Wednesday, 20 March 2019

The SPEAKER: I have accepted a statement from the member for Mill Park proposing the following matter of public importance for discussion:

That this house notes the commitment under the Andrews Labor government to increasing renewable energy generation and driving down power prices and further notes:

(1)   30 000 Victorians have applied to take up solar panels under the Andrews Labor government’s Solar Homes program;

(2)   a 928 MW pipeline of new renewable power generation is being supported by the Victorian renewable energy target;

(3)   the Victorian default offer is giving families and small businesses a fair price on energy; and

(4)   the failure of the federal Morrison government in energy policy.

 Ms D’AMBROSIO (Mill Park—Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change, Minister for Solar Homes) (14:02): I am absolutely delighted to rise to speak in this really important debate. Our government, the Andrews Labor government, is proud of our commitment to reform the energy sector, our commitment to get a fair deal for Victorians, our commitment to an energy system that is clean, affordable and reliable, and our commitment, absolutely, to actually make these things happen, to get it done.

It has taken a lot of work to address four years of neglect from those opposite, but there is more to be done. Energy prices remain too high as the privately owned energy companies—those opposite of course sold our energy assets—are slow to invest in new generation because of the policy chaos in Canberra under the shambolic Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison governments. Well, not in Victoria. We have legislated targets for new renewable energy investment and we are building the energy system of the future.

For the Andrews government here in Victoria investing in renewables, growing jobs and reducing our emissions are at the centre of our energy and environmental policies. The Andrews Labor government is putting power back in the hands of Victorian families and creating jobs with our new Solar Homes program. Over 10 years the $1.3 billion Solar Homes program will install solar panels, solar hot-water systems or batteries on 770 000 homes right across Victoria. This will bring the number of homes in Victoria with solar panels to 1 million. It will save Victorians more than $500 million a year on their electricity bills once the program is complete. Already more than 300 000 Victorian families have applied to participate in this program, with an estimated 10 000 household solar panel installations occurring since the program was launched in late August last year. More than 5500 rebates to the value of $12.4 million have already been paid out to families by Solar Victoria.

The Solar Homes program was designed to cut our carbon emissions by almost 4 million tonnes—the same as taking 1 million of Victoria’s 4.6 million cars off the road. It will also contribute 12.5 per cent of Victoria’s 40 per cent target for renewable energy by 2025. The program, as I said, will be rolled out over 10 years, not in 10 minutes. That is why our commitment is very clear: to ensure that we have the highest standards and the highest quality in place, ultimately of course ensuring we have got the highest safety standards in place so Victorians can be absolutely confident that the scheme will deliver a quality product and a safe product installed through a very strong safety regime, getting the absolute benefit of reduced costs through their power bills. Such is the success of this program that many installation companies are creating new jobs and adding to the 2 million solar installations already on Australian homes.

We have written our Victorian renewable energy target (VRET) into law. We will deliver 25 per cent of our generation from renewable sources by 2020 and 40 per cent by 2025. That now is in legislation. We have already legislated for net zero emissions by 2050. Further to that, of course we will now introduce a new target of 50 per cent of our generation to be renewable by 2030. This is our trajectory. It is our policy. In Victoria this is law, and it will not be changing. It is this absolute certainty of policy and ambition which gives confidence to the industry to invest in these technologies, creating thousands of jobs for Victorians right across the state—in regional and rural communities and in Melbourne—and being very clear about our agenda of creating the new technology and the new energy supply that is needed and putting downward pressure on prices.

Last year our government launched Australia's largest reverse auction. We sought 650 megawatts of new renewable capacity through our first VRET auction scheme. Our government announced six successful projects, wind and solar combined, in the auction, totalling 928 megawatts of new renewable capacity. Such is the success of our VRET scheme that the design of it has meant that we have been able to attract far more energy generation, new generation, which today is being built because of our commitment and our very, very strong policy settings. Of course we know that the successful projects are going to produce enough electricity to power more than 645 000 Victorian homes, generate $1.1 billion of economic investment in the state and create more than 900 jobs through construction.

Since we have been in government we have built or are building or have contracted to build more than twice the capacity of the former Hazelwood power station in renewable projects. We have not wasted a minute. We are getting things done, and there will be more that we will do. It is no surprise that our nation-leading policies and ambitious targets mean certainty for energy investors.

Ever since Jeff Kennett and the Liberals privatised our electricity, Victorians have been getting a dud deal from the big corporations. That is why our government is forcing big energy companies to get Victorians a better deal on their power bills. As part of the final response to the Independent Review of the Electricity and Gas Retail Markets in Victoria, which we initiated, our government introduced a bill into this Parliament to legislate the Victorian default offer. The VDO will cut the cost of energy for families and small businesses across the state from 1 July 2019. We are delivering a better deal on energy for all Victorians right now because we know that if we wait for Scott Morrison and his mates in Canberra to make up their minds, nothing will change. Nothing will change because they do not want anything to change. They are happy to leave the incumbent corporations spitting out the same old technologies and not planning for the future because they are absolutely beholden in a world the rest of us have moved on from. The Essential Services Commission has released its draft decision on the VDO and what that level should be set at. The next step is setting a fairer price on energy. We know that the VDO, according to the Essential Services Commission, will save over 145 000 Victorian families between $390 and $520 a year on their bills. This is a significant amount that Victorians should not have to be paying. This is the biggest reform to the energy retail market in decades, something only a Labor government would deliver, and we are doing just that. Further, thanks to our government, from 1 July 45 000 small businesses will save between $1830 and $2300 a year. A Labor government is delivering significant savings for small businesses in this state.

In addition to the Victorian default offer, we are delivering the energy fairness plan. This builds on our final response to the Thwaites review. We will banning cold-calling, doorknocking and sales bonuses, ensuring Victorians are not subjected to predatory behaviour by retailers, and we will strengthen the Essential Services Commission and significantly increase penalties for wrongdoing by energy retailers, including new criminal offences for wrongful disconnection.

This is all in contrast to the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison governments’ energy policy, which is to have no policy at all and, worse still, to change their minds at every opportunity and every turn so that there can be no forward planning by the industry to actually work out a way of mitigating the threats of climate change, mitigating the rising cost of energy and, importantly, mitigating the continuing lack of grid connections and network. We know all of those issues that I have listed have to be addressed very, very quickly if we are to modernise and manage a smooth transition to a clean energy system.

In the last six years the federal Liberals have had multiple failed attempts at an energy policy, and I think it is important for us to reflect on what they were and the consequences and significance of these. In the last six years the federal Liberals have had multiple failed attempts at an energy policy: the renewable energy target—gone; the emissions intensity scheme; the clean energy target; and the National Energy Guarantee. This failure is purely driving prices up and putting the security of supply at risk. Never before have we seen a modern nation that has actually been taken backwards in terms of an energy transition and a government that has failed to understand the actual challenges before us and failed to understand that it is in charge. They are in charge; they are in government, and they are failing to actually use their own reins on power to lead us through to a very important modernised energy system, which is about having lower prices, having clean energy supply, decarbonising the energy system, grabbing those fantastic jobs that we can create if we put our minds to it and importantly ensuring that we have got security of supply.

Every energy company, peak body and industry group has made clear to everybody countless times that federal policy uncertainty is stalling investment in new generation. Time and time again the Liberals and Nationals have shown that they cannot agree amongst themselves when it comes to energy, whether it is at a state level or at a federal level for that matter. This all started in 2009. Tony Abbott knifed Malcolm Turnbull over energy policy. In 2015 the renewable energy target was the only climate policy to survive Abbott’s onslaught. As we all know, we almost got there in 2016 with the emissions intensity scheme, until it was taken off the table at the last minute after a coalition partyroom revolt led by Tony Abbott. We almost got there again in 2017 with the clean energy target, recommended by none other than the chief scientist of this country, Dr Alan Finkel. Again, the clean energy target was broadly supported by business groups across the economy; by state governments, Liberal and Labor alike; by the then Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull; by the then Minister for the Environment and Energy, Josh Frydenberg; and by federal Labor. And then once again another energy policy was taken off the table because of a partyroom revolt led by Tony Abbott.

The National Energy Guarantee, like all the failed energy policies that came before it, was also the subject of a veto exercised by a very loud minority in the coalition party room led by the hard right, despite then Treasurer Scott Morrison having said that he had not seen an initiative in his 10 years in Parliament that had broader support than the National Energy Guarantee. Well, words are fine, but we know they mean nothing when it comes to action from the federal government. Scott Morrison said:

If you’re not for the National Energy Guarantee, then you’re for continued uncertainty which leads to higher prices.

When Scott Morrison became Prime Minister he also walked away from that National Energy Guarantee.

Now the Liberals in Canberra are proposing the use of taxpayer funds to build coal-fired power stations. Over the past decade we have seen time and time again that sensible policy falls victim to the hard right of the coalition party room and those cowards who refuse to show leadership and give the community what they are calling for, and that is leadership. This is the group that the federal member for Higgins quite famously called out as ‘the homophobic, anti-women, climate-change-denier faction of the Liberal Party’.

It is clear that the Liberals are incapable of developing any form of rational energy and climate change policy. We see this in Victoria too. Not all that long ago in 2018, in fact during the Victorian election, The Nationals came out and said, and I quote:

The Victorian Nationals believe the development of a new generation High Efficiency Low Emissions (HELE) power station is essential for Victoria ...

Only a few months later of course the Victorian leader of The Nationals said:

I don’t believe that the government should invest in a coal power plant. If private enterprise doesn’t believe it’s attractive to invest, why should the government do it?

That is not to mention the comments of their federal Liberal partners in what are now very, very marginal seats. So you really wonder where all of this is taking us, and I think the answer is nowhere. I also reflect on the remarks of Tim Wilson—soon to be the former federal member for Goldstein, I might add—who said:

I’m not a fan of the government getting involved and building new coal-fired power stations.

It is clear that the Liberals and the Nationals cannot agree amongst themselves when it comes to energy, whether it is at the state level or the federal level.

