Wednesday, 30 October 2024
Motions
Energy policy
Please do not quote
Proof only
Motions
Energy policy
David DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan) (10:28): I move:
That this house:
(1) notes the government’s mismanagement of its Victorian energy upgrade program, which has seen:
(a) Victorians paying up to three times more for a tonne of carbon dioxide removed from the atmosphere under the state’s program compared with other equivalent schemes in other Australian jurisdictions;
(b) the total cost impact of the Victorian program on industry and consumers likely to hit $652 million in 2024, representing a 30 per cent increase over just 12 months and a rise from $88 million a decade ago;
(c) the Victorian energy efficiency certificate become the most expensive in the country, at $108.50 in October 2024;
(d) Victorian households pay $188 per annum per household using 6000 kilowatt hours of electricity per annum in green scheme bill payments, non-transparently incorporated in the energy bills of Victorian consumers;
(e) the Victorian government deliver multiple refrigerators to the premises of individual small businesses as part of a rort;
(f) the Victorian scheme placed under review; and
(2) condemns the Minister for Energy and Resources for her waste, incompetence and the additional load she has thoughtlessly placed on Victorian families during a cost-of-living crisis.
This motion is not a motion about whether green schemes are a good or a bad thing. This is a motion about the administration and the management of these schemes. This is a motion about whether you can deliver a scheme that achieves certain stated objectives of greenhouse gas abatement in a responsible and economically efficient way.
What we know is that the Victorian government has really struggled here. Few of us will forget those television images as not one, not two, not four, but six and eight and 10 fridges were delivered to business premises. The businesses might have wanted one fridge – a low-energy fridge – or they might have wanted two, but few of them wanted six or 10 fridges. It just does not seem competent to deliver 10 fridges outside the door of a local small business.
John Berger: What are you yelling for?
David DAVIS: Well, what do you think? Do you think it is a good idea or are you wanting to defend such absurd behaviour? How can this be? How can it be that the incompetent minister could deliver six fridges to one business?
Tom McIntosh: She personally delivered six fridges?
David DAVIS: She arranged the delivery through the program she administers.
A member interjected.
David DAVIS: Do you think this is a great idea, do you? I do not think it is a great idea. I want to start with those images. That is the image of Lily D’Ambrosio basically administering a program that delivered multiple fridges to locations. That is a scheme out of control. It is a scheme that has lost its way. I have to say that that is not the only point I would make on all of this.
What we have seen here is the Australian Pipelines and Gas Association look closely at these schemes and make some significant points. I am going to quote from their news releases, particularly the September 2024 release, ‘The Victorian government’s poor tax a dud deal for Victorians’:
The Victorian Government’s ‘flagship’ electrification program is spiralling out of control …
We now know that it is been placed under review. It has been placed under systemic –
A member interjected.
David DAVIS: You surely would agree with it being placed under review – huge amounts of money being splurged out and multiple fridges being delivered to people’s premises. Really very few people would defend that and say that this is a well-run program. If you are sincere about wanting to abate greenhouse gas emissions, you would want the scheme run the most efficiently that it can possibly be run, because you will get the most abatement out of an efficiently run scheme; you will get less abatement out of an inefficient scheme. Concerned people like me will line up with people who want greater abatement, because they want an efficient program to deliver a better outcome, not an inefficient program to deliver less greenhouse gas abatement.
The Australian Pipelines and Gas Association went on to say that:
The Victorian energy upgrades scheme is on track to cost more than $650 million in 2024 – an increase of nearly 30 per cent over the past 12 months.
Goodness. It is not delivering any more abatement, it is just costing more. Who pays this? People need to understand who pays this, and it is households. Households are paying it. Households are paying it on their bill. They are paying it as a secret wedge on every household bill. Every single household in Victoria is paying this money. It is not transparent, and the scale of it is not transparent. They went on:
The trade-weighted average of 12-month historic VEEC spot prices, the Essential Services Commission’s … preferred method for calculating … costs, rose from $16.87 in 2014 to $97.44 as of September 26, 2024.
This has driven up annual VEU costs, which are paid for by Victorians through … electricity bills … $88 million a decade ago to a projected $652 million today – an increase of 639 per cent over the past decade.
You can go online and you can compare the different green schemes around Australia. You can go online and you can –
Tom McIntosh: You’ve been doing your research, Mr Davis. It is good.
David DAVIS: Many people have, and people might want to go and look at the different schemes.
Tom McIntosh: You are across your brief.
David DAVIS: You might be surprised to know that Victoria is the most expensive scheme in Australia. Other schemes are in the range of $30 to $60. Some are slightly less and there are other ones around the country, but Victoria is up at over $100 for the equivalent. We are much more expensive, and you have got to ask why. I say there is one reason: it is Lily D’Ambrosio. It is the minister, one of the most incompetent ministers that we have seen, one of the most incompetent ministers to administer major government programs, doing huge, huge damage to Victorians through the blowout in costs.
It is worth just putting on the record the figures that come from the St Vincent’s tracker. The St Vincent’s tracker indicates, while Victoria’s energy costs –
Tom McIntosh: Gavin Dufty is your best mate.
David DAVIS: Gavin Dufty is a very, very smart guy. He is a very good researcher. You should read this material. I am very happy to direct you to his recent work: The NEM: Where Prices Are High and Innovation Is Low. This is a St Vincent de Paul work. Picking up your point, if I turn to page 7 of that very same work – and I think it is very good work – it says:
In comparison to July 2022, regulated standing offer prices (the base-rate) have increased in all jurisdictions. The size of the increase, however, does vary significantly. In Victoria electricity prices have increased by approximately 28% …
That is the largest increase in the country. It also says, on gas prices:
Gas prices have increased in all jurisdictions since July 2022 with the increases being greatest in Victoria (22%) …
That is on page 8 for you on the other side of the chamber. You will be able to read that directly and see the work that Mr Dufty has done in working his way through the actual figures on what households in Victoria are paying. It is not estimated figures, it is not default offers; it is actually what they pay. He went back and looked at the bills. He added up people’s bills, and electricity costs went up 28 per cent in one year and the gas costs went up 22 per cent. That is the base that we are facing here.
One of the things in that same publication that I would draw the chamber’s attention to is on pages 17 and 18, where it looks at the additional costs of policies and programs. It says here, in paragraph 2 on page 17:
For Victoria, the ‘green scheme’ costs included in section 2 above were the Large-scale Renewable Energy Target at $10.40/MWh and the Small-scale Renewable Energy Scheme at $6.86/MWh. However, Victorians also pay for the Victorian Energy Upgrades scheme at $11.18/MWh and solar Feed-in Tariffs (social cost of carbon) at $16.95/customer. As such, the Victorian Energy Upgrades (VEU) program is estimated to cost Victorian consumers more than the Large-scale Renewable Energy Target …
Then he breaks out in chart 8 – this is a very good read – the bill stack, as he calls it, of the Victorian market. Then if you go to page 18, he spends some time looking through chart 9. Chart 9 shows green scheme costs in each jurisdiction and says:
It shows that Victorians have the highest ‘green scheme’ costs at $188 per annum for households using 6,000kWh per annum while customers in Queensland currently have the lowest (around $90 per annum).
