Wednesday, 28 August 2024

Committees

Environment and Planning Committee

Reference

Sarah MANSFIELD (Western Victoria) (10:26): I move:

That this house:

(1) notes that:

(a) extensive systems of ageing and retired oil and gas infrastructure exists across Victoria and its coast, risking significant methane leakage;

(b) the financial liability for decommissioning oil and gas infrastructure may fall to the Victorian taxpayer;

(2) requires that the Environment and Planning Committee inquire into, consider and report, by June 2026, on:

(a) the scale and legal ownership structure of Victoria’s oil and gas infrastructure, including offshore wells, pipelines, high-pressure transmission and low-pressure distribution systems, and relevant projects in Commonwealth waters;

(b) the scale and nature of oil and gas infrastructure requiring decommissioning over the coming decades, including onshore works and works in Commonwealth and Victorian waters;

(c) the regulatory powers of the Victorian government to ensure oil and gas companies deliver planned and timely infrastructure decommissioning;

(d) any actions the Victorian government can take to ensure oil and gas companies provide sufficiently to cover decommissioning costs;

(e) opportunities for employment in decommissioning;

(f) opportunities for traditional owner acknowledgement, consultation and employment where oil and gas infrastructure exists on their ancestral lands and/or sea country;

(g) identifying current and potential leaked greenhouse gases from Victoria’s existing and retired oil and gas infrastructure, including relevant projects in Commonwealth waters and the quantity of leaks; and

(h) any actions the Victorian government can take to cap and otherwise protect the population from leaked greenhouse gases across Victoria’s existing and retired oil and gas infrastructure.

In recent months in this chamber we have debated Victoria’s transition to a renewable energy future at length. We have discussed ambitious renewables targets and the Greens’ bill to ban all new oil and gas projects, we have heard from the government about their commitment to a just transition for the coal industry and we have considered a number of the opposition’s amendments that seek to delay Victoria’s progress towards a cleaner, cheaper energy future. However, there has been one thing missing from these debates, and it is: what do we do with the fossil fuel industry’s ageing infrastructure set to be left behind? As Victoria transitions away from oil and gas towards renewable energy sources, the need for proper rehabilitation must be at the forefront of our planning. Extensive systems of ageing oil and gas infrastructure can be found all across Victoria. The state is scarred with old fossil fuel pipelines and wells, some of which are in use but most of which are approaching the end of their life. Governments across Australia are not fully across how many old oil and gas pipelines exist, let alone the condition that they are in or what short- and long-term dangers they pose. Some commentators have estimated that across Australia there are over 8000 kilometres of pipelines – enough to encircle Tasmania five times.

Abandoned old infrastructure of this scale, without a proper decommissioning process, is polluting in and of itself. However, whilst kilometres of these pipes are left to languish, they also leak oil and methane gas, wreaking havoc on the local environment and contributing to climate change. This leaking infrastructure poses a significant risk to our marine life. Earlier this year a pipeline linking two ageing ExxonMobil oil platforms off the Gippsland coast was investigated as the source of an oil leak in Bass Strait. In the hours before the leak was shut off 200 litres of hydrocarbons spilled into the sea. The pipeline was in the process of being decommissioned. While the marine environment faces immediate threats from sudden rushes and spills, faulty fossil fuel infrastructure is also slowly leaking gas into the atmosphere, amounting to a significant proportion of Victoria’s carbon emissions. It is unknown just how much these ageing pipelines contribute to emissions in Victoria; however, a recent investigation by the clean air taskforce in New South Wales estimated that just a handful of sites surveyed across the state were contributing around 150,000 tons of methane gas into the atmosphere every year.

Importantly, we also need to acknowledge the risk of financial liability for decommissioning falling onto the Victorian taxpayer should the owners of oil and gas infrastructure be unable to meet their obligations. This risk is not as abstract as you might think. In 2016 Woodside Petroleum sold its floating oil rig the Northern Endeavour to the company Northern Oil & Gas Australia, or NOGA. Three years later when the rig was shut down over safety concerns, NOGA went into administration and was unable to front for the costs of the decommissioning. The federal government was left with a massive decommissioning bill. Woodside, who had profited from operating the rig for 20 years, denied that they had sold the rig to NOGA in an attempt to avoid the cost of the clean-up. Since then the federal government has introduced trailing liability to their decommissioning framework to avoid this happening again.

The picture of ageing gas infrastructure across Australia is representative of the legacy that the fossil fuel industry is leaving behind: a history of outdated environmental destruction. It is an industry which has overstayed its welcome but is unwilling to clean up its own mess. In Victoria we need to heed these lessons and implement stronger laws that govern how oil and gas companies clean up infrastructure at the end of its life. A trailing liability scheme is currently in place for the Latrobe Valley’s three coalmines. While we understand the possibility of expanding these schemes is being investigated, the Greens urge that these be fast-tracked.

Lastly, I want to note that while proper decommissioning of this infrastructure is important both from a stewardship and environmental perspective, it actually provides Victoria with an opportunity. There is no doubt that the transition away from coalmining has left many communities worried about their future, but there are so many opportunities for the skills of this workforce to be at the forefront of our transition to clean energy, and there are strong employment opportunities in the decommissioning process, from mapping to cleaning up and ultimately shutting down old pipelines and wells. The Maritime Union of Australia, for example, is spearheading a lot of the long-term employment and environmental discussions in this space, including around the logistics of removing and safely dismantling offshore rigs onshore and countering gas giants’ arguments that it is simply, if coincidentally, better for marine life to leave wells where they are to rust than for companies to pay for the clean-up.

What is clear is that it is important that this government has a full and detailed picture of the scale of decommissioning that is required. We already have experts in this state who are ready to lend their knowledge to this cause. There is much that we can learn from them, and the Greens believe that an inquiry would provide a transparent platform and one from which other states and territories could learn. It should not be up to the taxpayer to pay for the mistakes of the fossil fuel giants. The industry must be held accountable for its actions, and Labor should ensure that they have to clean up after themselves. Abandoned, leaky, corrosive gas infrastructure in our oceans is a threat to our climate and to marine life. The oceans are the lungs of our earth, not a dumping ground for the destructive legacy of the fossil fuel industry.

Taking action to end coal and gas in Victoria is a pivotal objective of this generation as stewards for a climate-safe future. I commend this motion to the house, and I would really urge that all members get behind it and support an inquiry into gas decommissioning in Victoria.

Jacinta ERMACORA (Western Victoria) (10:33): I am pleased to speak on motion 462, which calls for a gas decommissioning inquiry, and I wish to thank Dr Mansfield for bringing forward this motion today. From the outset I will say that the government will be supporting this motion. The task of decommissioning oil and gas infrastructure is important and reflects the principle of ‘leave it as you found it’ or doing no harm to the environment.

