Wednesday, 27 November 2024

Motions

Climate change

Debate resumed.

Bev McARTHUR (Western Victoria) (12:50): I rise to oppose this totally misguided motion, which is yet another example of symbolic politics over substance. The declaration of a so-called ‘our climate emergency’ might make some people feel virtuous, but it does nothing to solve the real challenges facing the nation. Climate has always been subject to natural variations, and blaming coal and gas for every extreme weather event oversimplifies a highly complex issue. And as Ms Bath spoke about, emissions from bushfires are a major contributor. In fact the St Patrick’s Day fires in Dr Mansfield’s and my electorate were actually totally caused by electrical elements and out-of-control roadside vegetation. We need to balance the argument, look at the multiple causes but also weigh up the consequences of our actions to fight climate change. That does not mean we should do nothing, but we cannot allow climate alarmism to trump all other considerations.

Let us not forget the human cost of demonising fossil fuels. The coal and gas industries support thousands of hardworking Australians: mothers, fathers and young people building a future. They provide a cheap and reliable source of energy. Just look at what is happening to New South Wales, where we do not approve and build new coal and gas projects. Closing coal power stations for the sake of ideology places more pressure on the few existing ones. Thousands of New South Wales households and businesses are facing a threat of rolling blackouts due to the hot weather. This is not due to our reliance on coal but the failure to admit that coal and gas are abundant and reliable energy sources.

Then there is the hypocrisy. Those pushing this motion live in a world powered by the very energy sources they claim to despise. They fly on planes and enjoy all the comforts of modern life, all while calling for the industries that make it possible to be shut down. It is the height of arrogance to expect everyday Australians to shoulder the burden of their ideological fantasies. And make no mistake, if we do not produce these resources, nations with far lower environmental standards will gladly step in, and the global climate will be worse for it. Higher energy costs have real consequences, especially for industry. We are just offshoring our guilt. Australia’s manufacturing jobs are lost. The products are made elsewhere, probably at lower labour and environmental standards, and then we re-import them from halfway across the world. I am a fan of free trade, and I understand our entire modern economy, indeed our civilisation, relies on specialisation. This division of labour increases efficiency, productivity and quality. I just find it ironic that the unwitting cheerleaders for this turbocharged globalisation are actually environmental activists.

This motion also exposes the Labor government’s double standards. They talk a big game about climate emergencies but have approved 28 new coal and gas projects since coming to power – three of those were just this September. If they truly believed their own rhetoric, they would not have done so. Instead, they pander to activists and Greens members with one hand while quietly approving projects with the other, because they know the economy cannot survive without fossil fuels. We need a balanced, practical approach to energy and emissions, not an alarmist agenda that jeopardises our industries and economy. Innovation, not elimination, should be our goal. By investing in cleaner technology, such as nuclear energy, and improving the efficiency of our existing industries, we can continue to meet global demand while reducing emissions responsibly.

I reject this motion and call on the house to stand up for common sense. If we left it to the Greens, we would all be riding bikes and using candles. Labor have obviously woken up to the fact that we need to keep the lights on and the factories operating, so of course they need to approve new coal and gas projects. They will need to approve many more if we are to keep up, let alone improve our standard of living.

If the Greens were really concerned about zero emissions, they would promote a move to nuclear energy, but the Greens are driven by misguided ideology instead of facts and common sense. And if the Greens were genuinely concerned about the environment, they would be championing the undergrounding of transmission instead of bastardising the pristine environment and farming land with above-ground transmission lines. Left to the Greens and others we would all be eating tofu and kale and getting a cannabis fix, and left to the Greens we would continue to pollute the environment by burning waste and creating methane emissions while the Scandinavian environmental warriors, who I am sure are their friends, and many other nations use waste to energy as a totally clean, efficient way of disposing of waste.

One thing the Greens are good at is generating hot air. Their hot-air emissions are legendary but totally unproductive. If the City of Melbourne wants to actually use their hot-air monitors, they might need to hover above this place when the Greens are in full flight. I totally reject this motion of the Greens, and we should all stand up for common sense and logic in the energy space.