Chart 9 is a very instructive chart. It actually shows that we are paying more, but we are not getting the abatement volume that we could get if we ran our schemes efficiently. That is the point here. You have got a minister who is an ideologue over here and pressing very hard, but she cannot run programs to deliver the objectives that she is seeking to achieve. She cannot run them efficiently; she cannot run them effectively.
It then goes on, on page 18 – this is the St Vincent de Paul and Alviss Consulting paper of November 2023 – to say:
However, we continue to be concerned about the equity of these charges. While high consumption households will pay more for ‘green schemes’ (when the charges are linked to usage), these households also typically have more options, and incentives, to alter usage … replace or upgrade appliances, as well as making improvements to dwellings themselves. Low consumption households, on the other hand, typically have few appliances to start with and are likely to live in smaller dwellings with limited improvement options. These households simply have to pay for the additional charges without being able to reduce their costs.
David Limbrick: What about renters?
David DAVIS: I am going to come to that in a minute. It continues:
At the same time, these households’ contribution to the emissions released by household energy consumption is lower.
In our view, these equity issues warrant a debate around how governments pass on the cost of ‘green schemes’.
Then they talk about other options.
This is a reverse Robin Hood tax. That is what it is. Robin Hood was famous for robbing the rich and giving to the poor. Well, Lily D’Ambrosio and Jacinta Allan rob the poor and pay it to the rich. They steal from the poor and pay it to the rich.
Members interjecting.
David DAVIS: It is a reverse Robin Hood tax, and you know it is true. It is a nasty tax. It is a secret tax, and it is a tax that hits hardest the poorest households. Mr Limbrick’s point is also right. It is harder for renters. Renters are paying this tax – they are paying the electricity tax and they have less ability to deal with this. There are real equity issues with this particular approach that has been adopted by Labor.
You have got to ask why Labor is so determined to mismanage this program. It is under review, although the minister has said it is steaming on for years into the future. She has got a flawed scheme under review, but she is going to steam on with it anyway – the most expensive scheme of its type in the country. You have got to ask why they cannot run the program properly, help average families cut costs and potentially deliver more greenhouse gas abatement than they would otherwise deliver. You have got to really wonder what the state government is up to on these key points.
On solar there are very significant issues. We have obviously got the feed-in tariffs coming off from the original times of the scheme going back a number of years and of course the solar contribution to the NEM, the overall grid, is significant through certain parts of the day. It does drive the electricity costs into the negative. It leads to difficulty in terms of the fluctuations and there has got to be significant thought given to how that is best managed into the future. The government has cut the rebates for those who were early adopters. Some are very unhappy with that, and I understand that. I can see that people feel they have in good faith invested but that has not been fully honoured by the government.
On the energy efficiency program, though, Keiran Rooney wrote a very good piece in the Age on 9 October where he pointed to these problems. He made the point that under the federal green scheme units are valued at about $36.05, whereas under the Victorian energy efficiency credit scheme units are hitting well over $100 – $108.50. While not every state scheme operates in the same way, no other scheme is priced at more than $41 per certificate. He goes on to say:
The Allan government said the programs differed because the federal scheme was intended to reduce emissions in areas such as forestry and agriculture, while the Victorian one was focused on saving households money through efficient appliances.
But they are paying of course. Minister D’Ambrosio said:
… the government would reform the program under new laws in a bid to reduce pressures on the system.
The changes will remove a strict time limit on when the certificates can be validated. They will also extend the scheme’s end date by 15 years to 2045. The state’s energy regulator, the Essential Services Commission, will also get stronger enforcement powers. But this is all very late in the piece and this is a minister who has failed. The Australian Energy Council in that same article pointed out that energy consumers are paying for increasing VEU costs, which have steadily grown since 2020 from around $30 to more than $100 now. The Victorian price, they said, is far too high, especially compared to other efficiency schemes in Australia, which is resulting in Victorian customers paying more for the scheme compared to other states.
The two-year review is underway. Victoria will set interim VEEC targets for retailers in 2026–27 while the two-year review is underway. A two-year review? Why do we need a two-year review? Why can’t we have a short, sharp review that deals with the issues and the problems in the program? This is households suffering and again just a lack of urgency by this government – a failure to understand that they have got to get moving, that they have got to get an efficient scheme in place. If you want to achieve your abatement objectives, run an efficient scheme. Do not run an inefficient scheme. If you want to run a fair program, do not slug the poor and pay the rich – find a way to actually run the scheme fairly. This government has not as yet done that. If you want to save money, do not deliver multiple fridges to local businesses. Do not deliver multiple fridges again and again to different sites when they clearly only need one or two maximum.
It is hard to think of a more shambolic scheme than the way this has been run. We all know this because we all get the calls. We all get the calls to replace the fan and this and that, which have been variously ineffective and rorted by many – that is the truth of the matter. This minister, this scheme: you have got to give them a very low mark, and it is, unfortunately for Victorian consumers, all purchased at a very, very high cost when families are really struggling in a cost-of-living crisis.
David LIMBRICK (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (10:47): I also rise to speak in support of this motion. I have spoken many times in here about the Victorian energy upgrades program. It is a magnet for mismanagement, rorting and inefficiency. There is barely anything positive that I can say about it. If you look at the carbon accounting that they use for it, this seems like this magical accounting system. I do not think there is anyone that seriously believes in our contribution to changing the weather through making people pay more on their electricity bills.
My only real concern with this motion and what Mr Davis is saying is the idea that somehow the Liberal Party can run it better and more efficiently. I would urge the Liberal Party to suck it up on this and admit the truth that the Victorian energy upgrades program needs to be abolished. That is what we need to do with it. If these figures are right, then that would result in a saving to all Victorians of $188 per annum on their electricity bill. All of this rorting and mismanagement would disappear instantly, and guess what, if there is a more efficient appliance for someone in the market, maybe they would buy it because it is more efficient rather than getting someone calling you up and saying you are going to get it for free, apparently.
I could go on and on and on about all of these crazy gadgets that companies have hoodwinked the government and energy companies into delivering. I have spoken before here about the chimney pillows. They came around and put pillows into people’s houses so that they would not get drafts. Of course because they were free, when the pillows inevitably burst there were none for sale that you could replace them with. Why would anyone sell something when it has been given away for free? They also gave out free compact fluorescent globes to everyone, which were soon made obsolete by LED lights, and now people have piles of these old compact fluorescent globes in their houses. The fridges, as was mentioned by Mr Davis – I wonder how many carbon emissions were saved in the accounting by those.
David Davis: Ferrying fridges around.
David LIMBRICK: Yes. I wonder how much those fridges changed the weather – probably not much, I would imagine. The whole scheme has no prospect of rehabilitation or efficiency, and I call on the government and the opposition to commit to abolishing this scheme.