Oil and gas are natural phenomena. They are created by nature and created by geological processes over millennia. I remember a property my parents had in the Otways. The oil was so close to the surface that it was not uncommon to see very small slicks of oil going down waterways in the middle of the most natural and undisturbed forest in the Otways. So it is not as if oil and gas have not always been a part of the environment. There is a similar dynamic with the Dilwyn aquifer in south-west Victoria. It is a deepwater aquifer and is extracted for water supply in south-west Victoria, but it also naturally comes up and releases into the environment at several locations. One of them is a place called the ‘bubbling sands’, just across the border in South Australia. If you go there, you can see freshwater coming up through the beach sand, and if you taste it, although it can make you a bit sick, it is actually freshwater. It is the same, I believe, in some parts of Portland Bay, where naturally occurring freshwater will come up into the bay. However, the establishment of the oil and gas industry in Australia and in Victoria has brought oil and gas into our environment in a much more concerning way than nature. Decommissioning of old or no longer used oil and gas assets ought to be considered a cost of production in any responsible energy company. It is vital that industry does this work in a safe and timely manner.

There is a reason why decommissioning of fossil fuel infrastructure is worth investigating, and that is because here in Victoria we are on track to reach 95 per cent renewable energy in the next few decades. As with every challenge we face, there are upsides and opportunities that can be taken. The decommissioning of this infrastructure does open up some great opportunities in employment and in the recycling of steel and similar materials from these systems.

Historically, Victoria’s energy system has been built around coal and gas, which at the time was inexpensive and plentiful. That is now no longer the case. We have an aged, unreliable coal-fired generator system. Oil and gas are now the most expensive energies. Of course we now have awareness of climate change and the role that the burning of fossil fuels plays in global warming, and gas wells that once produced large amounts of gas are now depleted or nearly depleted. Victoria’s once cheap and plentiful fossil gas supplies are now running out and are getting increasingly expensive.

Australian gas and oil exploration was founded right here in Victoria in the Gippsland Basin in 1924. Victoria’s gas reserves were the backbone of powered manufacturing industries, but the Gippsland Basin fields are depleting rapidly. Infrastructure such as offshore platforms, wellheads and pipelines will no longer be required and will need to be safely decommissioned or removed. Federal legislation under the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006 makes it clear that a titleholder must remove any equipment, structures and other property they have used in connection with petroleum operations. In the case of offshore rigs, damage caused to the seabed and subsoil must be rectified. In Victorian waters the rules requiring decommissioning of offshore oil and gas rigs are set out in the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2010 and the Petroleum Act 1998. These acts set out the minister’s powers for requiring the removal of offshore rigs and related materials as well as the roles of the court system. Along with the responsibilities of removing their own infrastructure, the cost of removal and remediation of the environment should be borne by the operator, by the actual industry.

Decommissioning is viewed as an ordinary cost of business, as is reinstatement, and this responsibility is not unique to the oil and gas industry. This is fair. Operators and industry have had many years of bringing millions of dollars into their coffers as a result of oil and gas production. In the Department of Industry, Science and Resources Roadmap to Establish an Australian Decommissioning Industry, the Commonwealth government has considered a cost of around $60 billion will be required to decommission infrastructure in Australian waters. Other infrastructure in Victorian waters and offshore also requires decommissioning, which will incur additional cost. The Centre of Decommissioning Australia, CODA, have estimated some 5.7 million tonnes of decommissioned material will need to be removed. A small percentage of this, 6 per cent of material, sits offshore in Victoria. Sixty per cent of material Australia-wide is steel and can be recycled, 25 per cent is concrete that forms offshore structures and pipeline coatings and 67 per cent is related to pipelines.

There is a limited quantity of gas infrastructure in Victorian waters and on Victorian land. Most of the infrastructure is located within Commonwealth waters and is subject to Commonwealth regulatory jurisdiction. Decommissioning of this infrastructure is being considered worldwide. A report on 6 March 2024 by science journal Nature indicated that the majority of the world’s 12,000 oil rigs are nearing end of life. The article indicates that worldwide review of decommissioned rigs is sorely needed, with considerations that are both political and scientific. In the North Sea there is strict legislation that requires this infrastructure to be completely removed. In comparison, in the Gulf of Mexico a study is underway into how best to turn the old infrastructure into artificial reefs.

The Allan Labor government is well underway in development of sound environmental strategies. The decommissioning of many oil and gas rigs, pipelines and other infrastructure looming in the near future is not just a challenge, it is also an opportunity. It adds a positive for our workforce and economy. This is no small task and with it will come a new industry and many job opportunities for Victorians.

As we speak, the Commonwealth government is developing road maps to establish the Australian decommissioning industry for offshore oil and gas. With much of the decommissioned material being steel and other components able to be recycled, there is an opportunity for this material to be reused for critical components in renewable energy transition. These materials would go towards the building of wind turbines, towers and other critical components. This is a fantastic example of what can be found in a progressive, thoughtful and evidence-based approach to the decommissioning industry in Victoria.

I compliment the Greens for bringing forward this motion. I think it is going to be a really interesting investigation, and I look forward to understanding and learning how this process can be best achieved for the advantage of the Victorian environment and community.

David LIMBRICK (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (10:43): I am pleased to rise and speak on this motion brought forward by Dr Mansfield regarding an inquiry into decommissioning gas infrastructure, and I will start by saying that the Libertarian Party will not be opposing this motion. I always like the opportunity to look at fossil fuel infrastructure. We hear much in this place on the demonisation of fossil fuels, especially from the Greens, but let us have a look at some of the history of energy throughout humanity’s history and how it has actually benefited humanity and brought wealth and many of the things that we see before us today.

The very first energy forms that humanity managed to harness were renewable energy in the form of biomass in wood and sun, and for much of human history we managed to get by with these very low density energy forms. Later on we managed to harness the power of wind through windmills, and in fact the colonisation of Australia was powered by renewable energy – the First Fleet came here with renewable energy. So renewable energy is certainly a colonial energy source. Throughout much of history humans lived in dire poverty because we did not have high-density energy sources, and then all of a sudden we had the discovery of coal. At the time, before the discovery of coal, before the discovery of how to use coal, much of the cities of the world were let us say disgusting. If you read reports about New York at the time, the entire city was of course covered with manure and dead horses, because horses were the main form of transport throughout the city. Disease was rampant. The city was covered in flies and stank to high heaven. It was an absolute nightmare. Melbourne itself originally used to be called ‘Smellbourne’. We had terrible infrastructure for managing sewage. Like New York, it was covered in horse manure. It was covered in all sorts of awful stuff. The reason that that was the case was because we did not have fossil fuels. Also, because wood was their primary source, deforestation was a massive issue in the United Kingdom and throughout much of the world. They were chopping down their forests at a great rate of knots in order to power and heat their homes and do whatever they needed to do.

