Thursday, 18 May 2023
Motions
Nuclear energy
Motions
Nuclear energy
That that this house notes:
(1) the leader of the federal opposition’s support for nuclear energy;
(2) the leader of the Victorian opposition’s support for nuclear energy; and
(3) the resounding support for the Andrews government’s goal to hit net zero by 2045 with renewables rather than high-risk and expensive nuclear power.
I rise to speak on this motion and note that there is an absolutely disgraceful commitment to nuclear energy from both the state and the federal opposition leaders that has been made in recent weeks, and I want to make it clear at the start of my contribution that this government does not and will never support the construction of nuclear energy in Victoria. It is dangerous, it is absolutely costly and it is an adventure that the opposition is apparently all too happy to undertake and give a commitment to. When asked if he would support the federal opposition leader’s push for nuclear energy last Friday on ABC Drive, the Leader of the Opposition here in Victoria said:
I don’t think you should ever rule it out.
…
You know, nuclear is going to be part of the mix at some point …
That was the commitment from the Leader of the Opposition. It was absolutely furthest from the truth in terms of what this government’s commitments are. Those opposite have no idea what they are talking about when it comes to energy and emissions reduction. They feign a concern for cost of living, yet they want to support the single most expensive form of energy that is known, and that is nuclear energy.
Firstly, of course we know that they have got a very strong record of being against renewable energy and reducing our emissions. They vote down at every chance our nation-leading renewables and climate action agenda. Then they say that they will open Victoria up to fracking, and now they are peddling the myth that nuclear needs to be a part of our transition away from coal. Well, just because they say it does not mean it is true, and the fact is it is not true.
Those opposite cannot be trusted with our energy system or any part of managing the transition to a decarbonised energy system – one that is affordable, one that creates jobs and one that protects the environment here in Victoria. But just in case they need it to be spelt out to them, I want to spell out why nuclear power is very fraught, quite dangerous, expensive and unnecessary as a commitment to be made. Firstly, it is illegal to open up nuclear here in Victoria, and of course the construction and operation of nuclear power plants in Australia is also prohibited by Commonwealth legislation. Victoria’s Nuclear Activities (Prohibitions) Act 1983, introduced and passed by the then Labor government, also prohibits the construction and operation of nuclear power plants in this state. In all fairness to those opposite, they do have a track record of forgetting about things like this. Who can forget that in the election those opposite committed to an impossible and unconstitutional plan to turbocharge gas in Victoria? In the same breath they committed to a gas reservation policy – one that is absolutely unconstitutional under section 99 of the constitution – and that they would frack our state if given the chance. These are the offerings from those opposite. They flip-flop around a whole range of things, but when it comes to a retrograde attitude and a poisonous attitude to our environment, they are all for it. They are all for fracking, they are all for nuclear power and they are all for increasing people’s power bills.
Richard Riordan: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, this is a wideranging debate, but the minister is being irrelevant. She must stay on her own motion. She did write it, so hopefully she knows what she is talking about. But at no point has the opposition ever put this fracking debate out there. The minister is clearly making it up, and she needs to return to the substance of her motion, which is her justification for not having nuclear energy.
Paul Edbrooke: On the point of order, Acting Speaker, the minister at the table has got 26 minutes left on the clock and has only just started setting the context for this debate. I think the debate will be centred around energy, and there are lots of things the minister needs to talk about. I am sure it will be a wideranging debate for those on the other side as well, but in no way has the minister strayed too far from the actual motion.
The ACTING SPEAKER (Meng Heang Tak): It is a point of debate, so there is no point of order.
Lily D’AMBROSIO: Thank you. What I would like to refer to is the CSIRO’s most recent GenCost 2022–23 report, which they prepared for the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO). They confirmed that nuclear energy is the most expensive form of power generation available. The cheapest forms of power, on the converse in that same report, are wind and solar, even when coupled with the costs of energy storage and transmission. Victoria’s world-class wind energy resources and abundant sunshine make us a global renewable energy powerhouse. We have world-class resources, and we aim to take full advantage of those. We have the opportunity to produce electricity far more cheaply than almost anywhere in the world by harnessing our wind and solar resources. And why wouldn’t you do that when it will create 59,000 jobs?
It will absolutely reduce people’s power bills because the cheapest form of new-build energy that you can have in this country remains renewable energy, not nuclear. In fact Victoria experienced an entire week of negative wholesale power prices in December last year thanks to renewables. So why would we throw away our competitive advantage by building the most expensive form of power generation available? The finances do not stack up, not for households and not for businesses, and they do not stack up as a state.