We are delivering here in Victoria. We took a very strong agenda to the last election on the back of significant reforms to our energy system, focused squarely on lowering energy costs, decarbonising the energy sector and ensuring that we have the reliability of supply that Victorians deserve and need.

 Mr R SMITH (Warrandyte) (14:17): You would think if the minister wanted to come into this place and insult this side of the chamber, she could do it unscripted, instead of slavishly reading from her notes, with prepared insults. But obviously she is not too nimble on her feet in that regard.

I am delighted to rise and lead the coalition in this debate on the energy policies that the Andrews government has put forward. I particularly note paragraph 3 of the matter of public importance:

(3)   the Victorian default offer is giving families and small businesses a fair price on energy …

That must be a pretty powerful policy considering the legislation has not even passed the upper house yet and considering that the Essential Services Commission has not even employed someone to set the default price, much less actually set the price itself. I call on the minister to perhaps reword her matter of public importance to be more accurate.

It also never ceases to amaze me how this government and indeed all Labor governments just refuse to take responsibility for the mess that they cause Victorians. This and other Labor governments have been in office in Victoria for 16 of the last 20 years. While those opposite continue to say that the privatisation of our energy generators by the Kennett government is the cause of all our woes, they have had the best part of 20 years to do something about it. And we should not think that they have not tried, of course. They have put forward policies that have done nothing except add to the problem that Victorian householders face when they look to pay their bills. They have put policies in place that have only forced prices up over the last 20 years. Do not just take it from me; it is also on record that a former Deputy Premier, John Thwaites, said that the policies that he and his government put forward have been directly responsible for the price rises that we have seen in this state.

The environment that we find ourselves in and the environment that households find themselves in as they bend under the weight of cost of living pressures are largely the fault of this and successive Labor governments. The minister said in her contribution that this government is wasting no time in making sure that prices are brought down. This is their fifth year in office. When this matter of public importance notes the commitment, it must be a newfound commitment because for the last four years, which way have prices gone? I ask the chamber rhetorically: which way have prices gone? They have only gone one way. They have gone up under this government, and they look to go up further.

You should not listen to a word this government has said. For example, when Hazelwood shut down, when it was forced to close under the policies of this government, the minister said that power prices would only rise by 4 per cent or that that would equate to about 85 cents a week for the energy user in Victoria. Of course we have seen prices rise far beyond that, something in the order of 25 per cent, which at the time even the Premier said was a wild and inaccurate possibility, much less the sorts of price rises that some businesses have had to face which have been 100, 200 or even up to 300 per cent.

The environment that we find ourselves in, the environment of high energy prices and household spending under the weight of cost of living pressures, is a direct result of this government’s policies—whether it is the 2002 policy to implement full retail contestability, the 2009 policy to remove retail price regulation or the policy to triple coal royalties and force a coal generator out of business. For those members who have not been here that long, I sat in this chamber when Peter Batchelor was minister for energy and he told this chamber and indeed all Victorians that the introduction of smart meters would result in lower prices flowing to all Victorians. And what did it do? After the Victorian energy users spent $2.5 billion to have the smart meters introduced, what have we seen? We have seen nothing in this state except higher price rises. That is the environment that we find ourselves in. We have more unreliable power, we have dearer power and we also have policies that affect jobs.

It was interesting to listen to the member for Morwell when in question time yesterday he asked a pretty straightforward question of the minister. It was not a gotcha question; it was a pretty straightforward question: what modelling has been done to show the impact that closing other coal-fired power generators in the Latrobe Valley would have on jobs? It was a fairly straightforward question.

You would think that amongst other priorities of the government jobs might be an important one, particularly in the Latrobe Valley, which again has been bending under the weight of 17 per cent unemployment, exacerbated by the policies of this government to force the closure of Hazelwood power station, putting 700 people out of work overnight—700 direct jobs gone, not to mention the indirect jobs, with restaurants, businesses and travel agents reporting cancellations of holidays and cancellation of events and all those sorts of things. The impact on the Latrobe Valley as a result of this government’s policies has been enormous. It was not an unfair question for the member for Morwell to come into this place yesterday and actually ask the government of the day, ‘What further impact are your policies going to have on my community?’.

The fact that the government and the minister danced around that is an indictment of them. Certainly for someone who consistently says in her statements to this chamber, ‘Let me be clear’, she could not be more ambiguous and vague if she tried, because in many cases the contributions from the minister leave people none the wiser as to where this government is going on energy policy and indeed the impacts that the government’s policies are having on the wider Victorian community.

Let me move on to some of the policies or some of the finer points of this matter, including the Victorian default offer, which we debated in this place two weeks ago. During that time I challenged government members to actually stand up in this place and guarantee Victorian energy users that there would be no-one worse off under this policy, and of course not one member could do it. Not one member could assure the Victorian community that the deeply discounted offers that many of the second and third-tier retailers were putting forward to the community would be left as they were. The government cannot guarantee that these sorts of discounted offers that many in the community enjoy—and as I said in this chamber two weeks ago, probably there are members of Parliament here who enjoy similar offers—will not move. Research that has been put out by the Australian Energy Market Commission and indeed the Australian Energy Council show us that those deeply discounted offers will probably and almost certainly rise over the course of time as third-tier retailers are forced out of the market as a result of competition being killed by this legislation and by this policy direction.

A significant impost on energy users right around the state will be made as a result of this policy, and every piece of research and every piece of reporting and modelling that have gone into this particular issue will show that that is indeed the case. As I said, it does not take much to go through some of these documents to show that that is the case. Indeed, if I can go back to some of the issues that were raised earlier with regard to energy policy, would Victorians really think that the minister who is telling them that prices will go down as a result of this government’s policies should actually be believed?

I go back again to other policies of Labor governments. I go to the 2002 policy around full retail contestability. John Thwaites was quoted in the newspaper in 2015 as saying that that part of the policy had not worked and the retail component had increased very substantially. He said that in developing the policy to deregulate energy retailers everyone expected there would be more competition and therefore a reduction in bills, and the figures show that that has not happened.

As I said, every Victorian is bending under the weight of these extraordinary cost of living pressures. Just a few weeks ago the Herald Sun reported that more than 1000 Victorian households a week had been disconnected from electricity and gas because of unpaid bills. Energy retailers cut off a staggering 55 474 retail customers last financial year. When speaking on the Victorian default offer bill last week, the member for Wendouree made comments about record disconnections under the government—I think she was referring back to the Kennett government 20 years ago—but indeed completely failed to comment on—

A member interjected.

Mr R SMITH: Actually it might have been the Napthine government. Was it? The 20 per cent surge in disconnections that this government has been overseeing is certainly something which should be taken into account. It should not be ignored by any member of this chamber who gets up to discuss these matters.

I move onto paragraph (4) of the matter of public importance:

(4)   the failure of the federal Morrison government in energy policy.

I just want to point out first of all that to say the federal government is failing on policy when one of their policies is a default market offer seems quite ludicrous. It seems quite bizarre that a government that has brought in a default market offer particular to Victoria says that a federal government that is bringing in a similar policy for around the nation has had a failure of policy. It is essentially the same policy. Indeed, how can it be a failure of policy when the federal government on 1 January got retailers to lower their standing offer prices and made sure retailers were offering targeted discounts for their concession customers? As a result of federal government policies retailers like AGL have taken 10 per cent off the whole bill for all standing customers, Energy Australia 15 per cent off the usage component for all concession standing customers and Origin 17 per cent off the whole bill for non-concession customers on standing offers. The list goes on of savings that federal government policy has overseen. I think to say that that is a failure when energy users in Victoria are paying less as a result of federal policies is again particularly bizarre.

There are other federal government policies such as renewable energy investment, with Australian electricity statistics showing that clean energy investment was at its highest ever level in 2018, setting a new record of $13 billion. This government talks about renewable energy a great deal. The fact that the federal government is investing in it as well shows that the federal government is certainly on the right track when it comes to investing in renewable energy.

Members interjecting.

Mr R SMITH: The government members in the chamber laugh, but the reality is that these are facts—$13 billion in renewable energy investment. There are waste-to-energy projects that the government has invested in—certainly again not bad policy.

A member interjected.

Mr R SMITH: Well, not bad policy. It is policy that this government should be embracing, a commitment to—

Ms Thomas interjected.

Mr R SMITH: Member for Macedon, I thought you were going to be respectful during this particular contribution.

Ms Thomas interjected.

Mr R SMITH: Okay. The federal government has a commitment to the targets of the Paris agreement, which it says it will reach eight years ahead of time. There are waste-to-energy projects, as I said. There is a retailer reliability obligation agreed to at the Council of Australian Governments meeting, again a policy that the federal government put forward that this minister, the Victorian minister, actually signed an agreement with. If she thinks of it as a failure of energy policy at a federal level, then why did she sign up to implement a retailer reliability obligation, which was a key priority of the Australian government?

There has been a $67 million investment in energy efficiency programs to cut costs and emissions in a way that will enable small businesses to claim grants of up to $20 000 for high-energy-using businesses. This is a scheme very similar to one I introduced when I was environment minister: Smarter Resources, Smarter Businesses. It is an opportunity for businesses to assess where they are in regard to their energy usage and find ways of making sure that they are more efficient so there is more money in their business for research, development, expansion—things of that nature. Certainly all of these policies that the Victorian government is talking about are actually policies that the federal government has put forward to ensure that there is a focus on renewables, a focus on using our resources more efficiently and a focus on making sure that energy prices come down and that the cost-of-living pressures that Victorian households are experiencing are less than they currently are—not only currently are but have been over successive Victorian Labor governments with policies that have only hurt them.

In a nutshell we can clearly see that it is in fact Labor policies that have caused the sort of pressures that Victorian households are facing. A number of issues have been raised about its policy around the Victorian default offer, which the government has completely failed to address during the course of the debate and indeed outside of this chamber when it is talking about this particular policy direction. The fact that the Victorian government has pointed to the failure of the federal government on energy policy shows that theirs is a position put forward with blinkers on, because the federal government’s policy mirrors in many ways the policies that this government is putting forward. The Victorian government should be taking a bipartisan approach and putting forward policies centred and focused on the pressures that Victorian households are facing. Rather than embracing the policies of the federal government, which are very similar to the ones the Victorian government is talking about, the government has instead sought to paint the federal policies as out of touch. In many ways they are the same as those the Victorian government is putting forward.