Then we discovered coal. Coal had the benefit of massive energy density in a very small space. Coal, many would argue, stopped the deforestation of the United Kingdom. Coal managed to produce electricity. Steam powered industry and in fact powered the entire Industrial Revolution, which brought millions, in fact billions, of people out of poverty and brought forward an entire technological revolution – and this state in many ways. When we developed our coal resources in the Latrobe Valley – we still depend on it to this day – we had massive amounts of electricity that we could produce, which powered aluminium smelters and powered all sorts of industries of this state. It saddens me to know that in many ways we are deindustrialising.

We talk about gas. The largest consumer of gas in this state up until recently – and probably soon they will not be the largest consumer – was the production of paper out at the paper mill in Maryvale. Due to environmentalist campaigns and many other issues, we can no longer supply the white paper mill with the materials that they need, and the owner of that mill has decided that they will no longer produce white paper. Australia is one of the few developed countries in the world that cannot produce white paper. But that will also reduce our gas consumption because we are deindustrialising the state. Now one of the greatest requirements for gas is for backing up renewable energy infrastructure. Many have been promoting these technologies, but of course they do not work all the time, and to back them up we need gas – we need lots of gas to do that in fact. There are many gas resources, but unfortunately we have made this ridiculous decision to place a ban on fracking technology in our constitution. I have spoken to many people who are far more learned about the constitution than I and who believe that it would not actually pass a constitutional challenge, because it is not about the powers and procedures of Parliament. Nevertheless we still require fossil fuels.

But the journey of humanity and its relationship with energy went even further. We discovered a new energy source even more powerful than coal and even more powerful than petroleum that got rid of all the horses off the street and the manure and the dead bodies of animals that were lying all over the street. We discovered uranium. This is one of the highest density energy sources known to man. As we follow the prosperity of humanity throughout history, it is directly related to our relationship with energy sources of higher density energy. Again we are making the stupid decision, in my view, to say we do not want this high-density energy source, even though it does not emit carbon, which everyone seems so concerned about – it does not do any of these things. We have an opportunity to harness a technology of unfathomable energy density and we again tie our hands behind our backs. This state has legislation to prohibit the use of this technology in the state. The federal Parliament also has prohibitions on this technology. We are one of the few developed nations in the world that has made this crazy decision to keep using these colonial energy sources rather than moving forward into the future with higher density energy sources that we know will improve the prosperity of humanity.

I hope that when we look at what we have done in the past with the gas infrastructure that we are going to be looking at here and decommissioning, we at least think about what we are going to need in the future. We are going to need gas, and I know that the government knows this. That is why they are worried about gas supplies. The government knows that they need the gas backup. They know that batteries are not going to cut it. They know that we are not going to be building pumped hydro dams all over the state and flooding forests. They know that that is not politically feasible. They know that they need gas. The government knows this. Anyone that knows anything about the electricity market knows this. We need gas, so we need more gas production in this state, otherwise we are going to be dependent on other states or, even worse, importing it from the Middle East or somewhere else. Lord knows what sort of potential horrific consequences and dependencies that would cause for us.

I would urge anyone involved in this inquiry to think very carefully about the future of this state and our relationship with energy and not tie our hands behind our back but harness every energy source that is available and every energy technology that is available and do whatever we can to use this energy to further the prosperity of Victorians and humanity in general.

David DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan) (10:52): I am pleased to rise and make a contribution to this debate on motion 462 brought to the chamber by Dr Mansfield. I want to begin by making some general points, and then I will indicate our amendment and where we are intending to proceed. This motion on the surface has much to commend it and has got many reasonable aspects to it. There are obviously challenges for retiring oil and gas infrastructure across Victoria. There are obviously greenhouse gas emissions with fugitive methane and so forth – different opportunities and issues there – and there are obviously financial issues with respect to the decommissioning of oil and gas infrastructure.

However, I would make this broader point: we need an even playing field, a neutral playing field, where energy infrastructure of all types has a clear road for decommissioning. I understand there are historical points that Dr Mansfield has made – and also, I might add, Mr Limbrick – but the challenges of decommissioning do not just relate to gas and electricity and other infrastructure and petroleum infrastructure. The problem with this motion is it specifically targets them. It is simply too narrow and does not put this in a broader context and effectively impose the same burdens, the same requirements and the same expectations on other energy provision.

We have got a number of lower energy generation options that are there at the moment. We see more wind and we see more industrial-scale solar production. All of these have an important contribution to make and are generally supported in their essence by the community if not in their implementation. The state government has a lot of issues with the way it implements these points. But I should just be very clear here: there is wind infrastructure out there that is very near the end of its life, and there is no clear path to decommission those facilities. That is a safety issue. It is also an issue of cost. I should state that on Tuesday last week – so just eight days ago – I was at a location, a farm just north of Ararat, talking to a group of farmers there, two farmers in particular, about the wind farm that they have on their property. That wind farm is almost at the end of its life, and the contracts that have been signed make no provision, none at all, for the removal of that infrastructure at the end of the contract. So this decommissioning challenge is not a theoretical point with much of this lower emission generation, it is actually a practical one that is coming to the fore right now. Wind farms 20 years in, 25 years in, are actually at the point where they will be decommissioned. What will replace them? That is a question. What will they do with the large infrastructure? What will they do with the concrete pad? What will they do with the damage to the roads? What will they do with the –

Tom McIntosh: Build a nuclear reactor on it.

David DAVIS: Well, Mr McIntosh, I am being quite serious here. I do not think that north of Ararat that is a likely option that you have proposed, but it is an issue for these farmers as to what will happen with the wind infrastructure on their properties that is near the end of its life. Who will remove it? It has been onsold, I understand, three or four times, so different groups now own it than the ones that built it. And who will remove it? Who will pay for this?

With the assistance of the clerks, we might circulate the amendment that is proposed. It seeks to ensure that this motion is not just about gas and oil infrastructure, it is also about lower emission energy generation and ensuring that there is a level playing field here when we actually start to look at these points at committee. If this is to go to a committee, it should go to a committee to examine all of these points. I move:

1. In paragraphs (1)(a), (1)(b), (2)(a) and (2)(b), omit the words ‘oil and gas infrastructure’ and replace them with ‘oil, gas, wind farm, solar and other renewable energy infrastructure’.

2. In paragraphs (2)(c) and (2)(d), omit the words ‘oil and gas companies’ and replace them with ‘oil, gas, wind farm, solar and other renewable energy companies’.

This would make it a fairer motion which would look at all of these technologies and would put to the fore the decommissioning issues that exist with all of the technologies.

One of the problems that we have with the costings of a number of the technologies at the moment is that the decommissioning is not examined. In a sense it is an externality, if it is left to the environment or left to be carried by others. Obviously it is a deeper principle that those who are causing the intervention, doing the work, whether it is drilling or whether it is erecting a large wind facility, ought to be responsible in a full-life stewardship role for the decommissioning, removal and restoration of that land back to a close approximation of what it was earlier.