Nuclear is expensive to build, and cost blowouts are very common. When you consider that same report, the GenCost report, the estimate for constructing sufficient nuclear capacity for a 1600-megawatt capacity power station approximately the size of the decommissioned Hazelwood power station is that it would cost in the order of $25.6 billion. The same report also found that the cost of nuclear energy creation in Australia would be approximately $16,000 per kilowatt. Now, how does that compare to wind, and how does that compare to solar? Well, that is four times more expensive than wind energy – four times – and seven times more expensive than solar alternatives. So why on earth would you keep running away from renewables, pretending that you care but not really, and embracing nuclear power when all you are doing is committing every Victorian household and every Victorian business to higher and higher skyrocketing energy prices?
Why would you do that? Well, maybe it has got a lot to do with where their mates are within the sectors of uranium mining and the gas industry – you know, their donor mates that help line the coffers and make a lot of money from digging up uranium and of course gas. I think there is a big connection there, because it just shows you yet again that those opposite are never on the side of Victorian households. They are always on the side of their mates, selling off assets, allowing their big political donors the opportunity to dig up more uranium and more gas, and they do not really care about what the cost consequences are on hardworking Victorians households and businesses, let alone the environmental impacts.
Let us talk about the environmental impacts here. Radiation from major nuclear disasters contaminates massive areas of land, which is irreversible. That is what they want to do. That is their policy commitment. But it is not just about when something goes wrong. When something goes wrong it is absolutely catastrophic, but even a nuclear plant that operates as intended still causes environmental impacts that are with the environment and people forever. There is no such thing as clean energy when it comes to nuclear. Those opposite like to talk about it as if it was the same thing. Well, the waste has to go somewhere. There is waste storage and fuel processing, and it leaves behind a significant footprint requiring excessive site remediation. Nuclear plants consume massive amounts of water, up to around 65 million litres a day. This is an incredible impact and far more than a solar plant or a wind turbine has.
So I am absolutely proud to be a part of a government that does not just talk about our environment but is active in getting things done to protect it, and that is what our commitment is. We know that our environment is under incredible stresses of climate change. We know that biodiversity is really struggling globally because of climate change and a lot of impacts that are human created, which of course are climate change but also a number of other activities. The very least that we can do is say no to nuclear power, because the only good thing that comes out of that is environmental damage, which is irreversible and with us forever, and skyrocketing energy prices for every single Victorian. Why would you do that?
I also want to remind everyone that before the last election four coalition MPs in Victoria, including two frontbenchers, spoke to the Age anonymously – because cowards like to do that, speak to newspapers anonymously – and they wanted it to be known, albeit anonymously, that they supported nuclear energy being included in Australia’s future energy mix. It is strange, isn’t it then, that these four anonymous names also sit alongside the fact, which is known, that people such as Matt Bach in the other place, the Shadow Minister for Child Protection and Shadow Minister for Education, are very happy for us to rip up our nuclear prohibition act. He wants that. Of course Bev McArthur, also in the other place, speaks regularly about her support for nuclear power to be introduced in Victoria. And we know that the Leader of the Opposition has made clear statements about the need, as far as he is concerned, for nuclear to be part of our energy mix.
What is really important here is that we are calling it out. We are absolutely calling it out. We are calling out the hypocrisy of people that cannot land a decent climate change policy and that have voted against every single climate change bill introduced by this government into this Parliament. Every renewable target introduced into this Parliament was voted against by those opposite, and now they want to tell us all that they support nuclear energy. Well, they are as far away from being elected as they ever have been.
That is not our way. Our commitment is really crystal clear. We have got leadership in a government that is absolutely about securing the future for every Victorian when it comes to their environment, when it comes to tackling climate change with real action and when it is about creating the job opportunities that come with that. It is about being a leader and not being afraid to lead and make the changes necessary to transition our economy, and it is about taking people with us, from the most vulnerable to those that are able to manage themselves. That is our way. It is about a safer community, it is about a more protected environment and it is about a future that is decent not just for current generations but for generations to come, because we know that walking on this planet has caused a lot of disruption that we all have responsibility for.
Equally we have a responsibility to bring forward the right policies that repair the damage of the past, that set us on a course of being absolutely responsible citizens in an environment that needs to be returned to a better, more secure and healthier state that is good for people, that is good for all species and that is safe. People deserve good leadership that takes them to that very place. It is only those on this side, in this government, that will take them to that place, ensuring that we continue to have prosperity for our people, a jobs future, a renewable energy transition and a decarbonised economy where we can have greater pride in the way that we live on this planet and greater pride in the way that we can make the repairs that are necessary to return our planet to one that is safer and healthier for future generations. That is what our government is delivering.