In short, it has been Victorian Labor governments that have caused the pressures that many Victorians are facing. This particular matter of public importance draws a long bow to say the least. Certainly the policies that we will be putting together over the next three or four years will be ones that are focused on Victorian energy users, and that will be our focus rather than the partisan focus that the government is taking.

 Ms THOMAS (Macedon) (14:32): It is my pleasure to rise this afternoon to speak on this very significant matter of public importance (MPI), one that affects all Victorians but one that people in my community of Macedon are particularly passionate about. That is why I take every opportunity that I can to talk on energy policy in this place. Before I talk to the MPI, I would again extend my offer to the member for Warrandyte to visit Macedon, to speak to members of my community and to have a look at the investments this Andrews Labor government has made in community-led projects that are really making a significant difference. I am going to enjoy detailing some of those projects to you as part of my contribution this afternoon.

Our Solar Homes package is a policy position that I am typically proud of. It was such a pleasure to be out in the lead-up to the November 2018 election, doorknocking the homes in the new housing estates of Gisborne, in Kyneton, in Woodend, in Romsey and in Lancefield to talk about our Solar Homes package, which was universally supported by everyone that I spoke to in my community. Of course it is no surprise whatsoever that 30 000 Victorians have already applied to take up the offer to participate in our Solar Homes program and that 5500 rebates have already been paid. On this issue, it is the people of Victoria who are leading the charge. The people of Victoria want to transition to renewable energy, and they want to do it now, but there is only one side of politics that is listening to what people of this state—and indeed, I would say, this nation—are looking for from their political leaders. As much as one would like not to have to talk about the Morrison government, it is impossible to come to this place to talk about energy policy and not make reference to the diabolical mess that the federal Liberal coalition government has put us in when it comes to energy, but I will say a little bit more about that later.

As I said, it is the people that are leading the charge, and they are doing this for two very clear and simple reasons. The first of course is that people in my community and indeed across the state want to take greater control over their energy bills, and they know that investing in solar and looking to a government that is investing more broadly in renewables makes sense. You bring on more supply, and the power prices go down. You put solar on, and you take charge of your own energy use. That is what people are doing, and they are embracing it in their thousands.

The second reason—and I know this is news to those on the other side—is that people in my community and, I would argue, across the state are very committed to taking real action on climate change. I know that on the other side of the house and indeed in Canberra we have houses of Parliament that are full of climate science deniers—only on that side of the house, I might say. But out there in the community the people just want their governments, their politicians, to get with the program, move on and bring on supply. So it is to the people that we look to to see what they want governments to deliver, and this is a government that has responded in spades.

Over 10 years the Solar Homes program will install solar panels, solar hot-water systems or batteries in 770 000 homes across the state. It will bring the number of homes in Victoria with solar panels to 1 million, and it will save Victorians more than $500 million a year on their electricity bills once the program is complete.

As I said, the notable feature of the solar revolution is the way it has been embraced across the state. My community is one that is already leading the charge. We have a very high proportion of households that already have solar. Indeed contrary to what others might think, this solar revolution is happening in the suburbs and in our regional centres. The people of Wangaratta and Wodonga, which is near where I grew up, have known this for many years. You go to any country town or regional centre and you see that solar has been well embraced.

Of course our program is designed to cut our carbon emissions by almost 4 million tonnes, the same as taking 1 million of Victoria’s 4.6 million cars off the road. It will also contribute 12.5 per cent of Victoria’s 40 per cent target for renewable energy by 2025. We are very confident that we will meet this ambitious target, and indeed that it will be exceeded, because Victorian households are choosing to invest in larger systems. This is, as I said, a very important issue for this house to be considering.

I want to talk a little bit more about our renewable energy target, because the importance of legislating renewable energy targets is this: you make the law, and industry then knows how to respond. In contrast to the policy chaos we see in Canberra, here the Andrews Labor government has provided certainty to the renewable energy industry so that people can build their businesses with confidence. We have legislated the targets, we have put in place a 10-year plan and we are seeing this incredible response from the private sector to help us deliver our ambitious program. Our commitment to an energy system that is clean, affordable and reliable is unwavering, and we have been steadfast in the face, as I said, of chaos in Canberra.

As I said before, I am going to have to talk about the Prime Minister. While Scott Morrison will be forever remembered for bringing a lump of coal into Parliament and using it to mock serious people, the Labor opposition federally and this Labor government here in Victoria have pursued clean energy policies in order to bring on more supply and bring prices down. I have got to say the behaviour of those in Canberra is nothing short of disgraceful in terms of the mess that they have left the energy sector in at this point. They do not take this debate seriously. It is a cultural war within the Liberal Party, and frankly it has got to stop.

I did say I was going to talk about some initiatives in my own electorate. Last October I had the then Minister for Industry and Employment, now Minister for Crime Prevention, join me in my electorate at Hardwick Meatworks. Hardwicks is the largest employer in the state seat of Macedon. This is a company that is interested in continuing to grow their business and to grow jobs in regional Victoria, and they have of course got an eye to their bottom line. That is why, with support from the Victorian government, they have invested in a more than $11 million solar array, establishing their own microgrid in Kyneton so that they are a fully renewable enterprise. This is fantastic.

We have also assisted Hepburn Wind, who of course were Victoria’s first community-owned wind farm. Our government provided a half-million-dollar grant to that wind farm, Hepburn Wind, to build a solar array, which will mean they will have an energy park in Hepburn. I am fully in support of competition, so I am very happy to see that Hepburn Wind is actually going to be challenged by the Macedon Ranges Sustainability Group over which of these community-controlled energy parks will be the first to deliver 100 per cent renewables in their shire. Both Hepburn shire and Macedon Ranges shire are committed to growing renewables, to building sufficient renewable resources within each of those shires to power in entirety those shires, so that these two local government areas will be on track to become zero-net-emissions councils. This is an important matter of public importance. The Australian people are crying out for some leadership on this issue. The only government that is delivering the real leadership our nation needs is the Victorian government. I applaud the Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change for bringing this matter to the house.

 Mr D O’BRIEN (Gippsland South) (14:42): I am interested to rise to speak on this matter of public importance that the Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change introduced and spoke on before instantly departing the chamber. That highlights this for what it is, and that is just a political stunt ahead of the federal election. I will come to that later, because as the member for Warrandyte pointed out, points (3) and (4) of this particular matter of public importance are almost in direct contradiction of each other. But this is an issue of great importance to the Victorian people and one where there has been significant contention in policy over the last 10 years.

I stand here and say the climate is changing. There is no doubt about that. Parts of my electorate of Gippsland South at the moment are suffering the worst drought they have seen on record. The farmers and the people of my electorate will say that the climate is changing. There are different levels of acceptance and debate about what is causing that, but there is an acceptance that that is happening.

There is also generally an acceptance, I believe, that we need to transition to renewable energy. That is needed, and that is happening. That will happen over a period of time. I believe it needs to happen slowly and carefully, because energy policy is not all about renewables and delivering emissions reductions. In my part of the world Gippsland obviously has been the powerhouse of the state for nearly 100 years with respect to brown coal, and in my electorate of Gippsland South in particular we supply most of Victoria’s and indeed the eastern seaboard’s natural gas. These are important industries in my electorate, and they remain important both in price terms and also in terms of the availability and reliability of our energy supplies. But as I said, I have no issue per se with renewable energy, which is what this matter of public importance is largely about. Indeed there is a proposal before federal and state governments at the moment for a very large offshore wind farm known as the Star of the South, offshore from Port Albert in my electorate, and I very much support that. If it can be done commercially and viably, then more power to their arm, and I say that not only from the renewable energy perspective but from the completely selfish perspective that if it goes ahead it is likely it will be serviced from Port Welshpool, also in my electorate, and potentially bring significant jobs and benefits to the people of Gippsland South.

But what is missed so much in the energy debate, particularly as espoused by those opposite, is the importance of not only, as I said, emissions reductions but affordable and reliable energy. What gets me time and time again is the dishonesty that is allowed to perpetuate, particularly in the debate on wind farms with respect to output. I heard the minister saying—I did not pick up exactly the figures, but I think this is what she was saying—that there is enough wind power in development at the moment to replace Hazelwood. You regularly hear a wind farm being announced, and they say, ‘It can power 30 000 homes’ or ‘300 000 homes’. What is very rarely mentioned—in fact is never mentioned in the government’s press releases—is the capacity factor. Very clearly the wind does not blow all the time, and sometimes when the wind is blowing too hard wind farms have to actually be shut down. The capacity factor as I understand it for most onshore wind farms is around about a third—around 33–35 per cent. So when we say, ‘There’s enough capacity to replace Hazelwood’, that is when the wind is blowing. I get back to that point of affordable and reliable power.

Mr Richardson: Storage.

Mr D O’BRIEN: I hear a word coming across the chamber, ‘storage’. I would invite the person suggesting ‘storage’ to tell us where the storage is for the many thousands of megawatts from wind turbines that we now have in Victoria when the government has spent millions in the last couple of years on a 20-megawatt battery. We do not have storage at the moment for the level of demand that we have in Victoria. It will come; I have no doubt it will come in time. At what price it will come will be the other thing, and what the other environmental impacts will be with respect to battery storage has not been expounded at all by those opposite.

One of the reasons, though, I support the Star of the South project is that, being offshore in the middle of Bass Strait, it will have a much higher capacity factor. They are estimating it might be about 45 per cent. But it still will not be able to produce power all the time, which is why I certainly support opportunities in coal. High-efficiency, low-emissions power stations are now being built around the rest of the world. There is the opportunity for carbon capture and storage, which is being investigated quite seriously by the current government at both state and federal levels—something that those opposite again do not mention in this. The CarbonNet project, again, would be located off Golden Beach in my electorate of Gippsland South, taking carbon from the Latrobe Valley—potentially. It is still very much a potential. So by all means promote wind, promote solar, but let us have an honest debate. Let us not say that it is 300 megawatts and not actually talk about what the reliability and the capacity factor is.