Tom McINTOSH (Eastern Victoria) (10:50): Well, this has been quite riveting listening indeed, I must say. We know the Liberals do not have policies or a plan when it comes to energy. We know they cannot even mention the words ‘climate change’. The Nationals do have a plan; the only problem is that it is directed out of Queensland – obviously with no climate policies, but their energy plan is given to them by their masters in Queensland, so that is what they bring to the table. It is incredible – after 25 years of this conversation where we have recognised and understood we need to change the way that our energy is generated, they are unable to bring anything to the table.
Tom McINTOSH: So let us go through this slowly, Mr Davis. When a household consumes an item and when they have to pay for that item, if they can avoid consuming it, they will save money, and that is exactly what this program has done and will continue to do into the future. In the early days there was low-hanging fruit – incandescent lights, draught proofing, various matters – so that we could reduce the amount of electricity that Victorians were using within their homes.
Mr Davis turns his back because he does not want to listen; he just wants to reel off a few cherrypicked stats that he brings into the place.
Tom McINTOSH: It is interesting, Mr Davis – I will acknowledge Mr Welch is here, but of the rest of your colleagues there is not one here in the whole place. There is no-one here supporting you.
We reduce the demand within Victorians’ homes, and that reduces their energy bills. Another thing that happens when you reduce demand is that the cost to purchase that item goes down as well – supply and demand, which you guys might remember from last century and some of the things that you were believing in rather than just opposing. Not only has this government set up a scheme that has saved Victorians money in their own homes through minimising their energy consumption, it has also reduced the cost to every single Victorian when they purchase energy.
The other thing that this scheme does – because there are a couple of things, and I know it is hard for you guys to walk and chew gum over there – regards this little item called climate change, where emissions go into the atmosphere, trap the heat in the earth’s atmosphere and the earth warms up. Now we are at 1.5 degrees above 1850, pre-industrial levels. That is a little bit of a problem because our soils become less productive, from an agricultural perspective. The infrastructure that we built over the last hundred years, including transmission lines, was built for the climate we traditionally had on this part of the continent. As you get hotter and more humid conditions in the atmosphere, you get more violent storm events. We see that impact our infrastructure. We see that smash residents. We see the costs of insurance bills. I have talked about this many, many times. So Mr Davis, we need these policies to reduce our carbon emissions. I think it is 4.7 megatons per year that this program is reducing, and if we are looking at needing to get 80 megatons out of our atmosphere by our goal of 2045, with our net zero goals, this is making a substantial contribution. It is why we are down 42 per cent.
Mr Davis leaves the chamber once I start talking about emissions. He does not want to hear about emissions. He wants to scream and shout, but he does not want to actually talk about emissions. We are down 42 per cent on peak emissions in this state. That is why when dealing with this we need a collection of initiatives to drive those emissions down, to ensure we have generation and to ensure that our demand is as minimal as it can be to save Victorians as much money as possible. Mr Davis asks why we are looking at the program. First of all, let us acknowledge that New South Wales and Queensland have adopted the program, because it has been successful. As I have said, it has saved people money and it is driving down emissions. But it is also what is to come.
Whaling was the greatest source of energy 120 years ago. If Mr Davis had his way, we would still be whaling to fill lamps. We would be getting the oil out. But do you know what? They ran out of blue whales. It was not economic to send tonnes of blokes out on ships to harpoon whales and drag them in, so we found other ways. I am sure those on that side sat there 20 years ago saying, ‘Solar will never make it. Solar’s ridiculous, rah, rah, rah.’ In the 1980s it was $10 a watt. Then it was a dollar a watt. Now we are talking cents a watt. I am sure Ms Sheena Watt will thoroughly agree with what I am saying there.
But those opposite cannot comprehend new technologies. They cannot comprehend the fact that computers on our mobile phones, in our pockets, were once the size of this entire room. Now we carry around incredible technology in our pockets and we can communicate anywhere in the world, do our banking, all these sorts of things. Technology is emerging at an incredibly rapid rate. This program is going to need to continually evolve, because evolution is something that humans do, Mr Davis and those over there. You might deny that, but we do. The technologies that are going to be important in people’s homes are going to have to evolve with this program – things like electric vehicles, which those opposite will laugh at, even though I know that some of them do drive them because they can see the economic benefits of it.
Back to solar PV – home owners see the benefit of it, the economic benefit, which is why one-in-three Victorians have solar on their roofs. They are going to get batteries. They are going to get bidirectional meters so that the 60 or 70 kilowatts under the hood of their car can feed into their home, can support the grid as we continue to electrify. But those over there – they do not want to look forward; they want to look backwards. They want to say, ‘No, no, no.’ They do not want to acknowledge the thousands of jobs that are associated with this program. They do not want to acknowledge the health benefits of getting cleaner air quality within homes. They do not want to do any of that. Mr Davis wants to go off on a tangent, say a whole lot of big words that no-one understands out of some reports that he has cherrypicked –
Tom McINTOSH: he found. Another thing, I do not think Mr Davis’s credentials on remembering dollars and numerical figures at important times mean he should be lashing out and criticising others in this place. I think he should be very, very mindful on that front.
While Mr Davis condemns and while the Liberal Party bring nothing to the table – no plan and policy – this minister has got on and delivered this program, which has been taken up by other states and is going to be critical as we go forward in saving consumers money. Ever-evolving technologies are coming into the home, and we are seeing it all the time – smarter technologies that enable people to consume energy when it is at its cheapest. I did a little bit of googling on the internet recently. Mr Davis has regularly this year referred to baseload power, because he just does not get the fact that baseload power is now irrelevant. We have got a couple of peak periods at either end of the day, and the rest of the day we are flooded with solar. We have got prices going into the negative.
David Davis: I’ve just referred to the solar.
Tom McINTOSH: No, you have been on the record talking about baseload power, because you do not get how our generation system works. You do not understand how it works, and again –
David Davis: I do, actually.
Tom McINTOSH: No, you do not, and you cherrypick information. The technologies we are going to put in place so that Victorians can access the cheapest electricity to power their homes and lead their lives are the next step and the next phase of this program. Mr Davis and his colleagues would be well advised to get out of the dark ages, to stop being in the mentality of harpooning blue whales and understand where technology is going and go with it and save Victorians money along the way.
Richard WELCH (North-Eastern Metropolitan) (11:00): I rise to speak on this motion, motion 639, by Mr Davis. I have just listened to, I do not know, was it 10 or 15 minutes of gaslighting and deflection, where he talked about absolutely everything except the actual motion itself, because it is always a very good refuge, to go, ‘Well, let’s do some climate bashing of the Liberals.’ All the motion is talking about is whether or not the scheme is being administered efficiently, and clearly – mathematically, obviously, by comparison and by any measurement – it is not.
Why is it that everything the government does has no financial discipline whatsoever? You talk about the benefits. But you know what? With everything you do the benefits get blown out. You say, ‘You know what? The North East Link is a very good idea,’ but then you blow it out by $10 billion. And with the Suburban Rail Loop, when you said it was $54 billion to do –
Tom McIntosh: On a point of order, Acting President, the member was just talking about relevance to the motion, and I do not think he is being relevant to the motion.
