Wednesday, 9 February 2022

Opposition performance

Mr STAIKOS (Bentleigh) (16:16): I join this grievance debate this afternoon despairing at the behaviour of those opposite over the last couple of years. And this is what I grieve about: I grieve about the disdain those opposite have shown to experts—people who are experts in their field, people who have studied in their field for many, many years and continue to study; and about their mistrust of science, indeed their open hostility to science. I certainly grieve for the debate over the last couple of years—the anti-intellectual debate when it comes two particular issues: the pandemic of course but also climate change—and for that I think the federal Liberals have as much to answer for as do the state Liberals. But of course the coalition has been reduced to running these ideological crusades against science, against facts, skills and expertise.

They fill out their ranks with those who are anti-science, anti-vax, anti-public health advice, anti-mask and anti-renewables, and you can rattle off the names of these people. There are some in this Parliament, but there are many in Canberra—people like Bernie Finn, people like Gerard Rennick, people like Senator Antic, people like Craig Kelly who was a Liberal, and people like George Christensen. These are people who fraternise with some of the most odious figures you are likely to meet, people who have gone down some very, very odd rabbit holes, the sorts of people we saw with nooses out the front of this Parliament last year. All of the serving politicians who fraternise with those people have come from that side of politics. How can they call themselves a mainstream political party? How can they today call themselves a mainstream political party? They are no longer a mainstream political party.

Then of course we have got the Leader of the Opposition, who today got up to grieve for the state of the Victorian health system. Well, over the last couple of years what have we heard from the Leader of the Opposition and from those opposite? We have seen an undermining of every public health measure to slow the transmission of the coronavirus. That is what we have seen from them, and slowing the transmission of this virus is what takes the pressure off our health system, off our hospitals. So do not come in here and say that you grieve for the state of the health system when your political strategy for two years has been to let this virus rip. They have been barracking for the virus for two years, yet they come in here and cry crocodile tears about our hospital system. Well, give me a break. Their commitment to the hospital system of this state is about as shallow as their commitment to doing something about dangerous climate change.

I will speak for the next 11 minutes mainly on climate change, because the unfortunate thing I think about the last couple of years is that we have not spoken enough about climate change, and it does still pose a significant threat to our society, to the planet. Indeed when you really think about it, the two defining policies of that side of politics over the last couple of years at least have been on health, let it rip, but on the planet, let it burn. On the planet, let it burn.

Back in 2013 we had a price on carbon. Tony Abbott—remember him?—was elected Prime Minister. Then what happened? They got rid of the price on carbon. But what did they replace it with? Where has been the action on climate change since? The Prime Minister was not even going to go to Glasgow. That is his commitment to bringing down emissions. Well, this government in the absence of—

A member interjected.

Mr STAIKOS: Indeed, a lump of coal. The current Prime Minister brought a lump of coal into the house. I am going to talk a bit about coal later in my contribution. Indeed that is the calibre of the debate on climate change on that side of the house.

Mr Newbury: The calibre of your debate.

Mr STAIKOS: I hear from the member for the ultra-marginal seat of Brighton. The member for Brighton actually represents an electorate where, despite voting for the Liberal Party, the people are good people. The people of Brighton care about climate change—care deeply about climate change—unlike the member for Brighton and unlike those opposite.

In the absence of any support or any action from those opposite or from the federal government, this state government—and indeed the private sector, we should say—has stepped in it due to a lack of leadership at the federal level, and it has done so proudly. This government has proudly led on climate change from the day that it was elected. We have demonstrated the transition from a highly carbon-intensive economy to one that has cut emissions by 25 per cent since 2005 while at the same time growing the economy.

Through the Climate Change Act 2017, which those opposite of course opposed, we have made it our goal to achieve net zero emissions in this state by 2050, and we were one of the first jurisdictions in the world to take this vital step. We also developed Australia’s most robust approach to developing new targets, with a legislated requirement to set new interim targets every five years that would ratchet up action over time. The Liberals all the while have stood in the way of this most important piece of climate change legislation of any state in the country.

In May last year we released our climate change strategy—a strategy that really represents a fork in the road for our state, putting forward real ambition, respecting the goals of the Paris agreement and embracing the opportunities of a low-carbon future. As part of this we have set targets to cut Victoria’s emissions by 28 to 33 per cent below 2005 levels by 2025 and by 45 to 50 per cent by 2030 based on 2005 levels. This means that by 2030 our emissions will be up to half as low as they were in 2005, an enormous achievement. These targets reinforce Victoria’s position as a climate leader and a strong contributor to the global action required to avoid dangerous climate change.

We are leading the way in Australia, delivering the most rapid rate of decarbonisation of any major jurisdiction in the country, and internationally these targets stand shoulder to shoulder with the ambitions of climate leaders such as the United Nations and the European Union. And of course our 2030 target is almost double the woefully inadequate target of the national government.