I want to pick up a number of points that Mr Limbrick made. He did make some genuine points about high-density energy and how it actually played a key role in the development of our civilisation and the development of our standard of living, and he is absolutely right. He is absolutely right in particular about the role of gas. Gas is going to have a very central role, and not just in homes and businesses and in the hard-to-abate areas where gas has obviously got a continuing role. With steel manufacturing, with bricks and with all of those hard-to-abate areas, gas is going to have a significant role there. But it is also going to have a role in supporting low-emission technologies and generation, which often are in the form of intermittent technologies. Wind, solar and even hydro are inherently intermittent. You cannot rely on the volume coming from a solar farm in the night. This is clear. You cannot rely on the same level of wind –

Members interjecting.

David DAVIS: I am just stepping you through this because it is not clear to your minister, Lily D’Ambrosio, whose war on gas does not focus on the fact that to support renewables you actually need gas. She is at odds with your federal colleagues, the federal Labor Party, which has actually recognised that gas has got a significant role in supporting renewables, and obviously the federal Liberals. They actually understand that there is a role for gas in supporting low-emission generation and helping with the intermittency issue and ensuring there is a clear supply going forward.

Our concern with this motion is that it is uneven. It singles out several technologies and does that in a way that does not, in a sense, understand the competitive neutrality challenges that are there. If we are to have several technologies coming forward to be used, including gas, we obviously need to see proper decommissioning of all of those, and if you are not prepared to look at the issues with respect to the low-emission technologies, that leaves an unbalanced and uneven arrangement. My time has concluded. We will support the amendment, obviously, and see how that proceeds.

Tom McINTOSH (Eastern Victoria) (11:02): I am going to take my time going into this debate on this motion, which, as Ms Ermacora has pointed out, the government is supporting. Mr Davis wants to talk about imbalanced debate, and what we heard from him was absolutely that, but I will come back to that in time.

The decommissioning of our gas and oil infrastructure is a really important conversation to have. There is a lot of it. We know there are environmental implications, and we know that there are opportunities for a huge workforce to not only remove but reclaim these materials, whether it is steel or other items, to recycle and to repurpose these materials and not to have them (a) not being used but (b) also creating environmental and other risks.

There has been a lot of conversation about history from the conservatives during this debate so far, and I am sure there will be a lot more of it. We have heard about horses pooing in streets and people using wood to heat their homes and this sort of thing. That was a wonderful contribution and one that I was not surprised at from the conservatives, who generally like to keep at least a hundred years in the rear-view mirror when they think about policy for the future of this state and this nation.

As I always do, I want to acknowledge the coal and gas industries that have supported this state for the last century and the workers that have taken those abundant resources and supplied, from a coal perspective, the electricity that our state, our homes, our businesses and our industry have used. That cheap, abundant energy has been critical in the economics of our state. It has been critical for things like the automotive industry. But when the Australian dollar was buying US$1.10 the conservatives while in Parliament thought they would get rid of tens of thousands of jobs. We now know the Aussie dollar is back under 70 cents – 65, 66, 67 – but of course they did not want to see workers in well-paid jobs; they did not want to see those capacities and skill sets in our country. It was much the same with gas. It was found 100 years ago in Gippsland, in eastern Victoria. We have had for the last 60 years large quantities of gas, with Victoria being a major supplier of gas within the nation. But we know that coal is not compatible for use from an emissions perspective, and we know that from a gas perspective our wells and our supplies are depleting or are depleted, which is why we have to have this important conversation about the management and treatment of that infrastructure and the responsibility that industry must take in cleaning that up and ensuring that we do it in a safe way. At ports like Barry Beach, they are ready to make massive investment to be able to handle these materials. It is really important that when workers handle those materials they are able to do it safely and of course that for the local environment near Wilsons Prom it is done in a way that does not have negative impacts on the waters, the marine life and the local towns.

That is the history that the conservatives like to talk about. What I am really concerned about and what Labor governments are really concerned about is looking forward. That is exactly why we have set plans that see us at the moment with 40 per cent of electricity in this state being generated from renewable sources. We have consistently set and smashed renewable energy targets. And we have set, in terms of other jurisdictions around the world, a really strong, ambitious, leading target of net zero emissions by 2045. Our 600-megawatt auctions that we have put out over the years to get that investment in renewables have been crucial in setting clear expectations and understanding to industry, which industry do not get from the conservatives.

With Solar Homes, we know that one in three Victorian households see the economic sense of putting solar panels on their roofs. Mr Davis was talking down solar panels before, but one in three Victorian households acknowledge them and more and more are putting them on every day. Over 2 gigawatts of capacity has been installed in Victoria – more than a large coal generator and more than a nuclear generator indeed. We have big batteries being installed around the state. They are being installed around the world at breakneck pace, and we are seeing costs coming down. I will come to renewables and storage and those sorts of things later.

We are leading in electrification with businesses, with homes and with heat pumps. We are ensuring that our emissions are reducing, whether it is in energy, manufacturing or transport. But a lot of these are conversations the opposition do not want to have – things like electric cars and ensuring our transport security by having our energy made here and by having Aussie farmers generate energy, receive income and power our cars right here rather than paying foreign nations to have the oil shipped around the world. So where is that money going? We are risking a blockade to get the oil here. Let us have Aussie jobs and Aussie farmers generating that energy right here to power our transport industry.

Offshore wind is going to be a massive player in how we generate our electricity for this state. We know there is tens of billions of dollars of investment coming, and this is not an accident. While the conservatives federally left it sitting in the drawer, this state has pushed on and this state is the first in the nation to get an offshore wind industry going. And by God, I hope we get it going, because tens of thousands of jobs depend on it. The muck going on opposite around nuclear is putting that at risk. It is industry who are looking to invest in renewables and particularly offshore wind, not nuclear, because we know the economics of nuclear do not stack up. We are putting the training pipelines in to make sure that workers who are transitioning out of coal, out of gas, have generations of work to come. But those opposite want to put it at risk, and they are lying to workers about the timeframes in which those jobs will come. We know it is a lie. We have heard about small modular nuclear reactors. They no longer exist. That is off the conservatives’ policy positions, and now they are talking about large scale.

We heard Mr Davis say before that we need deeper principles, that those causing issues for the community need to lean in and engage on them. Well, Mr Davis, I ask again: when it comes to nuclear, what does it mean for farmers’ water supplies? What does it mean for earthquakes? We have had two earthquakes near proposed nuclear reactor sites in recent weeks. What of the waste? What of terrorism threats? We know that if you put a nuclear reactor somewhere, it is a pretty good target for someone. What about energy supply when they are down for maintenance? What are the full costs going to be? Industry does not want to invest in it. Industry does not want them on their land. You lot sold our generators to private industry. They do not want the nuclear reactors there. You will not answer any of these questions, and you go around scaremongering about gas.