Sitting suspended 12:56 pm until 2:02 pm.

Sonja TERPSTRA (North-Eastern Metropolitan) (14:02): I rise to make a contribution on this motion raised by the Greens condemning federal Labor for approving new coal and gas projects. I am also aware that Ms Watt has moved amendments to this motion, which I wholeheartedly support. I think they are fantastic amendments and very worthy for us to explore. I had the benefit of listening to contributions by others in this chamber earlier, and I wholeheartedly agree with the contribution Ms Ermacora made, a very well thought through contribution by Ms Ermacora on this motion. Despite what Mr Davis said, I strongly disagree with his very impertinent sledge about Ms Ermacora’s contribution. I think it was a fine contribution and one that will be remembered as being very worthy indeed.

The motion talks about a climate emergency, burning fossil fuels and condemns the federal government. Again, I note Ms Watt’s contribution, which calls on the Greens parliamentary party and their members to continue resigning their seats to run at the next federal election if they are more interested in the federal government, because clearly the issues that they are talking about in their substantive motion are matters that are for the federal government. I do not know, last time I looked, Ms Ermacora, we were in the state Parliament of Victoria, and it is really not a matter for our jurisdiction, I would have thought. You have to wonder about and question the motivations of the Victorian Greens in moving such a motion, given the timing of an upcoming federal election. You can see that what the Victorian Greens are doing is trying to use the Victorian Parliament as a means of campaigning on federal issues, which is something that the former member for Northern Metropolitan used to do all the time in this place. I am sure that Victorians want our time in Parliament used for Victorians.

However, having said that, there is no other government in Australia at a state level who has done more on climate change than not only the Andrews Labor government but the Allan Labor government. There is so much that I could talk about in terms of action on climate and renewable energy – there is just so much that we could talk about. I know that the Minister for Environment and Minister for Climate Action, the Honourable Lily D’Ambrosio in the other place, was saying yesterday that we have just released a report that talks about where we are up to with our renewable energy targets. We have not got there yet but we are in advance of where we were projected to be for this time in terms of bringing down emissions. We have now brought down our carbon emissions by 31 per cent, which is a fantastic result. Of course I know the Greens will always say, ‘It’s never enough. It’s never fast enough. It’s never good enough.’ But it is – it is fantastic, because no other government in Australia has done as much as this government in its commitment towards renewable energy, putting solar on rooftops and the like.

Let me just talk about, for example, some of the stuff we are doing on solar. Solar Victoria has supported over 36,000 installations in Victoria and also supported over 280,000 installations of solar photovoltaics in Victoria. Seven-and-a-half thousand solar PV systems have been installed at rental properties – for renters. There you go. The program has surpassed an energy generation capacity of 2 gigawatts bigger than the Yallourn power station. We have supported the installation of over 16,200 batteries through rebates and loans. We have supported the installation of over 30,000 hot water systems, and the Solar Homes program will create over 5,500 new jobs.

That is just on the solar aspect. Now I am going to touch on renewables. In 2022–23 over 38 per cent of electricity generated in Victoria came from renewables, which is more than three times the 10 per cent we inherited in 2014. Since 2014, 59 projects providing 4471 megawatts of new capacity have come online. There are nine projects currently under construction which will provide a further 1314 megawatts of capacity, and we have created over 5100 jobs in large-scale renewable energy since we were elected. There is so much I could talk about in regard to this government’s commitment to solar, to renewable energy and the like – there is just so much.

What we see from the Greens is that they want to talk about the federal Labor Party –

David Davis interjected.