The other thing, particularly with wind, that is never mentioned is the localised impacts. This debate is very rarely a debate about the city. In terms of energy production the vast bulk of our energy supplies has come from outside of Melbourne, whether it is coal, as historically has been the case, wind or solar. Those opposite and the Greens who sit beside me here now regular talk about the advantages of wind, but they never mention the impact on people next door to wind farms. I have currently got a proposal for a wind farm at Alberton, which the local community is very opposed to, and we have the wind farm at Bald Hills, about which the South Gippsland shire, I think, in the next couple of days—it might even be today—is considering a nuisance complaint, given the noise from the Bald Hills wind farm. These are things that are never mentioned by those opposite. They love to talk about pollution from Latrobe Valley coalmines, but they never talk about the other issues that come with renewable energy as well. I say, as I have said before in this place: let us propose a wind farm in Royal Park and see how that goes. Let us propose one at Albert Park. There would be a Save Albert Park or there would be a Save Royal Park within about 30 seconds if someone proposed one. So let us again have a bit of honesty about this and accept that there are impacts right around.

The first point in this matter of public importance is the government patting itself on the back for the take-up under the Solar Homes program. Well who would have thought people would take up free stuff. What a surprise it is that there is a subsidy for the taxpayer and it has been a success. People are lining up to get it. My God, what a genius policy that is, that it has been so successful! I mean, you would have to be seriously incompetent not to have people taking up something when there is a massive government subsidy; it is a bit like the free TAFE. We have had the government already hailing the success of free TAFE. It is not a success for free TAFE if people sign up for it; it is a success if those people get trained and find jobs at the end of it. That is what the success would be, not people enrolling in free TAFE. So let us just see what that does.

The matter of public importance also references the extensive pipeline of renewable energy generation that the minister is claiming credit for through the Victorian renewable energy target, at the same time constantly telling us that renewable energy is cheaper. If it is cheaper, why does it need a subsidy? If it is cheaper, why does it need taxpayer funds? If it is cheaper, why does the taxpayer have to be subsidising this energy? If it is cheaper to produce, it therefore must be cheaper to establish. I asked the minister this at a Public Accounts and Estimates Committee hearing last year, and the best she could say was that every method of power generation over history has had government subsidy as well. The question still stands.

I very briefly want to mention privatisation, because it gets a mention regularly from the minister. She regularly says how privatisation is to blame for all our ills, including higher power prices. Can I say to the minister: Labor has been in power in Victoria for 16 of the last 20 years. If you do not like the privatised system, then nationalise it. Leaving aside the fact that it was Joan Kirner that started the privatisation—

Mr Pearson interjected.

Mr D O’BRIEN: It was, member for Essendon: Joan Kirner with Mission Energy in 1992 in Loy Yang B started it, so do not say it was all Kennett. The minister constantly says all the issues that we have are through privatisation—well, nationalise it. Well, you will not nationalise it, because you know it is not true because even the ABC found in a fact check a couple of years ago using Australian Energy Regulator data that prices in Victoria and South Australia were in fact lower over a period than they were in New South Wales and Queensland, which had largely public systems versus the private system here. So yes, let us have this debate, and yes, let us move to renewable energy, but let us at least be honest about it with the Victorian people.

 Mr PEARSON (Essendon) (14:52): I am delighted to join the debate on the matter of public importance. Energy policy is a really fascinating area of public policy at the moment, and it has been for some time, because what you are looking at is an industry going through a period of significant transition and change. With that come certain challenges.

At the outset I want to anticipate the argument of the member for Brunswick because I want to put this to rest now: we will not be lectured by the Greens political party on energy policy. We will not be lectured by those who have never built anything, have never run anything, have never operated anything and, at every step on the way, have sought to get in the way of an elected Labor government achieving practical action on climate change.

I am not quite sure how long the member for Brunswick will have in this place, but if he ends up like a former member for Northern Metropolitan Region, Mr Barber, who was here for, let me guess, 11 years and whose only claim to fame was the fact that he instituted a ‘men’s room’ in his electorate office to stop the female members of his team engaging with him, that would be a shame, because that is the only thing Mr Barber will ever be remembered for, when he had the opportunity of working with a progressive Labor government to achieve real action on climate change.

We are in this situation because the reform agenda that we were promised, that the community was sold, has failed to eventuate. If you look at the great promises, I look back to media releases from Alan Stockdale in 1994 saying customers could expect even more dynamic service-oriented companies to take over from the SEC, and over time electricity prices were expected to fall in real terms as a result of the government’s reforms. He talked about the benefits of deregulation. Mr Stockdale in 2001 talked about the fact that the reform process had a very positive outcome for Victoria, an example of how to introduce competitive marketing to the electricity and gas sectors. Those benefits are, here and now, illusory. They have not provided the benefits which people like Alan Stockdale adhered to.

You had a set of circumstances where information was not freely available, so not every consumer had access to that information. Whereas the former Kennett government sought to stop vertical integration and sought to encourage a competitive market, what you saw happen in reality was that loyal customers were transferred onto not the best deal but the worst deal, and that resulted in people who were from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds, people who lived in public housing and people who had special needs getting a raw deal, and we are now in a situation where the system as it currently stands is just not working.

So those of us who take these matters extremely seriously, those of us who actually want to devise and develop public policy that can be implemented in a practical way and give effect to the changes that we all seek and desire—not those sitting in the cheap seats and commentating from the sidelines, who are not prepared to embrace the challenge, nor those who do not believe in climate change—we recognise that something needs to be done.

The interesting thing I note is that table O3, titled ‘Electricity generation in Victoria, by fuel type, physical units’, in Australian Energy Statistics, Table O, which is a report prepared by the federal government, looks at Victoria’s usage on an annualised basis going back to 2008–09. We all know we have had significant population growth in the last 10 years. We know that in the last three years we have added a city the size of Canberra to our borders. What we can see in terms of a usage is that in 2008–09 we were using 55 gigawatt hours of power, and, notwithstanding the massive increase in population growth, we are now using less. In 2017–18 we used 47 gigawatt hours. Despite the fact that our population is increasing significantly our usage is dropping, so something is clearly working well. I appreciate the fact that there is an issue with prices, and I will come to that, but in terms of our per capita usage, it is dropping significantly.

Moreover, if you look at the increase in terms of renewables, in 2008–09 there was 1446.9 gigawatt hours in renewables and this increased to 7191.9 gigawatt hours in 2017–18. So we are seeing a massive increase in terms of renewable usage. This is extremely important because that is the pathway forward. As we look at transitioning out from baseload coal and fossil fuels, we need to make that transition to renewables, and again, as I said at the outset, these things are difficult, these things are challenging. When you look at market reform and market change, when you are looking at trying to work out how to get the balance right to enable an environment where the private sector can invest in these assets and can get a return for their shareholders but not at the same time gouge consumers while still running an efficient operation, that is really important.

I listened to the member for Warrandyte’s contribution, and I mentioned earlier in the day the issue of energy prices. This is something that has been an issue, which those opposite have sought to raise at various times certainly in the course of the 58th Parliament and now in the 59th Parliament. Indeed I am indebted to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, who costed the policies of the Liberal-National parties. What I found fascinating about this is that given some of the interest that those opposite have professed to show in relation to energy policy, you would think that they would have taken to the electorate last November a comprehensive plan to bring down energy prices. They talked about this for four years; you would have thought that they would have been burrowing away trying to devise good public policy to tackle this very important issue, because we know that those opposite sought to raise the issue of energy prices and consumer protection at length over the course of the 58th Parliament.

Now, if I turn to page 171 of the Parliamentary Budget Officer’s costings, it states: ‘Establish a tender process by which the winning energy retailer will provide discounted electricity’. The cost for this is $3.2 million, and that is for basically the administration of the scheme. But there are no costs in here for subsidising such a scheme. If the public sector is not going to underwrite the scheme or provide any financial incentives for it, why would the private sector invest in it to begin with? The member for Gippsland South said, ‘People like having free stuff’. Well, at least this government is trying to provide the carrot by which consumers can make a choice, be it in free TAFE or be it in terms of solar panels. What those opposite did was just window-dressing: ‘Oh, we’ll spend $3.2 million on a tender process. We won’t underwrite it, we won’t provide any financial incentives whatsoever’. Again, this is from the same mob that came up with the business case for the Doncaster rail plan. They will come up with a plan, they will fund a plan, but that is about the end of it.

I regret that the member for Frankston is not in the chamber at the moment but the Liberal Party looked at putting the supply of 500 megawatts of new electricity out to tender with the aim of constructing a new power station. Again, looking at this proposal, this was costed at $3.2 million. There is no financial incentive for the private sector to provide this level of investment. All those opposite were offering was a contract to take 500 megawatts of power. That was it. So no incentives to invest, a contract to buy—but again, at what price? It is just sheer and utter laziness, just absolute laziness.

There was no thought or consideration given to tackling these issues. You have to ask yourself why that would be. I reckon their hearts are not in it. I reckon deep down those opposite do not believe in any of this. They do not believe in intervention into markets. They believe the best form of government is the smallest form of government. They believe that you should have a light hand approach to regulation, or no hand in regulation. They are channelling their masters. It is like reading Alan Stockdale:

The benefits of competition and privatisation are so great that the question should not be ‘Why privatise?’ but rather ‘Should a given business activity remain solely the province of government?’

That is the view of those opposite. That is why they are not taking this seriously. That is why they took to the electorate no coherent plan in relation to energy policy, because you know what? They do not believe in it. Their heart is not in it. They believe that the private sector will always do these things better and there is no role to play for the public sector. You just have a paper tiger of a regulator that is just a bit of window-dressing to make sure that you stop the most egregious examples of gouging, and that is it. That is why they cannot be trusted. They cannot be serious.