The ACTING PRESIDENT (Michael Galea): I will direct the member back to the motion.
Richard WELCH: Thank you, Acting President. I will come back to the motion. But we are talking about value for money, and there are a number of projects around the state where we have been told, ‘It will cost.’ That obviously leaves the state worse off, and it will certainly leave the climate worse off, because we are not getting value for money in these schemes, especially compared to other states.
Why doesn’t the government ever properly intervene on these cost blowouts when and as they materialise? Why don’t they have the good governance structures in place so that they can actually intervene and amend them? What I notice in item (b) of the motion is:
the total cost impact of the Victorian program on industry and consumers likely to hit $652 million in 2024, representing a 30 per cent increase over just 12 months and a rise from $88 million a decade ago …
Why do these things never get addressed in real time? If you run any sort of project or any sort of program or if you are in charge of any kind of budget, you would be getting governance reports at least monthly, maybe quarterly, to say, ‘Here we are. Here’s how we’re tracking. This is how it’s going. Do we need to tick it off?’ But I imagine that these meetings must be very strange meetings where they go, ‘Okay, well, we’ve delivered 10 fridges. Good – tick’, ‘Do you want to look at the finances?’, ‘No, don’t worry about those’ – because that seems to be the way this government handles financial responsibility.
And why does the government continue to develop schemes almost specifically designed to hammer the working class and the middle class? I note in here that the Victorian energy efficiency certificate has become the most expensive in the country at $108 in October 2024, and I notice that the St Vincent report, as Mr Davis pointed out, refers to a number of equity issues around the share of cost impost in having these services. It does disproportionately affect the working class, the lower class, lower income families and the vulnerable. And why do we never have financial transparency? The costs of these schemes are buried within bills and not laid out cleanly and transparently. I note that today the Liberal and National parties made announcements about how we are committed to transparency, something that this government is allergic to.
Again, this motion is effective in just simply pointing out that there is no transparency, that the scheme is inequitable and being badly managed and that there are cost blowouts. None of these things the government ever seems to be able to address in real time. Why does it also seem to so often come back to the performance of the energy minister herself? Is there any project that she runs correctly, successfully, on budget, on time, to expectations and with consultation? I would love to see what a 360 review of her performance would be amongst stakeholders, peers, subordinates and others, because it would be very poor on this basis. I will leave my contribution there. I recommend this motion to the house.
Sarah MANSFIELD (Western Victoria) (11:05): The Greens will not be supporting this motion. However, we wholeheartedly agree that there are significant problems with the Victorian energy upgrades scheme, and we have made those concerns known on many occasions. We believe that the concept is a very worthwhile one, but we want to see it strengthened rather than condemned or abandoned so that this actually makes a meaningful difference to emissions. As we have already heard, there is clear evidence of some operators gaming the VEU, in part due to the price of the Victorian energy efficiency certificates, so it is clear that the VEU has issues. The government got it wrong in regulating the rollout of the replacement of household appliances, like its fridges scheme in 2023. I have actually seen some of these fridges. I was out in Birchip in my electorate of Western Victoria visiting some community facilities that had had fridges just arrive that they never asked for, that they did not need and that they had no use for and that were sitting there.
Clearly there is an issue with many aspects of the scheme and it is of course important that these failures are properly scrutinised and fixed, but the concept of subsidising electrification and energy efficiency remains core to a swift energy transition that brings the community along with it. The Greens stand by this. We cannot allow private interests to get in the way of moving towards net zero. The Greens have asked many times what role the SEC could play in support of consumer electrification and other interventions. Why can’t energy-efficient products be provided to Victorians directly instead of via third parties that are motivated by profit and perverse incentives? When that happens, that is what we see with things like the dumping of fridges and some of the light bulb scandals and other things, which have all been very well aired.
What we want to ensure is that there is integrity in emissions reductions achieved through this scheme. We have had multiple reports of businesses doorknocking residents offering energy-efficient appliances and products such as door seals and low-flow showerheads but then simply leaving these products with home owners – not installing them, not ensuring that old appliances are removed, or installing them in such a way that they fail within a few weeks, like door seals peeling off shortly after installation. None of this is actually going to have any meaningful impact on emissions reductions.
We know that the government wants to ensure that energy efficiency savings recorded through the VEU system are real savings that actually reduce real emissions. But how are they doing this? We should be really setting up rules that require homes to be energy-efficient in the first place. The government has the levers that it needs to do that; it just has not decided to actually pull those. The Greens have had bills before this Parliament – we have had many of them; we have brought them forward time after time – to introduce mandatory energy efficiency standards, particularly for rental properties, and mandatory disclosure or standards for homes at the point of sale. We have seen governments refuse to adopt those bills, but they are sensible reforms that when we are looking at the scale of the climate challenge make a lot of sense. It is those sorts of things we need to be doing.
In terms of a scheme like the VEU, again we believe that this is a really important concept. We do not want to see the government walk away from a program like this. But we have a lot of sympathy for aspects of this motion in that it absolutely has to have integrity and at the moment it does not. We need to be able to have confidence in the measures that are being used, we need to have confidence in the oversight and governance of this scheme and we need to, most importantly, have confidence that it is actually reducing emissions, and there are serious questions about whether it is doing that. So while we will not be supporting this motion before us today, I would really urge the government to take on board the concerns that are being raised and consider how the VEU could play a more effective role in our emissions reduction efforts.
Sheena WATT (Northern Metropolitan) (11:09): I rise today to oppose the bad-faith motion from those opposite. It is once again a case of Mr Davis getting all his facts from newspapers, as he quoted in his contribution, and none of them from the abundance of expert advice, apart from – and I will acknowledge this – cherrypicking some parts of Mr Dufty’s report. In fact I think it is worth saying that the Victorian energy upgrades (VEU) program is not simply a mechanism which will help us reach net zero by 2045, although it will contribute to us reducing our emissions by up to 33 per cent next year, by up to 50 per cent in 2030 and by up to 80 per cent in 2035 before finally reaching net zero emissions in 2045. It will not simply deliver renewable energy jobs for Victorian workers, although it is worth noting and celebrating that it is already supporting 2200 jobs across our state and our renewable energy transition will deliver 59,000 jobs by 2035.
The VEU is part of our plan to shore up our gas reserves, keep prices low and keep the lights on for future generations of Victorians. You see, by supporting Victorians to switch their household appliances to electric power we are taking pressure off our finite gas reserves by taking advantage of electric power, something I spoke to yesterday, which is increasingly generated from our renewable sources. We are keeping the lights on and delivering some of the lowest wholesale power prices in the country. Let us be very, very clear here: this is not just a scheme for Victorians who can afford the up-front costs of purchasing VEU products. When even a small number of Victorians purchase energy-efficient products through the VEU, the subsequent reduction in strain on the energy grid brings down everyone’s household bills. The VEU, combined with our record investment in renewable energy, is the main reason that Victorians have the lowest wholesale price in the national electricity market.