Sonja TERPSTRA: Well, Mr Davis, I think I am entitled to make my contribution in silence, thank you, without your assistance. We know that those opposite have no plan for Victoria’s energy future. You have nothing. You built nothing before, and you have got no commitment to a clean energy future. Your party is full of climate sceptics. You have only got to look at Peter Dutton and his commitment to nuclear. I mean, honestly. Mrs McArthur, are you going to have a nuclear power plant in your electorate, on your farm – no, I think you actually support solar. But the point is that the commitment by Peter Dutton to nuclear means that, if this went ahead – if Peter Dutton was to get elected and we ended up with nuclear – we would have the most expensive electricity per kilowatt hour and we would be waiting another 20 or 30 years for it to actually happen. We cannot wait, because we know that climate change is real, despite what the Liberal opposition say here and what they say in Canberra, because they are full of climate sceptics. You have only got to look at Matt Canavan, who is wedded to coal and has all sorts of messages in his background when he talks to camera. He has got all these messages about coal. So we know what their stripe is when it comes to climate change, and we know that the federal Liberal opposition and their counterparts here in Victoria are climate sceptics.

Victorians know it too, because they voted for a Labor government that made clear commitments toward renewable energy and solar on rooftops and batteries and the like. They have voted for us a number of times now, so it is clear that Victorians know the difference between a government that is committed to doing something about our climate situation and also committed to renewable energy and the stark contrast – you have no policy over there. What is your policy? I would really like to know what the Liberal–National coalition’s policy is on renewable energy. It is nothing. You peddle these conspiracy theories about secret stores of gas that can power Victoria. I mean, on and on and on it goes. There is no credibility in anything the opposition has to say on that. And you want to pretend that you are living in the past, flush with abundant fossil fuels and gas to power the next industrial revolution. Well, that all sounds very nice, but it is a fiction. The only policies that you have in place are to strangle renewables and promote nuclear energy. Now, we all know what is going to happen if we end up with nuclear here in Victoria. As I said, we are going to have the most expensive power per kilowatt hour, and we will be waiting decades and decades.

Might I just direct everyone’s attention in the chamber to Hinkley C, which I think is horrendously over budget – and how many years behind now? It is in the billions of dollars and so many years behind, and they are still waiting. So go right ahead and hitch your wagon to nuclear – it is one of the worst examples. You want to talk about blowouts – how about that? They should stand here in this chamber and debate the merits of nuclear power. We can bring up time and time and time and time again the examples of nuclear power overseas that have become – not even built – horrendously over time and horrendously over budget, and where they have been built, the cost of power per kilowatt hour is horrendously expensive. God forbid that you lot ever get into government, because we know what would happen. It would be an omnishambles of nuclear proportions – something that the state would never recover from. Because I tell you what, something this state has also never recovered from is when Jeff Kennett sold off the SEC. It has still taken us decades and decades to bring it back, and it will be an important part of our renewable energy mix into the future and Victorians love it. I commend the amended motion to the house, and we do not support this ridiculous motion.

Richard WELCH (North-Eastern Metropolitan) (14:12): In the time I have available, what is implicit in this motion is the fact that basically the Greens want to get rid of coal and gas immediately, straightaway, and there are real dangers in ignoring reality and not seeing the world as it really is. We cannot be selling the community a fantasy, because when reality eventually catches up with you it lands with a punch. But I cannot understand why Labor are opposing this, because fantasy policies and projects are their line and length – that is exactly what they do. They want to ban gas exploration for 10 years and then expect to go over to gas. (Time expired)

Sarah MANSFIELD (Western Victoria) (14:13): I thank members for their contributions – I think. When people want to understand why governments are not taking meaningful action on climate change, I think they just need to have a look at the debate that has taken place here today. Labor in particular have outdone themselves on this one. I was prepared to be a bit disappointed – I always am on climate debates – but I was quite surprised by the petty level that some members stooped to in this debate. I am going to park the obvious hypocrisy of Labor saying, ‘Federal issues are irrelevant to Victoria.’ I am sure the special Labor internal logic processes made complete sense on this point when Ms Terpstra’s motion to condemn the federal Liberal–National coalition’s plan for dangerous and costly nuclear energy was brought to this chamber about three months ago for debate.

Sonja Terpstra: On a point of order, Acting President, I think Dr Mansfield should not mislead the Parliament. I had not moved a motion; I was making a contribution on a motion. Dr Mansfield said ‘Ms Terpstra’s motion’, so I think that the record should be corrected.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (John Berger): There is no point of order.

