanisms into houses and assistance with upgrading obsolete and indeed energy-guzzling devices. Whether it is a stove, whether it is a heater, whether it is the installation of a battery or whether it is a solar panel rebate, these are the things that matter to people for whom every dollar counts and for whom every 0.1 degree of an increase will make an exponentially greater difference to their standard of living and to their prospects.

We have never walked away from that. We have never shied away from needing to do the hard work. This is not an all-or-nothing proposition that can simply be delivered with a click of the fingers and a scarf, albeit a lovely looking scarf. This is about making sure that people know why they are doing what they are doing—that people know when they can access more energy-efficient appliances for their homes, when they can access rebates to install solar, when they can see their energy bills coming down or plateauing or indeed stop arriving in their mailboxes because they no longer have energy bills. That in and of itself makes a positive contribution to achieving our net zero emissions targets.

These things do not happen in isolation. When we are delivering on the cost of living and putting downward pressure on what that looks like and when we are arguing for better everyday access to environmentally progressive technology, programs, services and indeed delivery of assistance through state and federal governments, we are also making sure that the cost of living is met head-on as a significant challenge whilst we deliver on those emissions target objectives. It is hard work, and it is not straightforward work. If it had been straightforward work, it would have been done by now. We cannot walk away from this work that we are doing, and I will not stand here and say that we should indeed walk away from those people who are yet to receive the benefit of wealth, of corporate largesse or indeed of a metropolitan life that gives them so many different options and perhaps broader options than people who live, for example, in the Latrobe Valley. We need to proceed carefully.

Victorians deserve the opportunity to walk towards a future that is an insignia here in this state of our net zero emissions commitments, which enables us to lead the way for Australia and in fact enables people to develop skills—whether it is in solar photovoltaic installation, whether it is in making wind turbines or whether it is in servicing and maintenance of renewable energy technology. We need to combine our discussions on commitments to environmental outcomes on the one hand with an understanding of the deep economic, social and community-based factors involved on the other. It is a balancing act. It is a careful balancing act. And should there be any temptation to say that we are ignoring the problem, we are not ignoring the problem.

We have set the standard for climate change targets around Australia. We are smashing those targets. The figures speak for themselves. Yes, our temperature has increased on average by 1.2 degrees Celsius since 1910. Nobody is disagreeing with that. Climate change is real. I do not know, there may be a couple of people still in this house who disagree with that; their views are not our concern. We need to make sure, though, that when we debate this bill we are not simply doing so in terms of light and shade, of black and white. Understanding the multidimensional elements of this debate are as important as achieving the outcomes that we all want. We will get to those targets, and we will get to those targets with the commitment, the social licence and the buy-in of Victorians everywhere. We will do that hand in hand with them while we secure their economic prosperity and the prosperity and livability of this state.

Mr RICH-PHILLIPS (South Eastern Metropolitan) (17:05): I rise to make some brief comments on Dr Ratnam’s bill this afternoon, which seeks to ban the use of thermal coal by 2030 and seeks to mandate 100 per cent renewable energy also by the end of 2030. I make the point that the coalition will not support this bill. Dr Ratnam in her second-reading speech makes a number of very emotive statements around this bill. She talked about how:

The climate crisis is here …

She talked about how:

Europe is experiencing a summer of deadly heatwaves …

Rivers in France are drying up.

In India, temperatures have soared to a scorching 49 degrees …

et cetera—very emotive language in Dr Ratnam’s second-reading speech. The reality is that the measures in Dr Ratnam’s bill would not change that, because the reality is that Victoria accounts for around one-third of 1 per cent of global carbon dioxide equivalent emissions. So nothing Victoria does by itself is going to change the circumstances of climate change that Dr Ratnam talked about in her speech. She refers to the need for Victoria to show leadership. What she does not identify is who she expects is going to follow that, because unless it is the large polluters—the Chinas of this world, who continue to grow and will continue to grow their carbon dioxide equivalent emissions for coming years—these measures are not going to have any impact. They are not going to have the impact that Dr Ratnam desires, but they certainly will have an impact on the households and businesses in Victoria.

I was interested to read Dr Ratnam’s speech where she refers to Scotland having achieved 100 per cent renewable energy. In her speech Dr Ratnam says:

… when it comes to replacing coal with 100 per cent renewable energy, the great news is that it’s absolutely achievable.

Scotland has made it, so have the ACT and Tasmania.

So I took the time to quickly google Scotland and renewable energy, and the very first news article that came up was an article from BBC Scotland from earlier in September. I have not got the date, but I think it was about 8 September. The headline is ‘Scottish firms facing 200% energy bill rises “are the lucky ones”’. The article goes on to say:

Many small businesses in Scotland could see increases of up to 500% on their 2023 energy bills …

The body which represents them said this was:

… a “grotesque situation” where firms facing 200% rises were “actually the lucky ones”.

It quotes a local baker in Scotland as:

… having to find at least £79,000 for its future gas bill—a rise of £71,000.

Individual firms and trade bodies want a plan to ease the pressures.

Last week the energy regulator in Scotland set the price cap on residential bills at an increase of 80 per cent. So that is what 100 per cent renewable energy in Scotland has delivered. Price rises for households of 80 per cent, price rises for businesses, if they are lucky of 200 per cent—if they are unlucky, increases of 500 per cent.

In July I had good the fortune to spend a bit of time in Europe, where the realities of the energy situation are starting to bite. Many of the jurisdictions in Europe have gone down the path of renewable energy; they have decommissioned their nuclear power, they have decommissioned their coal power and of course now they are experiencing supply issues with gas because of the Russia-Ukraine situation. The reality for many European communities is in winter they are not going to have the energy they need. The European community, many of the cities through Germany and in the UK are absolutely furious with the situation their governments have put them in with this rush to renewable energy which has not given the security and reliability of supply that is needed. They are going to face the very real effects of that when winter arises in November and December.

The policy Dr Ratnam sets out here may sound good in a press release, may sound good in Brunswick, but the reality of the impacts is significant. Europe is starting to see it. This proposal as laid down by Dr Ratnam is frankly dangerously negligent with the impact it would have on businesses and households in Victoria, and we will not be supporting this bill.

Incorporated pursuant to order of Council of 7 September 2021:

I rise to speak to the Energy Legislation Amendment (Transition from Coal) Bill 2022.

We should not forget for a week, a day, an hour, that the most important question of our time is how to restore a safe climate now, including a fast transition to zero emissions.

I think, if we take one lesson from COVID-19, it is that we can act quickly as a community to achieve society-shifting change, where we have the collective willpower and leadership to do so.

Because COVID-19 posed a risk to human life, we acted. Climate change poses no less threat—it is existential—so we must act.

While the climate crisis is daunting, the problems and solution are known.

Burning coal and gas is the biggest contributor to the climate crisis. In Victoria, we derive two-thirds of our electricity from burning dirty brown coal, which is our state’s single biggest source of climate pollution.

We need to replace it with clean, renewable energy.

This bill sets a certain end date for coal burning in Victoria of 2030 by providing that the EPA cannot issue licences for thermal coal activity after 2030.

It is an ambitious bill, but it is possible if we direct our collective will to solving this issue.

And that is what we must do if we are to act in time to limit global warming and the catastrophic weather events that entails.

We can and we must.

I commend the bill to the house.

Mr LIMBRICK (South Eastern Metropolitan) (17:10): I move:

That debate on this bill be adjourned until later this day.

Motion agreed to.