Those opposite only have one care in the world, and that is to make sure that they keep their miserable, miserable ever-declining circle of mates and friends on a downward spiral, because it is simply about getting into government and doing favours for their mates – never mind that it destroys our environment and never mind that it causes skyrocketing power prices for every Victorian.
Richard Riordan: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, it is a wideranging debate and it is an important issue, the reliable supply of energy into Victorian homes and businesses, but clearly the minister has so little to say on it she is finding time this afternoon to go on a rant to talk about the opposition.
Lily D’AMBROSIO: The motion is about you.
Richard Riordan: The point of order is on relevance, Minister. Baseless allegations about who we are friends with or not friends with have nothing to do with this policy. It is clearly not in the motion. I ask you to call the minister back to the motion to stop wasting the chamber’s time.
Paul Edbrooke: On the point of order, Acting Speaker, the minister is clearly within the motion. We do not need the opposition to go nuclear on this.
The ACTING SPEAKER (Meng Heang Tak): It is a wideranging debate. There is no point of order.
Lily D’AMBROSIO: I will conclude, because I know that there are so many people on this side of the house that want to talk about all of the fantastic ambitions that we have actually achieved with support for renewable energy and the vision and the leadership that we have shown for every Victorian – which, by the way, they endorsed at the last state election.
We know that bringing back the SEC will accelerate the delivery of renewable energy and will accelerate the creation of 59,000 jobs for Victorians by 2035, plus 6000 new apprenticeships and traineeships, and we will have a trusted government-owned entity to remedy the myriad of ills that were created by privatisation by those opposite.
That is what we have got, a stark choice: those who support nuclear and their ever-decreasing small group of donors to their political coffers versus those who want to ensure that leadership continues under renewable energy, a decarbonised economy, the creation of tens of thousands of jobs and a vision that is about making our environment healthier, safer and more secure for future generations – one that they can be truly proud of.
Richard RIORDAN (Polwarth) (16:07): I am rising this afternoon to contribute to this sort of nonsense motion from the Minister for Energy and Resources. Unfortunately the minister has overlooked the fact that Victorians are actually really savvy about this. While there is absolutely resounding support in our communities for renewable energy, and there is no doubt Victorians, Australians and the world generally are keen to explore renewable energy, it is not a magic pudding. Unfortunately this state government is turning the serious discussion that we need as a state on energy and the supply of reliable, dispatchable – dispatchable, Minister. This is something that this government is politicising. It is politicising it unnecessarily. I refer specifically to some of the outrageous claims that this minister continually makes without any foundation, the magic pudding energy system that she is inflicting on Victorians. Her first and biggest claim is it is going to have 59,000 people. The minister’s SEC is going to employ 59,000 people. The minister, in her own words, is committing $20 million a year to the SEC. Now, I ask you: how do you build billion-dollar wind farms and solar farms, how do you build the transmission lines and build the infrastructure and put the mechanisms in place, with $20 million a year?
We know this government is very big on making grand commitments – and underfunding and overpromising, ultimately – but this is a nonsense. Energy is the most important thing to the state of Victoria. The state of Victoria built its manufacturing and its business background – the reason we are here and we have been a powerhouse in Australia for a very long time is because we have had reliable, dispatchable, available, affordable energy. Yet this government is on a collision course to not doing that.
I referred just now to the national grid and the energy supply that we have got in Victoria at the moment. I specifically refer the minister to the largest wind farm that we have here in Victoria today. That is the Macarthur wind farm. There are others adjacent to my own electorate that will be coming on stream soon, but just today in the middle of a workday, in the middle of the afternoon, our largest wind farm has a stated capacity of 440 megawatts. It is producing zero, and for the last reporting period, for the last half hour, it has produced no energy at all. Nor have any of the other wind farms in western Victoria. This is not an argument against wind farms, but it highlights the importance that we have to have dispatchable energy.
If we look at Victoria today, 66 per cent of our energy is coming from our existing, traditional coal-fired plants – 66 per cent. They are carrying the burden of the workload. The minister said nuclear is terrible, it is too expensive. However, Minister, when we look at statistics like this – and this is the great deception of the SEC and the great deception of this government’s narrative on energy – it is not pound for pound. You cannot equate 440 megawatts at a wind farm with 440 megawatts of coal or gas or nuclear or even hydro, because you cannot turn it on when you need it. That is the big difference. The minister can get all the research and advice from her department, and they will confirm that the conversion factor of renewables is around 22 per cent for solar and around 36 per cent for wind. So it is a nonsense, Minister.
Lily D’Ambrosio: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, I actually rise to agree that it is absolute nonsense that the member is spurting, but can I just say that he needs to be more factual with the facts –
A member interjected.