The Liberals claim that energy costs have surged faster in Victoria than in any other state, but they could not be more wrong. Victorians on the Victorian default offer continue to pay less on average for their electricity than those on the Australian Energy Regulator’s default market offer. Something I have spoken about before and will continue to highlight is the fact that between 2010 and 2020 the VEU program reduced wholesale electricity prices in our state on average by 2.2 per cent due to the reduced demand, and we will see even more impressive numbers in the next 12 months. Between 2021 and 2025 the VEU program will have allowed Victorians to avoid $3.8 billion in energy system costs, with households set to save $150 and businesses predicted to save $870. That is worth celebrating, and do not just take our word for it: Victorians have seen the value of the scheme and they are engaging in the VEU in their millions. You see, since the introduction of the VEU back in 2009 more than 2.4 million households and 170,000 businesses have taken advantage of the program, reducing our state’s emissions by an astounding 87.3 million tonnes.
This is how we know that Mr Davis could not be more out of touch. You see, constituents in his electorate have installed over 4000 VEU space heaters and hot-water heat pumps since the middle of last year, guaranteeing them savings on their electricity and energy bills. There have been over 500 electrification installations in Bayside, close to 1000 for both Glen Eira and Boroondara and a whopping 1400 for Monash. It is pumping out there in Monash.
Sheena WATT: Today’s motion certainly is not reflective of what the residents of the Southern Metropolitan Region want to see from their members, Mr Berger. Victorians know a good thing when they see it, and they voted with their feet. This motion is simply a time-wasting objection launched by a really noisy minority who cannot stand seeing working Victorians saving money and reducing their household emissions. This motion really is just the same old recycled lines that we have discussed time and time again in this place from a Liberal Party which has always had some strange, unexplained fixation with the VEU. Those opposite have always opposed the VEU for no other reason than an ideological objection to energy efficiency and electrification. They have tried time and time again, as we will recall, to undermine and even abolish the VEU, which does not make sense to the many thousands in the Southern Metropolitan Region who have taken advantage of this program. In fact when they were in government it was only because of their disunity as a party that they did not succeed in dismantling the VEU.
I am absolutely opposed to this motion, in part because I refuse to be lectured to by those opposite, who really have no plan for Victoria besides blocking progress towards renewable energy and emissions reduction goals, locking Victorians into some really unfair and high energy bills and effectively abolishing the 2200 jobs already generated by the VEU right here in this state. While they have been busy recycling the same old lines, they are continuing some really irrational hatred of the VEU, and they have been keeping it going for years – 15 years in fact. We are making sure that the VEU moves with the times because, like what was said by Mr McIntosh in his contribution, we are way beyond the times of lighting our lamps with blue whale, I have got to tell you. We know what responsible leadership and good governance look like. We are not wasting time. We are adapting, we are moving with the times and we are delivering. In fact in this year’s budget we allocated $5.9 million to conduct the strategic review of the VEU.
A member interjected.
Sheena WATT: Yes, that is right. We want to hear from experts, let me assure you, and not those opposite to understand how we can better strengthen the scheme to meet the financial challenges that households and businesses really are facing today. And we hear you. We have already started to see that Victorians are changing their expectations on energy upgrades. When we came to government we got straight to work by using the VEU to put Victorians to work in making some small upgrades in their homes, and we appreciate every single one of them that has done that. The evidence has now come in, and it is showing us that Victorians want assistance to equip their homes with larger electrified appliances like space heaters and heat pumps. Once again, we are wasting no time. Over 500 different types of space heaters and 190 heat pumps are now eligible for VEU discounts. This will save working Victorians up to $3600 in the case of space heaters and up to $600 per year on their energy bills when they take advantage of the scheme.
Let me turn to another element of the motion that was raised by Mr Davis, and that is the price of Victorian energy efficiency certificates – VEECs – and the $108 that was quoted. This is in fact an uncharacteristically high VEEC price. It is not the norm and trying to pass it off as such was a bad thing. VEECs have been trading higher than historically average recently, but prices had already begun to fall due to increased supply. We have increased supply by registering a range of new accredited providers and products with the VEU, and this has driven down consumer costs. In the last fortnight alone it is worth noting that VEEC prices have fallen by $5, and if those opposite want to argue that $5 here and there does not make a difference, then I suggest they get out and talk to some Victorian households, because, I tell you what, Victorians are feeling the pinch, and we are responding appropriately.
I will close today by challenging the remarks made by Mr Davis and of course by his colleague Mr Welch about Minister D’Ambrosio and the language that is used in this motion. I have got to tell you, without the Allan Labor government and the determined leadership of Minister D’Ambrosio we would not be where we are on the path to incredibly bold climate action. Victoria would not be where it is right now. We are enormously proud that we have legislated our targets in emissions and legislated net zero, and of course here we have now put measures in the constitution to defend and protect the SEC for future generations. While others might want to talk about waste and incompetence and exacerbated cost-of-living pressures, here on this side we are about getting on with it, serving the communities of Victoria and making sure that the VEU continues to be a part of that. Thank you very much for the opportunity to make a contribution today.
Bev McARTHUR (Western Victoria) (11:19): I am very happy to support Mr Davis’s motion 639, which:
(1) notes the government’s mismanagement of its Victorian energy upgrade program, which has seen:
(a) Victorians paying up to three times more for a tonne of carbon dioxide removed from the atmosphere under the state’s program compared with other equivalent schemes in other Australian jurisdictions;
(b) the total cost impact of the Victorian program on industry and consumers likely to hit $652 million in 2024, representing a 30 per cent increase over just 12 months and a rise from $88 million a decade ago;
(c) the Victorian energy efficiency certificate –
misnamed –
become the most expensive in the country, at $108.50 in October 2024;
(d) Victorian households pay $188 per annum per household using 6000 kilowatt hours of electricity per annum in green scheme bill payments, non-transparently incorporated in the energy bills of Victorian consumers;
(e) the Victorian government deliver multiple refrigerators to the premises of individual small businesses as part of a rort;
(f) the Victorian scheme placed under review; and
(2) condemns the Minister for Energy and Resources for her waste, incompetence and the additional load she has thoughtlessly placed on Victorian families during a cost-of-living crisis.
First of all, it is a real shock that a government program like this has been poorly run, isn’t it. Mr Davis has talked about the fridge fiasco, and obviously we all remember those headlines. But embarrassing though it was, it is easy for Minister D’Ambrosio to attempt to dismiss these ludicrous scenes of fridges piling up as outliers, unavoidable mistakes in the administration of any large scheme. The fact is, though, that even when the scheme did work it was a dud, like the fridges. A constituent wrote to me:
The fridge that was delivered to me in early March did not work. The invoice accompanying the fridge showed that the fridge had a value of $3899 … A similar fridge I could purchase from local suppliers for $2200–2400, but it would be working and fully supported with warranty and back from the supplier.
Eventually, after much time and effort, my constituent got the fridge replaced. But the story did not end there. As he wrote:
This fridge is a Chinese manufactured second like the first one I received. The shelving is not level and drink bottles just fall over not to mention that the temperature is yet to reach the 3 degrees I have set it for … the cabinet is out of square, leaving a gap in the doors.