I will anticipate the member for Brunswick: we are not going to sit here and be lectured to by him about energy policy because they cannot be trusted. They are not serious. The only people tackling climate change in a systematic way are those in the Andrews Labor government.

 Mr SOUTHWICK (Caulfield) (15:02): If you listen to the contributions made by the government and the energy minister as a small business owner or as a Victorian taxpayer, you would think that Victoria is doing so well when it comes to energy that their bills are almost to the point where they are getting their energy for absolutely nothing, it is the cheapest it has ever been, and people would be in sheer joy at the current situation of the energy market. You know that if you thought that was actually the case, you would be dreaming. There is no question that small businesses in this state are doing it tougher than they ever have. Bigger businesses that employ a lot of people in jobs are doing it tougher than they ever have, and certainly a lot of Victorians are struggling more than they ever have, and that is largely due to the highest energy prices that this state has ever seen, because of a government that is completely missing when it comes to the fundamental elements of energy policy dealing with reliability and affordability.

We have heard contributions from this side, including from the member for Gippsland South who quite correctly pointed out that there is certainly going to be lots of uptake when something is free but there is no such thing as free. We all know that there is a cost associated with free, and when some people take up the free, all the rest end up paying for it. That is what this market has experienced. It has experienced a situation where there are 911 000 people who are struggling to pay their energy bills, 911 000 vulnerable customers that have been left on the side so we can get some people to take up the free option of solar rooftops. Can I add, Deputy Speaker, these are important. We on this side of the house believe that it is important to provide good energy policy that brings renewables into the market. Going into the election we had a policy that was going to put solar on schools and on public buildings and on hospitals.

Mr Battin: Everyone benefits.

Mr SOUTHWICK: They are all very important because it would not just be one person benefiting but, as the member for Gembrook quite rightly pointed out, everybody benefits. Taxpayers benefit. That is where we should be starting to get the balance right, not like this government has in terms of the haves and the have-nots.

This matter of public importance deals with a number of points. Firstly, the Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change says 30 000 people have applied to take up solar panels from the Andrews Labor government. I am not sure whether I heard correctly, but the minister then said in her contribution that 300 000 people have applied, so I do not know if there was an extra zero added but I would be keen to look at Hansard to find out whether there has been an uptake of 30 000 or 300 000. We do know that it is a cost we are all paying for regardless of the uptake.

This government has been really scant on detail, because under this government we then have people coming in to install these solar panels. We are still concerned about the implementation. If it is in fact 30 000, or God forbid 300 000, in a short period of time, then how are we going to deal with this? Does the government have the right protections in place to deal with this? A November 2017 Consumer Action Law Centre report identified that less than 1 per cent of Australia’s solar retailers are signatories to the Clean Energy Council Solar Retail Code of Conduct. This is an industry standard for the trader and sales conduct and warranty conduct. So again, it is very important and we want to make sure that those that are actually putting their hands up do not have a pink batts scenario of an installation gone wrong. We will certainly be watching very carefully from this side of the house in terms of the implementation of this scheme.

The minister also spoke about a 928-megawatt pipeline of renewable energy. Again, this is very important. We encourage it, we want private investment in renewable energy and we think it is very important. The minister then interjected about the Victorian renewable energy target scheme. Now, this minister—who has spent a whole range of her time talking about it—has interjected and then left the chamber. That shows you how passionate and concerned she is about cost and affordability of power. That is how they operate. They spew everywhere and then move off for someone else to clean up the mess. And that is what has happened here, because we had an opportunity with this government to be able to sit alongside the federal government and other state ministers to sign up to a National Energy Guarantee, to get together and—

Mr Foley interjected.

Mr SOUTHWICK: Well, let me tell the member for Albert Park how that went. How it went is that the first minister to object to a National Energy Guarantee was the Victorian minister, who objected to the National Energy Guarantee, who basically did a doorstop on 3AW and said, ‘We won’t be signing up to the National Energy Guarantee’ and held the rest of the states to ransom, because this minister knew that unless there was consensus among all ministers we were not going to get a National Energy Guarantee. And let me be quite clear with all of this: the reason why Victorians are all paying the price is that this government has played politics with energy right from the very beginning. They do not want to sit together and work in the interests of all Victorians and all Australians; they want to play politics with this, and ultimately consumers pay the price each and every time. They always do, and this government has done it again.

This government has had every opportunity to work to try and get this done, including, as item 3 notes, with a default offer giving families a fair price on energy. The default offer was put together by the federal government. Every other state has signed up on a default offer, on a harmonious national system. What does Victoria do? Victoria turns around and says, ‘Oh, no, we won’t sign up to a national system. We’ll create our own and another lot of administration to run it’. And what happens with that? We all pay the price. It is another situation where, instead of one default offer, one system, where we all sign up to it and we drive prices down, all this government wants to do, again the Labor way, is to drive up prices and drive a wedge between what’s happening in the federal government and the state government. And, again, who misses out? Taxpayers miss out, Victorians miss out, vulnerable consumers miss out. That is what happens each and every time.

There are two other items I want to mention. The member for Essendon spoke about us not having a plan to reduce prices. Now, under this government we have seen a $450 increase on electricity and a $500 increase on gas. Prices have gone up in gas and electricity under this government, and we have seen reports from St Vincent’s that have said vulnerable consumers are being hit the most under the Labor government. We had a plan for a Victorian energy concession discount for 911 vulnerable consumers, which would have worked with the Brotherhood of St Laurence and with St Vincent’s, both of which were happy with this plan—a plan the South Australian government, the Labor government, worked on and the Liberal government then implemented, and which continues to this day. It would have meant an 18 per cent discount on electricity and 11 per cent on gas—saving between $250 and $500 annually on a group purchase deal for vulnerable consumers. Where has that gone, Deputy Speaker? Nowhere, because this government does not care about vulnerable consumers.

I also wanted to talk about our deal, when it came to putting 500 megawatts into the market. The member for Essendon is wrong. The 500 megawatts was something that was going to be done by packaging up the government’s power supply to be able to provide certainty for a new entrant into the market, and that new entrant into the market would drive down power prices. It was done by Frontier Economics, which has done work for both Labor and Liberal at all levels—a highly respected economics team. So when the member for Essendon says that we have not put the work into it, he is factually wrong. The work was done, it was costed and it would have driven down prices by about $500. And it’s there, certainly, on the record.

Let me just correct the minister in the final element, in terms of blaming everybody. This minister blames—

A member: Jeff Kennett, mostly.

Mr SOUTHWICK: the Morrison government and every other federal government, and then we go back to of course Jeff Kennett’s problem. Let us go back 20 years ago, and it is Jeff Kennett’s problem. He has privatised something, and that is the reason why we are all in the mess, and there is nothing we can do about it—so we are going to just move on because it is Jeff Kennett’s fault. Well, let me correct the record. A news release on 11 June 1992—this is not from Jeff Kennett, it is from a Premier of Victoria, and who is it? Well, it is from the Premier of Victoria, Joan Kirner, who said this:

The Victorian Government’s decision to involve private investment in this new project is essential to our energy future.

This is referring to the Loy Yang B sale.

There are enormous benefits for Victoria as a result of this sale—particularly, continued reductions in the real price of electricity to Victorian customers and improved customer service.

…

Following a keenly-contested bidding process, we now have one of the world’s foremost power station operators working in partnership with the State Government to help deliver a more efficient and price-competitive power industry.

This was the Premier of Victoria with her move to privatise the energy industry, which this government now blames someone else for. (Time expired)

 Ms KILKENNY (Carrum) (15:12): It is my absolute pleasure to rise today to speak on this matter of public importance and to support the motion that has been put to increase renewable energy here in Victoria and drive down power prices for our Victorian households. I think certainly, when it comes to Victoria’s future, there are not many matters that are more compelling, unless of course you are sitting on those opposition benches. I will never let them forget that it was those opposite who voted against our legislation to introduce renewable energy targets and who went to the election in 2018 promising to scrap our renewable energy targets, should they take office. We saw how well that went for them. We would think that they would learn from that experience, take on that information from the communities and work with us in a bipartisan way to transition our economy into renewables, to bring down our power prices and to support and help every single Victorian in this state.

First and foremost I would like to commend the Premier and our Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change for what has been really comprehensive and extraordinary leadership on this matter. It is a matter that is facing all of us, and that is the transition—quite a challenging transition—to clean, renewable, reliable and cheaper energy an I say that I love that this is democracy in action. This is really about giving power and putting power back into the hands of Victorians—and it feels really good to be part of it.

Talking about democracy and feeling good, I was at the School Strike 4 Climate on Friday with my son Rafferty and with thousands and thousands and thousands of other students and young people as we gathered in Melbourne’s CBD. Let me tell you that their message was really simple. It was really clear. They want to see strong leadership on this issue. They want our governments to take responsibility and to solve this climate crisis. Something else that was really apparent was that they are so angry. They are so extraordinarily angry with our federal Liberal government at the moment. Scott Morrison copped an awful lot of their complaints and their concern—and quite rightly, I have to say. Unlike here in Victoria, we have seen this federal Morrison minority government has had absolutely no energy policy. It has had no plan. In fact, until recently it did not even believe in the existence of climate change or of the need to transition from coal.

Earlier I was sitting in the chamber and I listened to the member for Warrandyte. He asked us to talk about and look at the environment that we find ourselves in. I am going to do that. I ask: what do we see? We have seen a federal government from Abbott to Turnbull to Morrison which has shown no leadership, none at all, on energy policy or the impacts of climate change and what we need to do about it. These ‘leaders’—and I say leaders in air quotes—have been almost weathervanes on climate change, on energy policy. That has been over a decade now and that has been to the detriment of all of us here in Victoria and all of us across Australia as well.

What else is there? We have heard the Prime Minister announce his new policy, which is $2 billion in funding over 10 years. It might sound like a lot, but as one commentator has observed, this funding shows that the coalition’s climate policy and commitment to transitioning to renewable energy has barely moved in a decade. Remember that it was Tony Abbott’s Direct Action that funnelled more money in less than half the time. We saw how well that went for Tony Abbott. Industry was scathing, questionable investments were made and in fact power prices went up. Iain McGill from the Centre for Energy and Environmental Markets at the University of New South Wales said that Scott Morrison with this funding has chosen to simply extend and expand one of Australia’s most questionable climate policies to date. It seems as though it is just simply business as usual for the coalition.