We have a plan that 11 years from now it will be 95 per cent renewable energy in this state, and yes, there is a gas component as we get it to 100 per cent. You sit there and you smirk and you laugh with your ideology, but we have a plan. My criticism of the Greens is they want to play politics with gas. We have to get to net zero emissions. We are getting there, but we have to acknowledge – and we do acknowledge on this side, but other parties need to acknowledge – that renewables will have a key role in the bulk of our generation, but we need gas to make sure that we can make the full transition in an orderly manner.

As I have said, we have tens of thousands of jobs in renewables. Particularly when we look at Gippsland and the industries that have been there and have supported this state for a century, decommissioning of this infrastructure is a really important part of this conversation, ensuring the workers that are in those jobs are well trained and well paid and that when they do the work it is done safely. I support this motion and look forward to further debate.

Melina BATH (Eastern Victoria) (11:12): I am pleased to rise to make a contribution on motion 462 standing in the name of Dr Mansfield and outline that the Nationals firmly support the expansion of this inquiry to include renewable energy technologies – to include solar plants and wind turbines – in the mix. Today Dr Mansfield made a very nice contribution in her members statement. She spoke about farmers, and she endorsed farmers for being in the forefront of many technologies about adapting to the current climate, and she supported their continuity of course but also their importance. What Dr Mansfield I believe misses in this motion is an understanding of the impact on farmers and the broader community of where these renewable technologies will land, the impact on our farms and potentially food and fibre in Victoria and the very real need to have a balanced debate and to include wind farm, solar and renewable technologies.

This government continues to drive a wedge between the city – 75 per cent of the population, metropolitan Melbourne – and the regions, 25 per cent of the population. All of the action, whether it be onshore gas or whether it be renewables, including offshore – and I will speak to that in a moment – happens on land, and often it is going to be acquired farming land. This Allan Labor government is taking away regional voices by removing farmers’ and landholders’ rights to third-party appeal through VCAT if they feel aggrieved about solar plants being put up on a large scale on their farms or beside them. They are aggrieved about this, and transmission lines into the bargain are a very big cause of division. But this government is taking away those rights. That is not fair, and we saw last week in Bendigo the outrage of farmers at their doing that. Whilst I endorse wholeheartedly the Greens’ comments this morning in their debate on the motion, I say to the Greens: you must expand this motion to look at the whole of renewable energy and oil and gas.

The very first oilfield was actually off Lakes Entrance in my electorate a hundred years ago, and since that time we know that oil has been powering our state, driving our economy and providing prosperity to our communities, homes and towns, as has of course gas. Indeed the Gippsland Basin is – and it has been shown – a perfect location. It is a natural gas trap that has been tapped and used. Indeed the Longford gas plant in my electorate in Sale et cetera has been an enormous hub of industry and a very important aspect of our local economy. Those oil and gas fields – particularly the oil – are nearing the end of their timeframe. They are in federal waters, in Commonwealth waters, and indeed it is very clear that much of the jurisdiction and impact are actually captured in federal law and federal jurisdiction. For us to interrogate that I think is somewhat to the side of the actual implications of that.

I heard Dr Mansfield make comments about decommissioning, and this is a very important issue, without a doubt, because it needs to be done safely. There need to be environmental considerations, and again there are multiple layers in terms of state and federal legislation and regulation that cover this. But the costs of offshore oil and gas decommissioning liability lie firmly as the responsibility of the petroleum title holder through, as I spoke about, federal law. It is important, there is no doubt about it, but it is also important that we look at the holistic issues.

In 2022 – and I know there was a Greens representative on it – an upper house inquiry of the Environment and Planning Committee, which I am on, investigated renewables. But what they failed to do in that report – and indeed we put out a minority report – was to look first at the cradle-to-grave effect and impact of renewable energies, because often what is said is that they are zero in terms of emissions, but you need to actually look at that whole cradle-to-grave analysis. What the majority report failed to do was to accept a consideration from the Liberals and Nationals about introducing bonds, similar to retiring coal-fired power stations and others, for large-scale solar energy facilities and for wind turbines as part of that decommissioning and rehabilitation. This will come, and we are in a state of transition.

I take up very much the point of my colleague Mr Davis, who spoke to the government’s hatred of gas and the need for gas to be a peaking source of energy. Indeed only this week I think we saw that Lakes Blue Energy is applying for a drilling project for onshore conventional gas exploration, and indeed the Australian Energy Market Operator has noted that Victoria will experience a shortfall in gas supplies, forecasting an urgent need to secure additional gas supplies. There we have industry seeking onshore exploration to tap into, particularly in Gippsland but also in the Otways, our gas reserves and to be a very important part of this peaking fuel supply in the transition. Also, I note that the government and indeed the Greens have not said anything about clean hydrogen and carbon capture and storage, which is another important element in this, and that certainly can be used in our offshore geological formations out to sea. So in effect we have a government who just wants to tell us the good stories. We have them shooting barbs or little arrows over here about what is and is not going to be the policy of the Liberals and Nationals in this state, but the important thing for people in communities is the need for reliable energy supply.

What is important also in relation to this inquiry is having a holistic investigation. It is a bit obtuse, in my opinion, that the Greens are putting up something that says, ‘Just look over here, but let’s not take.’ If we are going to take resources of this Parliament to investigate, why not have a thorough and forensic investigation and look at the impact of decommissioning renewables? Indeed in my electorate of Eastern Victoria we have had the Toora wind farm for 20-odd years. It will be coming to the end of its natural life cycle. What is going to happen there? Mr Davis spoke about the environmental impacts. What will happen? Will it just be left as a scar on the landscape, not producing anything, or will it be decommissioned? This is an opportunity for this house to investigate those very positive and scientific steps, and I endorse that inclusion.

I feel that this is again, as always, a war on the oil and gas industries by the Greens – that is their bent – but we want a measured and positive outcome, if this is to get up. Otherwise I support the amendment. But I have grave concerns about the narrow vision of the Greens for this inquiry.

Sheena WATT (Northern Metropolitan) (11:22): I rise today to speak to the motion put forward by a member for Western Victoria, and in that I reaffirm my colleague’s position who spoke earlier that we will support this motion. The continued decommissioning of infrastructure is an important task and instrumental to the continued life of energy transition, and it must be completed by experts in the industry in a safe and timely manner. It also presents opportunities for retraining, recycling and reusing of large volumes of material like copper wiring and steel.

We have to move away from this outdated thinking that energy transition projects are impossible and unaffordable; it is simply untrue. It is of the utmost importance that we look at the transition not as a burden but as an opportunity. There is no more time for inaction. The glory days of the two pillars of gas and coal are over, and we are getting on with what must be done: transitioning away from out-of-date ideas about energy. This presents an opportunity to move away from end-of-life, outdated coal-fired power stations and towards clean, cheap renewable energy sources.