Finally:
The problem now is, that I get no response, from the supplier or the manufacturer … since the government stopped the program.
He concluded:
… why is the tax payer being rorted and paying for a program that has not been managed or made accountable for the supply of defective and second class over priced poorly manufactured fridges.
Nor was this an isolated issue. In one small community in my electorate businesses were inundated. In Queenscliff a restaurant owner I know well, Donnie Grigau, received multiple phone calls a day and actual visits from the scammers. He said:
I kept getting these phone calls from people pushing these fridges on me. I didn’t want them, and don’t need them, but the calls kept coming, and then the salesmen arrived at my restaurant door …
Across the road at the Vue Grand Hotel, Kate Matherson could not stop the fridges arriving:
Box after box arrived at my hotel door. What to do with them? I’ve now had to go to the bother of having them collected …
The fridges are not suitable for food-grade use and were only appropriate for drinks. To complete the farce, the fridges had to be on public display, all six or 10 of them – I ask you.
But it is not just that businesses got six fridges; they got six useless fridges. They were not even cold enough. They did not even work. Then to cap it all, the scammers who delivered the multiple fridges magically disappeared as they broke down. Businesses had to pay to have the junk fridges carted off and disposed of. What a waste – how environmentally wasteful is this. In what kind of world are we manufacturing cheap junk to meet environmental targets and then scrapping it right away? This is exactly what happens when you have tick-box schemes like this. It is the kind of mess you get with virtue-signalling schemes where the government use someone else’s money – the poor taxpayer – to artificially intervene in a market with the sole purpose of winning votes in the green battle and to sound like they are solving a problem.
The fridges make the headlines and obviously that was symptomatic of Minister D’Ambrosio’s failing system, but there is a much bigger underlying problem. Cancelling the fridge scheme was just window-dressing, addressing the symptom, not the cause. The program itself is the problem. The fridges might now be buried in landfill, but the cost persists every day. The cost of carbon abatement through the VEU program has escalated significantly. I looked at the spot prices today. They are still over $100 each, adding $200 to a typical home’s annual energy bill. It is yet another hidden cost on energy bills. In the last few weeks I have repeatedly mentioned the $256 million in land tax which the state government harvests from AusNet for transmission line easements, which has recouped every single cent of it from Victorian bill payers. It is the reason that Victorian electricity bills are three times higher than the actual cost of the electricity we are buying – three times higher, not 3 per cent or 30 per cent but more like 300 per cent. And this extra weight is not just environmental costs – at least that would be of some benefit. A significant amount is how poorly the scheme is administered.
With the VEU scheme, as with so many things, doing business costs more in Victoria. Victorian energy efficiency certificates are the most expensive carbon credits in Australia. By comparison, Australian carbon credit units, ACCUs, which also measure carbon savings per tonne, are priced at approximately $36 per unit. New South Wales energy savings certificates currently trade at around $30 per tonne mitigated, with the South Australian retailer energy productivity scheme, REPS, at a similar level. The scheme’s total cost to industry and consumers is projected to reach $652 million by 2024. A decade ago it was $88 million. Where is this going to stop? At some point Victorian individuals and businesses will be completely broken.
The review announced by Labor is overdue, a recognition of failure, and as Mr Davis said, how could it possibly take two years? But even the review is costing $5.9 million, and probably that will escalate too under your lot. You cannot do anything on time and on budget. I doubt you could even do a review on time and on budget. There is absolutely no end to the amount of money you will waste, no end to the incompetence of this minister and this government when it comes to energy. You are total failures, and you need to recognise it. But in any case, now we are going to have a review for two years. You can just see the excuses, can’t you, Mr Limbrick: ‘Well, we can’t discuss that before the election because we’re having a review.’ No, you have to end this nonsense, and if you are going to do anything, do it efficiently and do it properly, and you do not need to take two years to work out how to do it.
Ryan BATCHELOR (Southern Metropolitan) (11:29): We know that the Liberals are opposed to renewable energy, we know that the Liberals are opposed to lowering our greenhouse gas emissions, we know that the Liberals are opposed to energy efficiency programs – that is true – and we know that the Liberals are opposed to the energy savings that households gain from the energy efficiency programs provided by Labor, because that is the effect of the motion that Mr Davis is moving today. That is the intent of the motion today. It is to oppose the way the Victorian energy upgrades program is being run in this state. He does not want households to get the benefits of more energy-efficient appliances, and he does not want households to get the benefits of lower power prices as a result.
They are opposed to action on climate change, and they are opposed to helping households lower their energy bills and end up with more in their pockets, off their energy prices, because the Liberals want the cost of running your home, of heating your home and of cooling your home to go up and up and up, whereas Labor, through the energy upgrades program, wants to help households lower their energy costs by providing more energy-efficient household appliances. That is exactly the intent of this motion, and that is exactly the intent of the agenda that sits behind what Mr Davis is promoting here today.
The Victorian energy upgrades program is a flagship energy efficiency program here in Victoria, and it has been a massive success, saving households and businesses thousands of dollars in reduced energy costs and helping our environment by reducing greenhouse gas emissions. What we see from the opposition, what we see from the Liberal Party in their continued attack on programs that support households to become more energy-efficient is a lack of concern for lowering greenhouse gas emissions and a lack of concern for households in the system. It is not the first time that they have been in the Parliament trying to get rid of this program. They have hated it since it began. They tried to abolish it years ago, and ever since there has been a relentless campaign of opposition from the Liberal Party to this program that is saving households money, because that is exactly what it has done. But it has also helped reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the state. In 2023 the Victorian energy upgrades program helped reduce Victoria’s greenhouse gas emissions by 4.7 million tonnes – 4.7 million tonnes last year in greenhouse gas abatement.
The program has been running for a number of years. It has had multiple successes. As you would expect –
Bev McArthur: Such as?
Ryan BATCHELOR: I will come to the successes, Mrs McArthur. I am so glad you asked – I will get to that in just a minute.
As you would expect, when a program has been running over the course of many years, seeking to help Victorians reduce their energy costs – and it has been popular and successful – we have had waves of activity on household energy efficiency items that have been able to be improved. As that program has rolled out over its time, we have obviously dealt with much of the low-hanging fruit. In those circumstances it has been appropriate – it is appropriate – as responsible and prudent administrators of programs and managers of funds that we do administrative reviews of these programs, because that is what good governments should do. There are of course ways that every program can be improved. We accept that; we do not deny it. What we want to do is make this popular program even better, and that is the point of the review.
One of the things I want to point out and one of the things that I think is exceptionally important in the context of a debate about the Victorian energy upgrades program is what impact it is having on households. I am exceptionally proud that more than 4000 space heaters and hot-water pumps have been installed since the middle of last year in the Southern Metropolitan Region, saving thousands on energy bills. We had close to 1000 electrification upgrades under the VEU in Glen Eira and Boroondara last year, 1400 in Monash and more than 500 electrification installations in the City of Bayside.