As we heard before, the member for Macedon quite rightly reminded us that it was the then Treasurer Scott Morrison who brought that lump of coal into the federal Parliament, quite inexplicably taunting the federal Labor opposition. I remember his words at the time. He said, ‘This is coal. Don’t be afraid, don’t be scared. It won’t hurt you’. I do not think people were actually scared. They were probably confused and probably a bit embarrassed. Were they surprised? Probably not. I think that certainly Victorians and the Australian public are not surprised. They are not surprised because there has been a history of a lack of coherent policy from the coalition government. We have had no plan A and no plan B. There has been nothing. In fact, there has been worse than nothing. We have had direct resistance to transitioning to renewables. As I mentioned earlier, it was the opposition that in 2018 opposed our renewable energy targets and said that they were going to scrap them should they have—God forbid—got into government.

I want to go back to our students for a moment. I recall what Scott Morrison as Prime Minister said about the student climate strike that took place back in November. I certainly know that the students at the strike last Friday recalled what he said. He said, ‘We want more learning and less activism in schools’. And the resources minister, Matt Canavan, said that the only thing striking would teach the children was how to collect government benefits.

Let me say to all those young people out there, those who made it to the strike and to those who were there in spirit—because I know there were thousands more who would have wanted to be there but could not be there for one reason or another—exercising your voice and standing up for something, showing critical thought, being proactive and having a real empathy with and an understanding of the world around you are some of the greatest learnings that we can have and we can share. I for one and I know many others and many in this place are immensely proud of those students and young people, of them actively engaging and taking their message as they did to the streets of Melbourne last Friday.

Let me say also that I am immensely proud to be part of this government, the Andrews Labor government. This is a government that is absolutely committed to increasing our renewable energy generation. We are committed to reducing our emissions. We are committed to driving down energy prices, to helping every single Victorian, including those most vulnerable of Victorians. And of course we are a government that is steadfastly committed to supporting an industry that is going to grow thousands and thousands of jobs. Many of those jobs will be taken up by some of those student activists and many of those jobs will also be for transitioning workers who are going to have to move into other areas of employment. I could not be prouder.

We here in Victoria are really building the energy system of the future. We have not waited. We are not like the federal Liberal government, these fair-weather climate change campaigners. They seem to have found their voice now that we have got the New South Wales election this weekend and a federal election just around the corner.

We know our energy prices are too high. We know something has to be done about them. We have this plan, this coherent energy policy, in place now as we transition across to renewables. This is an exciting time to be part of Victoria and to be part of this government. What we desperately need now is proper strong leadership from our federal government. Scott Morrison has got to a critical point here. He knows it. His members in marginal seats know it. What do we have? We have an Independent in Wentworth and we have got three candidates, all with Liberal Party backgrounds, running in some of the most blue ribbon of seats.

This is an extraordinary time to be in Victoria. I am proud to be part of this government that is working on a transition to renewable energy.

 Dr READ (Brunswick) (15:22): I would like to thank particularly the member for Shepparton, who has volunteered her spot for me to speak today. I thought I would also commend the Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change, who has raised this matter of public importance—because it is. Many of the other speakers have also commented on why it is a matter of public importance, and specifically climate change. It is critical that we understand that this is about more than just reliable electricity supply or prices. This is a much bigger topic than that.

When I was involved in the election campaign last year, a local activist came around asking candidates to sign a declaration that we face a climate emergency. I signed it and put it up on the wall of our campaign office. I understand that the Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change also signed it and I absolutely commend her for that.

I think that it is quite true that we face a climate emergency. It is not a lights-and-sirens kind of emergency. It is not an emergency that will be over by bedtime. It is a slow-moving catastrophe, very slowly moving. Spring is getting a little earlier every year, species are disappearing slowly, and the emissions that government members and others have commented on in this debate that we are talking on—the carbon dioxide emissions that we might reduce—will last in the atmosphere for 30 to over 100 years. Even methane lasts in the atmosphere for a decade. So it is a bit like turning around a ship that is going in the wrong direction. It is going to take an awfully long time.

So why is this year particularly important? It seems as though a whole lot of things have happened just this summer. We have had heat waves in Australia. We have got a terrible drought in New South Wales that is extending into Victoria, which has affected in particular the Darling River, and we have faced these extraordinary fish kills. I do not know how people felt, reading about these mass deaths of fish in the Darling River, which is a long way away—a place that I have never visited—but I felt a sense of loss that ecosystems are being wiped out. This is largely due to the drought but also due to mismanagement of the water, but at the base of it all is climate change. It is climate change that has made this energy debate a matter of public importance.

I am particularly interested in the health aspects of this. We know that when particularly overnight temperatures stay high in the city, death rates increase, and this particularly affects vulnerable populations. Amongst the most vulnerable are the mentally ill. I am very concerned about this because a lot of the medication we prescribe to mentally ill people affects their physiological response to heat. This is not well understood, but a lot of medications prescribed by doctors to literally thousands of Victorians make them less able to survive during hot nights. We do not have enough research on this. There are no recommendations out there to alter prescribing habits in heat waves. This is, I think, a matter of public importance. But it is also critically important that we do something to reduce the likelihood of more of these heat waves, and that is why this debate on renewable energy is important.

The member for Essendon was concerned that he might be lectured. I can advise him to take his fingers out of his ears now and just listen, because I am just going to tell a little story now. It was about the time when my dad nearly burned our house down. We had this pampas bush with a lot of dead grass in it next to my bedroom window many years ago when I was a teenager. Dad tossed a match in it one day. He did not quite expect it to burn as vigorously as it did. We are talking about a bush as big as the canopy behind the Deputy Speaker. The flames reached to the top of the house. The house was a little scorched, I confess. Dad thought he had it covered—he had the garden hose there—but when the neighbour, who none of us liked, stuck his head over the fence offering to call the fire brigade, we knew things had gone a little too far. We knew that the garden hose was not going to cut it. Fortunately another hose was provided and there were some buckets, and we did not need to call 000, but it was a lesson for all of us, and we had to be nice to the neighbour for a while.

So when the Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change signs a declaration that we face a climate emergency we have to ask whether we are doing enough. We also have to ask another question: are we doing anything that might be making this worse? I will address that first. Yesterday the environment commissioner tabled the state of the environment report, which comes out every five years. There were about 17 different climate indicators and in all but one Victoria’s status was assessed as—sorry, apologies to the member for Essendon here; fingers might need to go back in the ears—poor. The one area where our status was better than poor—it was fair—was awareness of climate change. So other points made in this report include: Victoria has the highest greenhouse gas emissions per person of any country in the OECD; our energy use is the seventh highest in the OECD; and 90 per cent of our emissions come from energy, and brown coal still dominates—in fact I think coal is responsible for just over half the emissions in this state.

Let us go to the question: are we doing anything to make this climate emergency worse? This fire in the pampas bush—is anyone chucking a little bit of petrol on the fire? Well, I am afraid to admit that we are opening new oil and gas reserves offshore for exploration—something this government is doing; spending public money on a coal-to-hydrogen project is going to make things worse; and arranging a monster gas ship at Western Port Bay to be an import terminal for gas is also going to make things worse, because these are fossil fuels. This will put CO₂ in the atmosphere, which will last the best part of a century.

So the other question is: are we doing enough? Will the garden hose cut it? Are we doing enough to respond to our climate emergency? Solar panels on rooftops is a fantastic idea. I recall the aforementioned Greg Barber taking that to the 2014 election as our primary platform. It is really thrilling to see it being adopted now by the government. But we cannot pretend that a subsidised solar program is all we need to do in this year, this year of crisis. It is also a year of opportunity, as the climate strike has shown us. There is a groundswell of opinion now that we need to not just put solar on every roof but start cutting emissions from other sources.

We need to remember what causes emissions. If people have trouble remembering, think of things that start with ‘c’: cows, coal, cars, compost that should be in landfill. So let us deal with those. Concrete is another one, I forgot. The Netherlands currently has a program to disconnect homes from gas. We need a program to phase out gas as a source of energy for homes and industry. We need to bear in mind that our transport and aviation emissions are rising rapidly. So are our emissions from agriculture and emissions from food waste—food and organic waste in landfill decomposing to put methane into the atmosphere. This is driving the climate change that we are concerned about.

I am also indebted to the member for South Gippsland, who called for some honesty in the debate. We need to understand how big this crisis really is. This is enormous. Solar will reduce our coal use. We have to tackle these other sources of emissions. But imagine if the member for Essendon could magically switch off all our emissions tomorrow. Remember that they will be in the atmosphere for more than decades, for the best part of a century. We have got to turn this slow-moving crisis around. Unless we start turning around now, unless we have full ambition and throw all our resources at it, unless we dial 000 for this climate emergency, we will be too late. So I will leave it for people to think about, but if you accept that it is unethical to alter our climate for centuries and destroy ecosystems, the fact that it provides reliable electricity does not make it any more ethical.

 Mr RICHARDSON (Mordialloc) (15:33): It is important and a pleasure to rise to speak on the matter of public importance put forward by the Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change. Something I care deeply and passionately about is effective action on climate change. It was something that sparked my political passion and interest when I worked for the former Parliamentary Secretary for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, Mark Dreyfus, in the federal Parliament. Back from being a pup adviser then to now, we are barely making inroads at a federal level in the work that we need to do to drive down power prices, take action on climate change and support our community.

I just want to take up a few points made by those opposite. A consistent theme that has come through is under point (1) of the matter of public importance about how many Victorians have taken up solar. The insulting nature of comments by those opposite today who say that Victorians will grab something because it is free and that is why they are taking action is absolutely abhorrent. It is insulting. It is insulting to say, ‘Victorians are just here for the take. They’re not thinking about how they make ends meet in their communities and with their household budgets or how businesses make ends meet, they’re just here all the time on the take’. How insulting to say that of our fellow Victorians—that they are only taking action because they are here for the take. I think that is very insulting and people should reflect on that.