The rest of the world is already doing this. Countries like Iceland, Germany, Kenya, Norway and our neighbours in New Zealand have seen that renewable energy projects are the future and have gotten on with the transition projects needed. Sweden reached their 50 per cent renewable energy target eight years early because they took the transition seriously and took advantage of the natural resources that they have in abundance, like wind, solar and geothermal energy. Change is inevitable, as with anything in this life, and we are committed to providing that change for everyone. We need the change now, and we need to be thinking of transitioning energy away from end-of-life coal-fired and gas turbines to creating sustainable renewable energy to capitalise on what Victoria has in droves, and that is our sunlight and wind. This is something that Victoria can capitalise on. We have ample wind and sun; we are the sunburnt country – it is in the title – although last night I think that we proved that we can be a windy city too.

If we do not move forward with this transition, we are going to be left behind the rest of the world. We cannot continue to go on with the ancient pillars of coal-fired power and gas reserves, because these things have changed. The fact is that gas is no longer cheap, it is no longer plentiful and, funnily enough, I have got to tell you, the finite resources for these power systems are in fact finite. I am proud that Victoria is doing the hard work to address our heavy reliance on fossil gas through the Gas Substitution Roadmap and its updates.

We know that getting thousands of households off gas will save Victorians thousands on their energy bills every single year. In a time when it feels like the cost of everything is going up a falling power bill can make the difference to Victorian families and businesses. Our government is committed to tackling the pressures that Victorians are feeling on their energy bills. The evidence is clear: the best way to reduce energy bills is to go all electric. A typical all-electric Victorian home built today can save $1000 a year compared to a new dual-fuel home. If the new home has solar, these savings can climb to $2200 per year. For the typical existing Victorian home, going all electric saves around $1700 and up to $2700 with solar. Of course we recognise that going all electric in one hit is not feasible for everyone. That is why through the Victorian energy upgrades and Solar Homes programs the Allan Labor government delivers thousands of up-front discounts and incentives for specific appliances – like an efficient electric reverse-cycle aircon or a hot-water heat pump – so that Victorians can get their electrification journey started step by step.

We know that the Australian oil and gas exploration industry was born right here in Victoria, with the globally significant gas reserves being discovered almost 60 years ago. We are not shying away from the history that billions of dollars in investment and fossil fuels were produced, but we know that these legacy fields are depleting rapidly. These large historical gas wells of the past are just that – they are of the past. They are soon to be no longer producing gas. The legacy infrastructure, like offshore platforms, wellheads and pipelines, will no longer be required and will need to be safely decommissioned and removed in accordance with petroleum resources legislation, which states that all infrastructure brought to site by the titleholder must be removed and it is the responsibility of the operator and the industry to remove them. You see, in our state any proposal to decommission infrastructure must be detailed in environmental plans that describe the risks and impacts posed to the environment, the control measures to reduce the risks as low as reasonably practicable and the consultation carried out in accordance with reporting obligations. This government will not accept a plan if the environmental risks and the impacts are unacceptable. Decommissioning must not and will not come at the expense of Victoria’s precious marine environment.

These decommissioning projects pose opportunities. One industry’s trash really is another industry’s treasure. The decommissioning of the old oil and gas infrastructure is a big task, and it will require a major workforce. This means more direct opportunities for regional Victorians. Beyond that, these workers will need homes to live in, places to shop, tourist sites to visit, local sports clubs to send their kids to and all the other things that drive regional Victoria. The existing workforce in the offshore oil and gas industries are well placed to secure work in decommissioning, given their experience operating in the sector already. The Commonwealth government is developing a road map to establish an Australian decommissioning industry for offshore oil and gas and just last year released an issues paper which sought feedback from industry, unions, state and territory governments, First Nations people and local communities. This government looks forward to the release of the final road map and working with regional Victorians and industry professionals to create more jobs, decommission outdated infrastructure and recycle these materials, such as the steel and the concrete, for critical components of the renewable energy transition. This will create wind turbine towers, transmission lines, solar panels and other critical infrastructure. This will slash the environmental impact and continue to develop Victoria’s circular economy, which I spoke about only last night in my adjournment. It forms a key component for Labor’s approach in our state: maximising job growth and minimising the environmental impacts.

Just on decommissioning, I do know that there is quite a thriving decommissioning industry operating in other states, particularly in mining. I do have some folks that I know that work in that industry, and they too are looking for other opportunities in major regional centres away from remote outposts, and the jobs that will be created right here with the decommissioning industry in Victoria will be very attractive to interstate workers. So not only are there opportunities for Victorians already here, those Victorians already working in the oil and gas sector, but I tell you this is going to be an almighty attractive opportunity for interstate workers to find a home here in Victoria, and certainly we will welcome them. We have said in this place that the transition is not a nice-to-have, it is a must-have. The decommissioning of these projects is a must-have, and this government will ensure that Victoria goes forward in a way that not only provides cheap energy to Victorians but is also clean and is renewable. With that, can I just reaffirm my and the government’s support for this inquiry. As a member of the Environment and Planning Committee, it is one that I certainly look forward to with eager anticipation.

Bev McARTHUR (Western Victoria) (11:32): I rise to speak on Dr Mansfield’s motion. It is no surprise that those opposite – Ms Watt, Mr McIntosh and the rest of them – prosecute a very narrow vision of what constitutes energy supply. Wind and solar only is how you approach the world. This state once had the most abundant sources of energy and the cheapest sources of energy. Contrary to Ms Watt’s suggestion that we have got this cheap energy, we have got the most expensive form of energy possible. Those living inside the tram tracks probably do not realise that you actually need gas. You need gas to manufacture a whole lot of goods; electricity does not cut it. You cannot kiln-dry timber, you cannot dry milk and you cannot produce steel without a powerful source of energy. Wind and solar just do not cut it.

I have got an agnostic approach to energy. I am totally supportive of all forms of energy, because we need to increase supply in this state. You have managed to reduce the supply by demonising coal, and so now we have got a shortage of supply. We have to increase supply, so I am very happy to have all forms of energy in the mix. But you have total misinformation on gas supplies. There is plenty of natural onshore conventional gas.

Michael Galea interjected.

Bev McARTHUR: Where? It has been tapped, and it is in the Otway area and it is down in Ms Bath’s electorate as well. There is plenty of gas. You have had a moratorium for over 10 years on the exploration for gas. That was appalling, and so now you do need to explore for gas and actually produce it. Mr McIntosh is clearly part of the cancelling history cult. He cannot recognise the progress we have made in this country, and as Mr Limbrick pointed out, it largely was fuelled by oil –

Michael Galea interjected.