I mention this in particular because it was in the City of Bayside, in the suburb of Hampton, that the Minister for Energy and Resources Lily D’Ambrosio and I went and visited one of these installations recently, and we met Bob and Pat, who had taken advantage of the Victorian energy upgrades program to convert their old, inefficient gas ducted heating system to a new electric heat pump, and they had taken advantage of the Victorian energy upgrades program to do that installation. Bob and Pat could not have been happier with the support that they had gotten from the program, with the way that the installers had operated, with the savings that they had achieved on the cost of the installation and with the ongoing savings that they were going to make every year from replacing their old, inefficient ducted gas heating system with a modern energy-efficient electric heat pump and better insulated ducting. They were rapt about the program; they could not have been happier. But it was not the first piece of electrification that Bob and Pat had done in their house. It was the next phase, because prior to this they had already made the decision on their own that they wanted to electrify their kitchen and so had removed their old gas cooktop and put in place a new induction cooktop. When we sat and asked Pat what it was like, Pat said in no uncertain terms that she absolutely loved it.
What this I hope demonstrates – this one example, one anecdote, just one, of a constituent of mine and a constituent of Mr Davis – is an example of the more than 500 in Bayside and more than 4000 across the Southern Metropolitan Region last year who are benefiting from the support that the Victorian energy upgrades program is providing in terms particularly of electrification of heating and hot-water services in Victorian homes: tangible benefits delivering real savings on costly items to people that we represent who want to do what is best for the environment and what is best to reduce greenhouse gases in our community. It is important to them – in Bob and Pat’s case they are retirees on fixed incomes – that they are saving money when they do it.
That is what the Victorian energy upgrades program is all about: reducing energy consumption, reducing greenhouse gas emissions and saving households money. The Liberal Party may be opposed to each and every one of those three things. Labor supports energy efficiency. We support reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and we support helping Victorians lower the cost of the energy they use in their own homes and saving them money.
John BERGER (Southern Metropolitan) (11:39): This is yet another attempt from the Victorian Liberals to create an alternative reality where Victorians are losing out by getting cleaner and cheaper energy. Honestly, what a joke. The fact that Victoria has set the most ambitious emissions reduction target of any jurisdiction in Australia should be a point of pride. But those across from us have no concept of what Victorians actually want. They have no vision for Victorians. All they have to offer is negativity and fearmongering. However, on this side of the chamber we are actually only concerned with getting on with one thing, and that is a better Victoria across all areas of life.
The Allan Labor government has made significant strides in our efforts to achieve this, and we will continue to vastly improve Victoria. This is because we are dedicated to achieving something for Victorians, a sentiment those across from me do not seem to be able to be worried about. From housing to health, the Liberals have no clue what we are talking about. They just say no. But you do not get outcomes with that attitude. It does nothing for Victorian people. After all, it is the Allan Labor government achieving the outcomes in cheaper energy, not John Pesutto’s embattled Liberal Party.
The Victorian energy upgrades scheme has been a resounding success under the Allan Labor government’s management and will continue to deliver cheaper and cleaner energy across the state. We as a state need to move forward and create futureproof living with energy efficient appliances. I am sure I do not have to explain the current consensus on climate change and its effects. This is one of the most pressing issues that we as a society face. Something must be done to address it. Without meaningful change the community will suffer. This is why in 2023 we made the Victorian energy upgrades scheme all electric. It is efforts like these that will set Victoria apart in coming years. Climate change certainly is not going away anytime soon, and the impacts are just going to get worse. Because of these basic facts, something needs to be done, and I am certain the Victorian people would rather a government that cares about their future than a government that only pretends when it is convenient.
As this motion is concerned with the financial reality of Victorian energy upgrades, it is important to acknowledge the financial reality of the climate crisis, so let us talk about that. Old appliances cost more. They cost more in the long run. Gas appliances are dangerous and much more expensive than electric appliances. Older appliances do not work like they used to, and they certainly cannot match the quality of newer appliances on the market. My colleague Mr Davis has mentioned the cost of energy upgrades but has conveniently neglected to include the expected savings. An upgraded heating system can save Victorian families up to $600 a year and upgraded hot-water systems can save up to $200 a year. That is not small change; this is hundreds of dollars a year for Victorian families.
Beyond the cost, what about the environmental impact? The Victorian energy upgrades scheme is expected to cause a reduction of 28 million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions. It is estimated that it is the equivalent of the greenhouse gas emissions made by 8.5 million cars a year. This scheme has essentially garnered the same result as removing nearly 9 million cars from the roads every year. If only it did something about the traffic as well. In all seriousness, these are goals that the Victorian government needs to strive towards. Climate change is a threat to everyone’s way of life, certainly not least of all our proud agricultural workers, who the Liberals’ coalition partners claim to represent. From parts of inner Melbourne like my community of Southern Metro to Victoria’s food bowl, Gippsland and the Mallee, we will all suffer if nothing else gets done to address the emissions.
I am proud to be a member of a government that is continuing to fairly deliver for a better future for Victorians. The best part of all of this is that Victorians are set to have access to the energy upgrades scheme for longer. The current legislation that presides over the Victorian energy upgrades scheme will expire in 2030. Due to the scheme’s ongoing success and the ongoing benefits it brings to Victoria, the Allan Labor government intends to extend this legislation to 2045. This means more time for Victorian families and businesses to upgrade appliances, more time to save money in the short term and in the long run. The fact of the matter is this scheme is working and it is helping Victorians.
This motion completely disregards the fact that this is a worthwhile expense and that it is already paying off for its participants. The motion completely disregards that this is good for Victorians. Further, this legislation to extend the energy upgrades scheme will also implement measures to lower the cost of Victorian energy efficiency certificates. This is in Mr Davis’s motion, so I am sure he will be interested in hearing this. Victorian energy efficiency certificates will no longer be required to be created by 31 January of the previous year. As a result, this will drive down demand and therefore drive prices down. Additionally, the government will be forming a review over the next two years to see how the Victorian energy upgrades scheme can be improved.
I hope this can put some of Mr Davis’s concerns to rest. After all, the numbers overwhelmingly show that the Victorian energy upgrades scheme is a net benefit for Victorians. As for the statements regarding the Minister for Energy and Resources, the Liberals are simply spouting more unnecessary negativity and centralised talking points. The minister and the department have been prolific in delivering for Victorians. For example, without supporting infrastructure Victorians would not be able to look to a future with cheaper energy. These initiatives not only will make for a cleaner and cheaper energy market in Victoria but they will also deliver countless jobs across the state, especially in regional areas.
The opposition, I am sure, is quite confused by this prospect, as they seem to think it is the responsibility of the government to slash services and shut down facilities. That could be the only explanation as to why they are categorically against taking any steps to make a better Victoria. It is incredibly disappointing. What did their friend in the other place the member for Malvern do the second he became the Minister for Energy and Resources? He slashed every single emission reduction commitment made by the previous Labor government. What did we do when we came back into government in 2014? We got right back to work on bringing about a cleaner Victoria. We have worked tirelessly since to deliver that promise to the Victorian people. As for affordability of energy in Victoria, those across from me claim to care about it. Where was this sentiment when they cut the energy concessions by $11 million? They are disingenuous about their concerns for the Victorian people and must resort to attacking ministers, who are generally concerned for the wellbeing of the Victorian public. They employ A-grade hypocrisy to score cheap points without any regard for the shambles they inevitably leave behind every time they gain office.