The other notion was put forward by the member for Gippsland South, who is a very intelligent guy. I listened to his speech and I heard him say, ‘Wind and solar don’t meet capacity at the moment. We’ve still got a heavy reliance on coal, so that’s that’, as if we should walk away and give up. I want to share with the member for Gippsland South and those opposite that it took 120 years to commercialise and actually industrialise electricity generation into an industrial way of underpinning resource and capacity. Thankfully for the member for Gippsland South and our economy renewable energy generation advancement in technology is exponential. An expert in my area said some time ago that with solar generation in particular one year is like seven dog years. We are making exponential gains in solar and in wind and in storage. The notion that you step back and say, ‘Well, sorry, it’s not there yet, so we should give up’, is an extraordinary position for those who preach free markets and free entrepreneurialism and enterprise. Imagine if people like Benjamin Franklin had given up back in the 1750s or people like Thomas Edison with his discovery. I was wondering if there were any conservative back there saying, ‘Thomas Edison, just slow down here, mate. You haven’t got the technology yet. You’re a bit of a whippersnapper here. Just settle down’. It is an extraordinary position to take. No wonder those opposite and their colleagues in Canberra are considered to be in the dark ages on policy in this area. For goodness sake, they have lost three prime ministers out of it, and they have lost a number of National Party leaders out of it. Obviously the Leader of The Nationals down in Victoria has taken his paddle and is riding away as far as he can. He is trying to separate himself from those Nats to the north of our state.

The discovery of electricity in that commercialised and industrialised setting was described as meaning ‘that fire had been discovered for the second time’. The way that renewable energy will support communities in the future and underpin our prosperity will be the third time, because according to the Clean Energy Council if renewable energy targets were not in place Australians would pay $1.4 billion more for power by 2020.

The notion put forward by the member for Caulfield is that renewable energy and those actions are driving up prices. Point me to an example in the technology advancements now and the international and national evidence of where this is the case. The member for Caulfield talked about offsetting power bills. We have a number of ways that we are supporting Victorians with their power and concessions as well as giving power back to Victorians by putting solar on their homes. The notion that you keep funding and wallpapering over the problem rather than dealing with generation and storage just shows the inadequacy of their policy position in this space. We need to talk about storage. We need to talk about how we generate more renewable energy sources, because the market is investing in this area.

I want to share with the house a couple of facts in this space. One: power prices are going up, and we know that across this space. We are really tied to federal policies and the Council of Australian Governments meetings in this space. But those states and territories that had more investment in renewable energy had a lower increase in power bills; that is a fact. They had a lower increase in power bills with more renewable energy in the mix. That is why we are so passionate about creating more renewable energy in the market.

But the second thing that is really important to make clear to the house is that in the absence of a National Energy Guarantee we are seeing more supply in the sector. A report on the ABC on 27 June last year from Green Energy Markets, some new research at the time, said that renewable energy is set to supply one-third of the market needs by 2020. That is an extraordinary amount. If we look at the International Renewable Energy Agency arena, of which Australia is a member together with 160 other countries that are contributing in this space, it points to significant gains in technology and advancement that would see a substantial amount of more renewable energy in the mix. Its report talks about easily going towards 50 per cent by 2025. In the absence of policy at the federal level we are seeing that the market is far more cost-effective for renewable energy and that investment is being made.

The notion that was put forward by the member for Warrandyte supporting the federal position was absolutely extraordinary. He was saying that they are doing some great work in this space. Why then did the now Prime Minister, at the time that former Prime Minister Turnbull was trying to get the National Energy Guarantee, say in great detail, and I want to share this with the house:

If you’re not for the National Energy Guarantee, then you’re for continued uncertainty which leads to higher prices.

Indeed that is right. That is what the then Treasurer said—Prime Minister Morrison. Then of course we lost Prime Minister Turnbull and Scott Morrison walked away as prime minister from the National Energy Guarantee. Is that the policy position that the member for Warrandyte endorses that our nation should take? Three prime ministers have been lost because of policy inertia in this space. We have seen a backflip and a further flip on coal. We have a prime minister that walked in with a lump of coal, with a simplicity that was a painfully stupid way to approach a debate on energy policy in our country, which probably says more about where their federal policy position is, and then walked away from the National Energy Guarantee. Luckily the market is picking up the slack. Luckily Victoria is picking up the slack and we are giving power back to Victorians.

When we had the reverse auction the ambition was for 650 megawatts; we got 928 megawatts. It is an extraordinary amount, creating jobs and changing our energy mix. But it is more than just warped ideology. This matters to people’s power bills, it matters to their cost of living and it matters to small businesses. The member for Caulfield came in here and said, ‘Power prices are going up’. That is exactly right; they are. And what do you do to respond to those challenges? You have to have a long-term policy position. You have to support the renewable energy target in Victoria and not go towards this flip-flopping on policy, because our constituents and our communities depend on it. Despite every bit of research that stacks up about climate change, the member for Gippsland South sneakily alluded to people believing in climate change but not being too sure about what the impacts are, which alludes to a long-held Nationals position that they still do not believe the overwhelming and huge amount of scientific research and papers that shows adamantly that climate change is being impacted by greenhouse gases. That is an extraordinary position to take. But beyond that, even if you are undermining science in our communities, the important thing is that this saves money and lowers people’s power bills. That renewable energy—this was found in research provided—is now lowering power prices more than the subsidies that have been put forward for renewable energy. That is important, and that is in 2019. Look how far we have come in the last decade in technological advancement, in storage and capacity and in renewable energy generation. It is exciting because our communities will benefit from it and Victorians will benefit from it.

I do not hold my breath that those opposite will come to the table on policy in this space, but the Andrews Labor government will continue to do the heavy lifting in solar and wind generation and widescale renewable energy production because our communities, our constituents and our businesses rely on it.

 Mr NEWBURY (Brighton) (15:43): I am particularly pleased to rise on this issue. At the outset I want to put my view on record. Traditional energy resources are limited. Our climate is changing. Renewable resources on the other hand are sustainable, support a balanced environment and can be naturally replenished. Renewable energy is the future. We as legislators need to lead and support the transformation of our energy market to renewables. Those comments are not simply motherhood statements. The Australian Energy Market Operator has also projected that Victoria’s energy industry will shift towards renewables. AEMO has projected fundamental change in our energy generation over the next 20 years. Its report Integrated System Plan, released mid last year, predicts that roughly two-thirds of power generation will come from wind and solar, and I quote:

Record levels of newly committed renewable generation development … is already on a path to wide-scale, fundamental transformation.

As a new legislator in this place, that gives me comfort because I know that positive change is well underway and that transformation will happen in my lifetime. What concerns me is that Victoria is unprepared for that widescale transformation. On a state-by-state comparison Victoria is notably behind. All states have aggressive plans for renewable transformation. However, this government is yet to develop the strategic planning pieces that will support widescale transformation. We need to do more than set aspirational targets. We need only look over our border into New South Wales to see how that government has supported change in a concrete way. In November 2018 that government released its particularly strong road map through its Transmission Infrastructure Strategy. The Victorian government has yet to show similar leadership.

We have already been handicapped by this lack of strategic planning. Industry is becoming increasingly concerned that this government needs to do more than set targets. In fact industry is now concerned that without a plan the government’s target will become unachievable. Industry is also concerned that the government has not got a grip on the regulatory reform needed to make this plan happen, especially when Labor’s default position is not smart regulation; it is over-regulation. Twenty years ago Victoria was a national leader on energy. Twenty years ago we were a net exporter of energy. Labor has been in government for most of the last 20 years. We are now a state of blackouts and a state that is forced to import energy.

In late January hundreds of thousands of Victorians suffered blackouts, and it was not the first time that we have seen them. Many Victorians were affected, including residents in my own electorate in Brighton, Brighton East, Elwood and Hampton. I recall a constituent of mine phoning me in tears because he was so concerned about his 74 and 76-year-old parents. I also remember the effect of blackouts on my local small businesses. When a small business is forced to close its doors early it hurts them. It really hurts them. Those Victorians affected by blackouts were left angry by the misleading statements of our government. In fact only a day before this year’s blackouts the Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change guaranteed Victorians that she was absolutely confident there would be no blackouts. Those broken promises left Victorians incensed, and it was disappointing to see our Premier overtly and trickily mislead Victorians as to the cause of the problem. Instead of showing leadership and setting out a pathway for change, the Premier diverted the issue and blamed a former Premier. The Premier’s intervention was political and cheap. What the blackouts have shown is that we are not properly prepared for the transformation of our energy market. With all due respect to the member for Mill Park, you can see that in the drafting of the matter of public importance.

What industry has consistently said to me is that cultivating a renewable energy industry will not happen overnight, and it will not happen by itself. Effectively we are heading down a path of fundamentally changing our energy market model from a model with a small number of energy generators to one with tens of thousands of generators. It is exciting, but there is growing concern from industry that it will take more than a target to achieve that change. One of their chief concerns is the issue of transmission and connectability. Our model has not been designed to plug in numerous thousands of new energy generators, nor do our current regulations support such a transformation.

Changing our energy generation model will require significant strategic planning and infrastructure work. Only recently Stuart Benjamin of the government’s own Grampians New Energy Taskforce highlighted that point. He belled the cat by saying that limitations on infrastructure are inhibiting renewable projects, and I quote:

‘We’ve got $3 billion worth of projects currently underway …

‘And if some of the limitations that we’re seeing in terms of infrastructure are addressed, we could possibly double or even triple that number.’

James Prest of the Australian National University’s Energy Change Institute has voiced similar concerns. Although the Australian Energy Market Operator has suggested as much as 5000 megawatts of renewable energy could be generated in the state’s west, Prest says:

It’s really a bit like building a high-tech, modern greenhouse for agricultural production, and then attempting to get the produce to market down a one-lane bush track, which frequently becomes flooded.