Bev McARTHUR: And by what, Mr Galea? What form of energy did you say it was provided by? You live with this Cold War mentality of being antinuclear, yet the rest of the world embraces nuclear. We export it. And guess what, your Labor federal government have embraced nuclear submarines. You are going to have to dispose of the waste, so how about that? Has anyone in this chamber not had an X-ray? Do you not know that we have had a nuclear power plant at Lucas Heights since 1958? You are totally opposed to it. You live in the Dark Ages, you lot over there. You will be rubbing sticks together and getting around on your bike if you are not careful.

It is the policies of the Greens and their allies which are poisoning the investment in oil and gas, which would bring home more efficient and cleaner technology. This complete distortion of the market is the same reason that we are now paying to keep coal-fired power stations open. If the market had not been pressured by these climate demands, then newer investment in gas and clean coal would have come forward and replaced older assets. This is what happens whenever you intervene with legislated targets rather than incentivising progress.

Reductions in carbon emissions to date have been significant, but the truth is the first cuts are the low-hanging fruit. As we move towards net zero, further reductions will become technically more difficult and exponentially more expensive. Achieving net zero is an ideological, extremist and damaging position. Instead a pragmatic approach could achieve substantial emission reductions at a fraction of the financial and environmental cost a renewable-only solution would inflict. But as the motion demonstrates, the Greens are not interested in pragmatism. We are – we have suggested that you amend the motion so that we include the decommissioning of wind and solar projects. What could be wrong with that? If you are really concerned about the environment, you will happily support the amendment.

Sarah Mansfield interjected.

Bev McARTHUR: No, no, it is not. It is the same. We are decommissioning energy infrastructure. That is what this is about, but you only want to selectively decommission some of it.

The consequence of the attack on gas is deindustrialising our state and getting rid of our manufacturing industry. It is just offshoring the problem – we will still need the projects, but the carbon emissions will go on China’s tally, not ours. It is completely dishonest and massively damaging to our economy and national security at the same time. It is the same short-sighted approach we see with the timber ban: destroying Victorian jobs, business and tax revenue and requiring us instead to import environmentally dishonest, worse products from thousands of kilometres away, with no concern about what the environmental impact might be in the country where we are denuding the landscape just to meet an unchanging essential requirement. The Greens’ attack on gas is counterproductive environmentally. Their lack of pragmatism means they make the perfect the enemy of the good. As we heard from Mr Limbrick, it is the same motive which causes them to dismiss nuclear power. The carbon emission argument for nuclear is even stronger than gas of course, but gas still represents enormous progress.

The Australian National Greenhouse Accounts Factors 2023 was published by the federal government’s Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water. Let us look at their calculation of emissions from stationary energy sources. The Victorian electricity grid has 220 kilograms of carbon dioxide emitted per gigajoule of energy versus natural gas distributed via pipeline, with 51.4 kilograms of carbon dioxide emitted per gigajoule. That is 220 kilograms versus 51.4, so what is more environmentally friendly? For the same amount of energy provided our gas network produces less than one-quarter of the carbon emissions. That is the reality, and the ideological charge towards all-electric homes, heating and transport before we have a completely rebuilt generation and transmission network means that greenhouse gas emissions will be higher. It is as simple as that. That is the real-life consequence of the Greens and the Labor Minister for Energy and Resources and their dislike of gas.

Ms Watt has talked about powering all-electric homes. Let me tell you, if you want to build a new home out in the country it will cost you up to $100,000 to upgrade the power to the connection with Powercor to make it all electric, and that does not include powering your EV. So it is out of the question for people in the country to build an all-electric home, but that is now the rule under this show. Then what about the running costs? Despite all the media releases and government-sponsored initiatives the cost of gas per kilowatt hour of energy use in the home is still less than half of the cost of electricity in Victoria. That is before we even get onto the cost of installation. Sure, electrical appliances are cheaper than gas, but when transformed into all-electric homes with potential for electrical vehicle charging then new electrical infrastructure is required too, and it will not be cheap. We just cannot afford this nonsense of having all-electric homes. As I have talked about in this house, in Avoca a $380,000 build had $100,000 to spend on upgrading to be able to get power from the connection down the end of the street.

John Berger: They need a three-phase one.

Bev McARTHUR: That is before you even go to three phase. Of course this is just to power the home. But we have got a situation out in Victoria where at the moment there is no three-phase power for many dairy farms; they are operating on diesel generators.

Moira DEEMING (Western Metropolitan) (11:43): I rise to speak on this motion by the Greens, and I really do want to give credit where credit is due. The environment is important and we are transitioning our energy infrastructure, so it is important to think about and plan for the future. But to me this motion does appear to be, like much of the debate around energy and policy in this country, lopsided, and that is why I do agree with the Liberal Party amendments, because even our current wind and solar energy production is facing enormous and unanswered challenges when it comes to the environmental impacts, the recyclability and in fact the economic viability of those types of energy generation.

We know that there are significant environmental and social impacts associated with the mining and processing of metals required for wind and solar energy infrastructure. Take cobalt: heavy metal contamination of air, water and soil has led to severe health impacts for miners and surrounding communities, and the cobalt mining area in the Congo is one of the top 10 most polluted places in the world. Around 20 per cent of cobalt from the Democratic Republic of the Congo is from artisanal and small-scale miners who work in dangerous conditions in hand-dug mines, and there is extensive child labour. New coal work mines are proposed in Congo and in Australia and in Canada, and I hope that we will be managing those better. Copper: copper mining can lead to heavy metal contamination as seen in Chile, China, India and Brazil. It has led to environmental pollution from a major tailings dam spill in the US, and there are health impacts for workers in China and Zambia. Lithium: the major concerns over lithium mining are water contamination, shortages in the lithium triangle of Argentina, Bolivia and Chile and inadequate compensation for affected local communities. Nickel: damage to freshwater and marine ecosystems has been observed in Canada, Russia, Australia, the Philippines, Indonesia and New Caledonia. Rare earth: rare-earth metal processing requires large amounts of harmful chemicals and produces large volumes of solid waste, gas and wastewater. There have been huge impacts in China, Malaysia and historically in the US, and new mines are proposed for Canada, Greenland, Malawi, South Africa and Uganda. I do not know if the workers rights over in those countries are up to scratch for us over here. Silver: there have been heavy-metal contamination of soil and water from recent and historical mines in the US, Mexico, Peru and Bolivia and social conflicts in Guatemala.

Although recycling is generally environmentally preferable to mining, it also faces environmental and ethical challenges. The recycling of e-waste in many parts of the world is done in hazardous working conditions and only ends up recovering a fraction of what would otherwise be recovered, and it emits dangerous toxins, heavy metals and acid fumes into the surrounding environment, leading to severe illnesses.