Part of this government strategy has been our renewable energy target. We committed—on day one, when we came to office—to our renewable energy target because when we came to office the share of renewables in power generation in Victoria was a paltry 10 per cent. We grew that to over 32 per cent last year. We have gone from 10 per cent renewables to 32 per cent renewables. To drive this renewable energy development we made it law that 25 per cent of our energy had to come from renewables by 2020, and we extended that target to 40 per cent by 2025 and 50 per cent by 2030. But, just like with the Climate Change Act, what did those opposite do? They voted against our renewable energy target. They actually went one further.

Mr Taylor interjected.

Mr STAIKOS: That is right. The 19-year-old who ran in Brighton would have supported it—absolutely, member for Bayswater. But they went one further. They did not just oppose the renewable energy target; they actually went to the last election promising another coal-fired power station.

A member: Extraordinary.

Mr STAIKOS: Extraordinary. I mean, how do we bring down emissions if we are going to build another coal-fired power station?

Mr Edbrooke interjected.

Mr STAIKOS: Well, funny you should mention that, member for Frankston, but the man who wanted to be the member for Frankston gave us some insight into that half-arsed policy before the 2018 election, didn’t he? He spoke to David Speers on Sky News, and I do have a transcript. Should I go through the transcript? What do we reckon? What do you think, member for Frankston? Go through the transcript? All right. Here we go:

Speers: … there’d be a new power station paid for by the state?

Lamb: By the private sector, yes.

Speers: Oh, by the private sector?

Lamb: We’ll tender to the sector. Whatever the market decides. We’ll tender out.

Speers: They can do that already, can’t they?

Lamb: Who’s that?

Speers: The private sector can build a power station if they want.

Lamb: Well, they haven’t been allowed to under this government.

Speers: Haven’t been allowed to build a—

Lamb: Build a power station.

Speers: Well, there are all sorts of renewables and wind power. What are you saying?

Lamb: Whatever is the most reliable and affordable, the market will determine that.

Speers: But that’s what I’m saying. The market determines that every day, don’t they? What are you saying that you’d do differently?

Lamb: The tender process will be building a power station.

Speers: A tender process for what? For the government to—

Lamb: The lowest base power, yeah.

Speers: So the taxpayer would fund—

Lamb: No, no, it’s private industry.

Speers: But they can do that already.

Lamb: Well, they haven’t.

Speers: What would the government do?

Lamb: We’ll allow them to do it.

Speers: But with their own money?

Lamb: Yes.

That was the policy that they took to the last election. ‘Yeah, we’re going to get a new coal-fired power station. We’ll let the market determine it’. Well, the market have actually made a decision on coal-fired power, haven’t they? I think they have absolutely made a decision. The party of free enterprise should leave it up to the market in many respects. I will quote Origin Energy CEO Frank Calabria from his speech to the Australian Financial Review national energy summit in October 2017:

However, new coal is not likely to be the answer.

Renewable energy is now the lowest cost and lowest risk new build power generation. A new solar farm can start generating energy in as little as a year.

A new coal plant would take at least seven years to be built and a new baseload gas plant at least five years–and both would be subject to coal and gas prices for fuel supply once built.

And in that speech Origin’s CEO urged political leadership. He said:

The truth is we need to achieve lower cost and a reliable and secure energy supply, and also reduce emissions.

The number one priority has to be encouraging greater investment in new supply. We need policy certainty that provides a signal to invest.

There is no energy policy that takes us beyond the 2020 RET—which is no longer some distant point in the future, it is just over two years away. There is no plan or policy direction for meeting our 2030 Paris commitments.

Mr Calabria made these comments in 2017, and I am very sorry to say that political leadership never eventuated at the national level. It still has not, and do you know what happened? The private sector gave up waiting. Private sector companies like Origin and AGL and many others have invested in renewables with the support of state governments around the country. And it is the state governments and the private sector that are taking the lead on this. Those opposite said, ‘We’ll have another coal-fired power station in the state of Victoria if we’re elected’. It turned out to be total BS, absolute BS. The party of free enterprise should leave it up to the market to determine the best way forward, and the market has determined the best way forward.

This government has made so many investments in renewable energy, but I have got 1½ minutes left. I am going to give a plug to our Solar Homes program because I was with the Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change and indeed the Premier before the 2018 election, when we announced the Solar Homes program, and I am really, really proud to say that it has created over 5500 new jobs. And that is the point, isn’t it—that these investments in renewable energy are creating the jobs of the future. But more to the point, it has abated more than 820 000 tonnes of emissions and has achieved more than 176 000 installations. I am also really proud that as we are recruiting this huge workforce that we need to make these solar installations we are also giving them the TAFE training that they need to conduct that work. Many of them are being trained at Holmesglen TAFE in my electorate, at the Moorabbin campus, so I thought I would give Holmesglen a plug.

As I said, I grieve for the disdain with which those opposite hold experts and hold science. They should be condemned.