That analogy paints a very clear picture. It is not just industry experts who have spoken about these issues. The Australian Energy Market Operator says in its Integrated System Plan report, and I quote:

The projected portfolio of new resources involves substantial amounts of geographically dispersed renewable generation, placing a greater reliance on the role of the transmission network. A much larger network footprint with transmission investment will be needed to efficiently connect and share these low fuel cost resources.

We need the right infrastructure, and this government should have planned for it yesterday.

One of my other great concerns is not just lack of preparedness. I am also concerned that other states are receiving a competitive advantage because our government has been slow in this policy space. In January the federal Labor Party turned its back on this state. They turned their back because they know that this government has not put in place the strategic plans to transform our energy model.

In January, federal Labor announced a $1 billion commitment to make Gladstone in Queensland the hydrogen capital of Australia. There is no doubt in my mind that hydrogen is a particularly exciting fuel and an opportunity for our country. The federal Liberal Party recognises that opportunity too. Hydrogen is close to zero emissions, and with help it can be commercially viable. Other countries have recognised its potential and are getting on board. In its recent report, Gas Vision 2050, Energy Networks Australia has said, and I quote:

Exporting hydrogen from Australia ... provides a significant economic opportunity. For example, Japan has developed a roadmap for hydrogen, and Japanese businesses are looking at Australian natural energy resources to supply that hydrogen.

Australia’s Chief Scientist, Dr Finkel, who is also chair of the Hydrogen Strategy Group, has said, and I quote:

Australian hydrogen exports could contribute $1.7 billion and provide 2,800 jobs by 2030 ... [with] many of the opportunities ... concentrated in regional communities.

Yet despite the federal Labor leader hailing from Victoria, he turned his back on this state. Federal Labor’s decision giving preference to Queensland is wrong and shows that Bill Shorten is no friend of Victoria. I am yet to hear a whimper from this state Labor government on that announcement.

Only this week, BAE Economics released its report into the economic consequences of alternative Australian climate approaches. The report assesses the two major federal parties’ approaches to emission reduction, namely the coalition’s intention to meet its Paris agreement commitment of 26 to 28 per cent emissions reduction by 2030, and Labor’s target of 45 per cent emissions reduction over that same time frame. BAE’s report found that under a worst-case scenario, Labor’s policy approach could cost 336 000 jobs by 2030.

What the report should remind this Parliament is that transformative change must be planned and done responsibly. As a state, we must also be ready to put our best interests first. When it comes to renewable technology like hydrogen this state should be leading this country. I call on this government to bring together the best minds in this state and put in place a roadmap that will see the transformation of our energy market become a reality.

Members interjecting.

 Mr TAYLOR (Bayswater) (15:52): It is great to hear the encouragement from my colleagues on what is an extremely important matter of public importance today. It is with great enthusiasm that I rise to speak in support of this matter of public importance. Having spoken on the environment just yesterday in my members statement it is timely that I am here today speaking on this matter as well.

Why am I so enthusiastic on this matter? Because it highlights a very clear distinction between the policies and the real actions of the Andrews Labor government and those opposite. On this side of the house—and the bit over here, as the Premier refers to—sits a progressive, forward-thinking government that is committed to an energy system that is clean, affordable and reliable. On the other side of the house sits an opposition that denies climate science and continues to run with the same old neoliberal narrative about high-energy prices and job losses. Some things never change.

Of course those on the opposite side of the house speak often about the benefits of privatisation, the cost of which this great state knows all too well. They speak often about how leaving the market to regulate itself is beneficial to consumers. In fact, when their so revered leader Jeff Kennett made the fateful decision to push that line and privatise the SEC, a government corporation that returned dividends back to taxpayers, he promised—and I note that the member for Caulfield, who was so resoundingly re-elected by 204 votes, likes a good quote, so I will quote Jeff Kennett:

... all members of the community, whether they be domestic householders or otherwise, will enjoy the benefits of lower real prices.

He said that in this house on 7 March 1995. It is commentary I am sure many of those on the opposition side would like to forget. And they do when they try to burden those on our side with the blame of rising energy prices, when we are the only ones actually doing anything about it.

When the constituents in my electorate of Bayswater tell me of the unparalleled pressure that rising energy costs put on their household budgets, when local businesses or the many residents in my electorate tell me they are struggling to pay their energy bills, it is clear that they are not benefiting from lower real prices. It is clear that they are not benefiting from a lack of government intervention in the market. It is clear the only ones benefiting are the private companies that profit from those high prices and then shift those profits overseas.

Now, I will not hold those opposite to account too much for the legacy left by the Kennett Liberal government, as I tend to think they have quickly wiped it from their memory in Men in Black-esque fashion, with one of those devices where they have all been flashed at a Liberal Party and have simply forgotten what has taken place. But the reality is that a largely unregulated market has been left to operate unfettered for far too long, and when those opposite were in government they did nothing about it.

What is even worse is that those opposite and their federal counterparts refuse to show leadership or support reforms in the sector—reforms that will lead to better outcomes for the environment, better outcomes for employment, better outcomes for the economy and for future generations to come. That lack of leadership has been phenomenal. We have seen a number of prime ministers, as the member for Mordialloc rightly pointed out, getting the sack for sticking their head up on this issue. I believe Barnaby might soon be making a very timely comeback in the lead-up to the next federal election.

The Andrews Labor government, in comparison, is leading the way in energy sector reforms. This government has developed energy and environmental policy that includes investing in renewables, growing jobs and reducing emissions, and moving into the 21st century. This government recognises that the world is rapidly transitioning to renewable energy generation sources, and we are acting to seize the economic, health and environmental benefits that renewable energy transition offers. Furthermore, our reforms mean better outcomes for customers by putting downward pressure on prices and protecting low-income and vulnerable customers.

Victorians have suffered the effects of privatising our energy sector for far too long. This government recognises that and has not wasted a single minute in leading the way towards significant change, despite the gaping hole left by those opposite. Under this government, unprecedented renewable energy development has occurred in Victoria. Over the 2018 calendar year alone renewable energy produced 20 per cent of Victoria’s electricity generation. Since we have been in government we have built, are building or have contracted to build more than twice the capacity of the former Hazelwood power station in new renewables.

This government conducted Australia’s largest reverse auction, seeking 650 megawatts of new renewable capacity. In 2018, we announced six successful wind and solar projects in the auction, totalling 928 megawatts of new renewable capacity. The successful projects will produce enough electricity to power more than 645 000 Victorian households, generate $1.1 billion of economic investment in Victoria and create more than 900 jobs—which those opposite and in Canberra fail to understand.

We have written our Victorian renewable energy target (VRET) into law. We will deliver 25 per cent of our generation from renewable sources by 2020, 40 per cent by 2025 and we have legislated for net zero emissions by 2050. That is our trajectory, that is where we are going, that is our policy, and it is Victorian law. We are going further: we are setting a new target that 50 per cent of our generation will be renewable by 2030.

But it is a trajectory that those opposite are struggling to embrace. Only a few months ago they declared that if they won the November 2018 state election they would scrap that very same renewable energy target, declaring that the VRET leads to higher energy prices. Even a few months ago they were peddling the same old line, trying to scare Victorians with their neoliberal rhetoric while doing nothing—absolutely nothing—for the Victorian environment, for the Victorian people or for Victoria’s future. Why can they not finally see that days of prioritising private sector interests over everyday citizens belongs well and truly in the past? All they were interested in was getting back in control. How good was that slogan? Just like their policy or lack thereof on the environment and renewable energy, it was empty self-interested rhetoric. We are doing what the federal Liberal government cannot do—that is, we are paving the way for national policy reform. We are not dilly-dallying around in the party room like the federal Liberal government—the Morrison-Turnbull-Abbott minority government or whatever they are being called from one day to the next. For the last six years they have failed to deliver decisive energy policy that includes a renewable energy target, an emissions intensity scheme, a clean energy target or a national energy guarantee. Instead they celebrate by bringing coal into the Parliament and then knifing leaders in the back when they go against the hard right of the coalition party room, which surrounds the likes of Mr Peter Dutton. They fail to see that our old power plants, those built I might add by taxpayers, are getting older and that without certainty in federal policy no-one is willing to invest in new ones.

They are unable to see that this failure in policy is driving up prices and putting security of supply at risk. They fail to recognise that every energy company, peak body and industry group has made it clear that federal policy uncertainty is stalling investment in new generation and, in doing so, stalling investment in jobs and investment in the economy and the future generations of this great state. The policy experts of those opposite know better. If I want my facts on climate change and renewable energy, I will be sure to exclude those opposite from any future mailing lists.

The member for Carrum rightly also acknowledged the fair-weather campaigning by the federal Liberals, who cannot seem to make up their minds—

Ms Ward interjected.

Mr TAYLOR: Absolutely. The member for Eltham has rightly pointed out the flipping and flopping of—

Mr Edbrooke: They’re the Birkenstocks of politics.

Mr TAYLOR: Absolutely. It has reached peak fever pitch when the likes of Tony Abbott, up against a staunch environmentalist Independent, magically changes his view for the 15th time on the Paris climate accord. I thought hell might have frozen over before he did that again, but nothing surprises me any more with that lot up in Canberra.

This government is not waiting for federal leadership, because if we did, we would be waiting longer than it takes for the cows to come home or whatever saying one could possibly think of—nor do we expect any bipartisanship from those opposite. While those on the opposite side are busy fighting amongst themselves and while they scramble around each other trying to work out their position, we are getting on and we are getting it done.

We are also implementing the recommendations that came out of the independent review of Victoria’s electricity and gas retail markets. I was proud to speak on the bill around the Victorian default offer, which will hold greedy energy retailers to account and ensure those who are most vulnerable—of which there are many in our community—get money back into their pockets. As the Minister for Mental Health pointed out, ours is better and ours is fairer than the subsequent legislation that the federal Morrison minority government introduced after it was once again dragged kicking and screaming to the issue. This is why I am proud to be part of a government that values its environment and values and invests in renewable energy, one that has brought us into the 21st century.