I agree industrial growth should be strongly tied to environmental values, with environmental policy integrating the two currently opposed sectors. We should acknowledge that both are essential to our future and that success can only exist where we balance the two appropriately. As Australia moves to a circular system, policy and the focus of our parliamentarians need to be squarely placed on integrating prosperous industry with environmental values, where circularity, efficient resource use and responsible environmental management become the benchmarks of success. But the fact is we will always need a strong industrial and energy sector for a healthy Australian economy. So this should be seen as an opportunity to build a model or a map for the future on how we can have sustainable industries that generate jobs and that grow our economy but that also play a role in protecting the Australian environment and people.

I do believe that we should not be getting rid of gas entirely. In Europe they are transitioning using the existing infrastructure to other forms of gas, and coal is still a major player in every single industry in the world. We have to get better at modernising these things and not just throw them in the bin or become ideological; we need to stick to the science, manage what we can, use practical timelines and actually remember that this is all about humans flourishing, not ideology.

Ryan BATCHELOR (Southern Metropolitan) (11:48): I rise to speak very briefly, for a little over 3 minutes, on Dr Mansfield’s motion referring issues surrounding oil and gas infrastructure decommissioning to the Environment and Planning Committee. Just briefly, as the chair of that committee, I look forward to this inquiry. It is obviously one that we will get to after we complete the next inquiry that we are doing. Having just finished a very good, I think, inquiry into the October 2022 flooding event, we are about to commence an inquiry into the resilience of the built environment to climate change. Then we will move on to an inquiry that was referred to us by the chamber a couple of weeks ago with respect to community consultation practices, and this inquiry will come after that. These matters are obviously very significant and very important and are in the queue for consideration. There are a lot of inquiries being given to the parliamentary committees here in the Legislative Council, and we are diligently working our way through them.

The other thing I will just say briefly, by way of context, is it was really pleasing in the last half hour to see the latest monthly consumer price index data released by the Austrian Bureau of Statistics showing that electricity prices –

David Davis: On a point of order, President, this is a very important debate, but CPI figures are a little bit distant from the substance of the debate.

The PRESIDENT: I think Mr Batchelor was getting to the energy part of where he was going.

Ryan BATCHELOR: I am sorry that Mr Davis is not excited by the fact that electricity prices in the CPI are falling in this country due to the efforts of the federal Labor government, but that is a fact, and we would like facts inserted into a debate about energy, because they are conspicuously absent from the contributions that those opposite make, whether it is this debate about energy or any debate about energy. I am sorry that Mr Davis does not like the fact that the electricity prices in the CPI are coming down because Labor governments are providing energy bill relief to consumers in this country. Labor takes action on the cost of living even if the Liberals do not care.

This inquiry will get to an important question about how the energy infrastructure in this state is dealt with as part of our energy transition. We on this side of the chamber, this Labor government, know that we do need to make an energy transition in this state away from our historical reliance on coal and gas and towards a renewable future. That is absolutely the policy framework that this Labor government is advocating for – a renewable future. We are not going to take steps backwards like the Liberals and the Nationals want us to. We do not support fossil fuels being a cornerstone of our energy sector and do not support a disastrous step down a nuclear path. If you want to have an inquiry into the most dangerous and deadly forms of energy when it comes to decommissioning, let us have a chat about nuclear energy. I am not sure that we want to put the concrete casing that we see in places like Chernobyl over the proposed nuclear power plants that the Liberals want to build in the Latrobe Valley. I am sure we will get into that in another debate, but unfortunately the clock has beaten me on my contribution today.

Sarah MANSFIELD (Western Victoria) (11:51): I want to thank members for their contributions to this debate. There have been some interesting contributions, but I particularly want to thank members of the government for their support and their recognition of the importance of dealing with this issue.

We certainly appreciate some of the concerns that have been raised by the coalition in suggesting their amendment. We absolutely should be thinking about the full life cycle of renewables and indeed all infrastructure. It is worth noting that offshore wind is required to pay a bond from the get-go; it is something we should consider for other forms of energy. But the issue of renewables’ life cycles is really different to what we are talking about here. The risks are totally different. Right now we have decades-old pipelines that are no longer in use or approaching the end of their life that are leaking methane into the atmosphere in a climate crisis. We have old pipelines that have already leaked oil into the ocean. As I mentioned in my contribution, that happened recently off the coast of Gippsland. Those communities are lucky that it was not a bigger leak. A catastrophic oil leak and methane pouring into the atmosphere are huge risks, and we need a focused inquiry to deal with these risks. All those MPs here who represent regional areas that have coastal communities should be getting behind this motion. Imagine if there was a larger oil leak. It would be devastating for those coastal communities.

Some of the other contributions from the coalition do make me wonder if they actually read the inquiry motion that is before us, because they really went off on some interesting tangents around energy supply. The term ‘competitive neutrality’ was introduced to justify why we should consider all forms of energy in this motion. That is a concept that really does not make any sense in the context of this debate if you read the motion. This is about dealing with old infrastructure that has been left behind by the gas industry. This debate has been used as a platform for some to argue for more gas and against renewables, and that says everything about the coalition when it comes to climate action.

If you do want to talk about competitive neutrality, why not start with the whopping subsidies handed out to the fossil fuel industry, which are of such a magnitude that they would pay for the whole renewable energy transition with plenty of change left over. Despite decades of taxpayer handouts, we are now facing the risk of having to pay for the fossil fuel giants to clean up their mess. And it is not only financial risks; we face enormous risks to our environment and to our climate as well.

This is a really important inquiry. It will deal with these financial, environmental and climate risks, and I would urge everyone in this place to get behind it.

Council divided on amendment:

Ayes (16): Melina Bath, Gaelle Broad, Georgie Crozier, David Davis, Moira Deeming, Renee Heath, Ann-Marie Hermans, David Limbrick, Wendy Lovell, Trung Luu, Bev McArthur, Joe McCracken, Nick McGowan, Evan Mulholland, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell, Richard Welch

Noes (22): Ryan Batchelor, John Berger, Lizzie Blandthorn, Katherine Copsey, Enver Erdogan, Jacinta Ermacora, David Ettershank, Michael Galea, Shaun Leane, Sarah Mansfield, Tom McIntosh, Rachel Payne, Aiv Puglielli, Georgie Purcell, Samantha Ratnam, Harriet Shing, Ingrid Stitt, Jaclyn Symes, Lee Tarlamis, Sonja Terpstra, Gayle Tierney, Sheena Watt

Amendment negatived.

Council divided on motion:

Ayes (24): Ryan Batchelor, John Berger, Lizzie Blandthorn, Katherine Copsey, Enver Erdogan, Jacinta Ermacora, David Ettershank, Michael Galea, Shaun Leane, David Limbrick, Sarah Mansfield, Tom McIntosh, Rachel Payne, Aiv Puglielli, Georgie Purcell, Samantha Ratnam, Harriet Shing, Ingrid Stitt, Jaclyn Symes, Lee Tarlamis, Sonja Terpstra, Gayle Tierney, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell, Sheena Watt

Motion agreed to.

Business interrupted pursuant to sessional orders.