To paint a picture of the scope of what Mr Davis is actually attacking in this motion, I would like to discuss some of the other parts of the Allan Labor government’s energy agenda that will drive cheaper, cleaner energy for Victoria. Just last month the Allan Labor government opened the first hydro-powered facility in Australia – the Hycel Technology Hub, running out of Deakin University in Warrnambool – which will set Victoria on the path to a cleaner future.
David Davis: On a point of order, President, this motion is very directly and clearly about the energy upgrades program. The member just indicated that he is about to talk about other programs which are not the subject of the motion. It is exactly what he said. He said, ‘I’m going to talk about other programs.’ Actually, this is about a different point.
The PRESIDENT: I think this debate, from what I have managed to take in, has been quite broad ranging as far as energy goes, so I will let Mr Berger continue.
John BERGER: Along with creating 200 jobs in regional Victoria –
John BERGER: In your area, Mrs McArthur. The hydro cell technology will expand our capacity to develop and ultimately implement hydrogen technology in the coming years. The hub will be co-located with South West TAFE, offering significant training opportunities for the future. The Hycel Technology Hub is important to the future of Victoria as it offers cheaper energy solutions in fields such as aviation and freight. It is one thing to transition home appliances and the like, it is another to transition our transportation industries. This will seriously put Victoria at the forefront of the future of emissions reduction technology, all thanks to the Allan Labor government’s dedication to net neutrality.
We are also building solar up in the north, in Benalla and Wangaratta, with shovels in the ground as late as October. The northern regions are set to get a 250-megawatt solar farm capable of powering tens of thousands of homes, and of course the Golden Plains wind farm announced out in the west will power nearly 1 million homes. This is all news from just last month. The Allan Labor government is building a cleaner Victoria and creating thousands of jobs in the process.
In hearing this motion I was curious about what the Liberals propose we do. I understand that they are somewhat embattled at the moment, but they offer no meaningful alternative for Victorians. Without advancements in technology Victorians will suffer. Programs for cleaner energy need to be implemented. The Victorian energy upgrades program is essential to the future of our state, and the perpetual naysaying does absolutely nothing for Victorian people.
In wrapping up my contribution to the discussion on this motion, I would just like to reiterate one thing: the Allan Labor government is delivering for Victorians. The Victorian energy upgrades program does more for Victorians in respect to not just climate action but jobs and financial support.
Jacinta ERMACORA (Western Victoria) (11:49): I am happy to sum up. I could start with the statement ‘I disagree with the proposition in your motion,’ but that would be a massive understatement – massive. This motion is a complete conflation of the impacts of privatisation and the private market operation and a reform strategy – a complete conflation of two separate things altogether. Then it has drawn on what are quite reasonable numbers and completely made up a set of conclusions that match your ideological view of the world over there. This motion contains a completely distorted set of calculations. It is a fugly-wugly hotchpotch, really, of concepts, and I do not support in any way, shape or form the whole premise of this motion. In fact it is a complete mixture of ideological principles really tilted towards underpinning your dinosaur approach to fossil fuels and your obsession with the past. It just shows again, as referred to by my colleague Mr Berger earlier, how much of a muck-up game you would play with the transition to renewable energy should you get authority to do so. You would absolutely stuff it up completely – technical language. Once again Mr Davis feels the need to waste the house’s time making spurious attacks on climate and energy strategies. The Liberals continue to fight the same old tired climate change denialist points from 10 years ago. Absolutely nothing new – out from the old drawer, polish it up a bit, put a few new ideas around it.
Well, the world has moved on, and Victorians agree with us. More than 2 million households and 150,000 business premises have taken part since this program, which is the topic of this motion, began. Victorians have taken up rebates for 19,000 reverse-cycle air conditioners and 39,000 hot-water systems, contributing to a reduction of 28 million tonnes of emissions. Does that sound like mismanagement? Absolutely not. Victorians can see the value the scheme provides, and they are choosing to take part in the Victorian energy upgrades program and move away from polluting, expensive fossil fuels. Victorians are on board with this. As their devices age out in kitchens and businesses around the state, they are going for affordable, renewable installations. I just condemn utterly the concept of this motion.
David DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan) (11:53): Well, we have been treated to one of the more bizarre contributions that we have seen for quite a while. She clearly did not have a clue what she was talking about. Let us just be very clear what this motion is about, noting that a number on the Labor backbench have been given the speaking notes and they have gone off on a frolic. This is not about whether you agree or disagree with climate change. This is not about whether there should be an efficiency energy upgrade program of some type in the state. This is about saying that the current program is being mismanaged by the current minister and that there is considerable waste and mismanagement in the program, and that is simply a statement of fact. It is actually a statement of fact. Nobody thinks that having the highest Victorian energy efficiency certificate figure in the country is a good idea. Nobody thinks that spending far more than you should spend to get equivalent abatement in other states is a good idea. Nobody thinks that the cost per household, at $188 in Victoria, which is far more – go and look at Gavin Dufty’s figures on pages 17 and 18 of his report – than in other states –
Members interjecting.
David DAVIS: Well, this is right. It is actually a very thoughtful report. It is a factual report. Nobody thinks that these high charges that are cross-subsidising an inefficient program are the way to go. People think: if you want an energy efficiency scheme, run it efficiently, and you will get more abatement for the impact and the cost. Whatever number you choose that you want for the scale of your program, you have to run it efficiently to get the maximum abatement. This is not actually a complex issue here.
The idea that the scheme is being placed under review and the government is going to extend it to 2045 without seeing the review – why does it take two years to do a review? And millions of dollars – we have heard $2 million or more on the review. Why does it take two years and millions of dollars to do a review of a scheme that is being run inefficiently and that has the highest cost amount for schemes in Victoria and the highest rate for abatement around the country? Why would we not say, ‘Let’s get the house in order; let’s make sure the scheme runs efficiently and we can do more with it’? We heard a list of appliances that have been replaced. Well, if that is a good thing, why not more of that? If you run the scheme efficiently, why not more of that?
Actually, that is what the motion says, and it says the minister does not have an idea what she is doing and she has mismanaged the scheme – and she has. Those images should stick in people’s minds: six or eight fridges lined up out the front, delivered courtesy of Lily D’Ambrosio. Here you go – not just one fridge, two fridges, three fridges or four fridges but six fridges in some cases. Six fridges, and these, dare I say, goons who contributed to part of this actually seem to think that that is a good scheme. Well, I do not think it is a good scheme. I think it is a scheme that has been badly run, and it should be run properly.
Council divided on motion:
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
Motion negatived.
Business interrupted pursuant to sessional orders.