Sarah MANSFIELD: That motion was brought to the chamber for debate by the government specifically to waste time in this Parliament, because clearly there was not enough legislation to fill government business time, but anyway.

Labor might think these amendments that they put forward today are clever, and I am sure someone got a real kick out of writing these and scheming them up. I am sure members are going to go away and have some laughs and pat themselves on the back for coming up with these brilliant amendments. I can understand why they would do this, because it is easier than facing up to the shame that their party is failing us when it comes to climate change. Their party is making decisions that will have devastating consequences for the whole world for generations to come. Remember, Australia is the second largest exporter of coal and gas in the world. We are amongst the leading drivers of climate change. That is what I wanted to talk about, but not one Labor member was respectful enough to even acknowledge the substance of the actual motion.

Many members in this place talked about the importance of acting on climate change in their first speeches, and some of them mentioned their kids or young people or future generations and that they really cared about them. I wonder how those kids that you care about so much, all these young people out there who face an uncertain future, all the people who desperately want to see action on climate change and our Pacific Islands neighbours, many of whom will be in this Parliament this afternoon, whose shores are disappearing by the day, would see Labor’s attempts to obfuscate and deflect through these so-called witty amendments. They are not even that witty.

I brought this motion so we could talk about the need to end coal and gas in this country, to talk about how the Victorian state government has a responsibility to this state to advocate for action from our federal counterparts. Yet Labor talked about everything but this, denying any responsibility for taking a role on advocacy and on ensuring we are ending coal and gas. Ironically, they accused us of playing politics when I was trying to have a serious debate about climate change and the contribution of coal and gas. All Labor could talk about was politics. Once again, Labor ridicules us for trying to debate climate change and tries to come up with strange attempts to stifle that debate. They do it in the state Parliament, they do it in the federal Parliament and worst of all they do it in the community every time they try to shut down those who want to take action on climate change.

Labor do not want to talk about it because they do not want to admit their complicity. Climate breakdown is the consequence of decades of deferred decisions and active refusal of governments to acknowledge the urgency of the need for change. When it comes to climate, we have no time to waste. The only ones wasting time here are those who support new fossil fuel projects in a climate crisis, and that includes the Albanese and Allan Labor governments.

Council divided on amendment:

Ayes (16): Ryan Batchelor, John Berger, Lizzie Blandthorn, Jeff Bourman, Enver Erdogan, Jacinta Ermacora, Michael Galea, Shaun Leane, Tom McIntosh, Harriet Shing, Ingrid Stitt, Jaclyn Symes, Lee Tarlamis, Sonja Terpstra, Gayle Tierney, Sheena Watt

Noes (22): Melina Bath, Gaelle Broad, Katherine Copsey, Georgie Crozier, David Davis, Moira Deeming, David Ettershank, Anasina Gray-Barberio, Renee Heath, Ann-Marie Hermans, Wendy Lovell, Trung Luu, Sarah Mansfield, Bev McArthur, Joe McCracken, Nick McGowan, Evan Mulholland, Rachel Payne, Aiv Puglielli, Georgie Purcell, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell, Richard Welch

Amendment negatived.

Council divided on motion:

Ayes (7): Katherine Copsey, David Ettershank, Anasina Gray-Barberio, Sarah Mansfield, Rachel Payne, Aiv Puglielli, Georgie Purcell

Noes (32): Ryan Batchelor, Melina Bath, John Berger, Lizzie Blandthorn, Jeff Bourman, Gaelle Broad, Georgie Crozier, David Davis, Moira Deeming, Enver Erdogan, Jacinta Ermacora, Michael Galea, Renee Heath, Ann-Marie Hermans, Shaun Leane, David Limbrick, Wendy Lovell, Trung Luu, Bev McArthur, Joe McCracken, Nick McGowan, Tom McIntosh, Evan Mulholland, Harriet Shing, Ingrid Stitt, Jaclyn Symes, Lee Tarlamis, Sonja Terpstra, Gayle Tierney, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell, Sheena Watt, Richard Welch

Motion negatived.