Lily D’Ambrosio: Yes, I think it is quite funny, because he is absolutely delusional when it comes to understanding what an energy system looks like.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Minister, that is not a point of order. It is a matter of debate.
Richard RIORDAN: I would highly counsel the minister that she should in fact talk to the energy suppliers and just see where the energy is coming from in this state. I can assure her that well into her energy revolution we are nowhere near providing the energy we need to. Does that mean we have to have nuclear power plants? No, it does not. But a sensible, responsible, prudent government of any persuasion will look at the options, because we heard earlier today – and it is good to see the Minister for Public Transport at the table – the transport minister trumpeting what they do in France. The transport minister said, ‘We’ve got to have a ticketing system like they have in France, in Paris.’ He said, ‘That’s what they do.’ But hey, he does not want to also look at what they do for their energy, because they are 80 per cent nuclear. So it is good enough to follow France when it suits the government argument, but it is not good enough to follow it when it does not suit their argument.
Paul Edbrooke: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, the people of Frankston want to know where the opposition want to put their nuclear reactor.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is there a point of order, member for Frankston?
Paul Edbrooke: They just texted me, Deputy Speaker.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No. There is no point of order. It is Thursday afternoon. We are all getting a little –
A member interjected.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: One moment please, member. It is Thursday afternoon. We are all getting a little restless. But how about we allow the member to continue without too much assistance.
Richard RIORDAN: Thank you very much, Deputy Speaker. I concur greatly with that diagnosis. I would point out that the government today are taking their lead from the French when they want, but not when it does not suit their argument. But we are not here to talk about the pros and cons of the way the French do things, because quite frankly that will never aid Victoria too greatly.
But getting back to the point that this government has a magic pudding approach, I mentioned earlier the fact that they are conjuring up jobs that just will not exist. They are conjuring up state-controlled energy companies that will never deliver what they say. But a really important point the minister made was about the prohibitions on nuclear development here in Victoria. I remind the minister very much that if in fact she had taken her previous role as resources minister seriously, she would have been well briefed that Victoria has some of the world’s best supplies of copper, rare earths, special minerals and other things that are essential in a decarbonised economy. Victoria in particular – and Australia generally – is in a super position to be at the forefront of new energy technologies. It is a simple fact that the current prohibitions of this government – who, as the minister made quite clear, under no circumstances will talk nuclear, investigate nuclear, look at the options – are not only preventing the opportunity for Victoria to be part of a new energy solution in the world but stopping us from accessing the resources that are evident in the rare-earth materials, in particular in northern and western Victoria.
The reason this is an important factor is because when we have a transition the government often talks about the equity of a good transition that brings along not only those that can afford to pay for the cost here in our own state and our own nation but those around the world. We often talk about energy equity and the need that, when we are decarbonising, it has got to be fair for all – as well as is possible. But in this state we have access to some of the world’s best resources that will help the world transition to a low-carbon future, and this government’s current policy settings are preventing us from fully accessing and harnessing that.
What we are doing is relying on mines in China and mines in South America and other places to provide the materials that this minister and this government are requiring in order to progress their SEC magic pudding and their renewable energy targets. Quite simply, this government and this minister are keen to talk big but they are not acting nearly as big as what they say. They are not acting because they are all talk and no substance.
What this minister must fundamentally understand is that you cannot compare one jurisdiction equally with another. We have discussed that their new-found friends in France have 80 per cent nuclear and a bit of renewable. We know our friends in New Zealand have a very large reliance on renewable energy because – guess what, Minister – they have large mountains and lots of water and are able to rely heavily on hydro, as do some communities in parts of Europe that have different availabilities. Here in Australia and in Victoria we have other capacities that other states do not have. We have abundant gas, we have abundant nuclear and we have abundant other sources and the capacity for –
Richard RIORDAN: We export it to the world, member for Frankston. As a nation we are an active participant in the supply of this material.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Frankston.
Richard RIORDAN: That is right. We export the material that allows others to turn their lights on.
By the minister turning her back on these viable alternatives, she potentially threatens the viability and prosperity of Victoria into the future. Sitting here today we have two main installations providing 66 per cent of our energy, and the minister is saying to us here today that she is actively ruling out any other options that we might have to help supplement that. We have seen this minister here incapable of even building a transmission line to hook up two or three current renewable energy plants that are sitting there unconnected to the grid. The question all Victorians will be asking is: if you cannot even build the powerline to connect up the energy you are already committing to, what future have we got here in Victoria?
I say to this house that this motion that has been put forward today is in fact a wasted motion. No sensible, prudent, responsible government should rule out any options that could provide, if necessary, the means for energising, maintaining and supplying the energy that a modern, First World economy like Victoria needs.
Mathew HILAKARI (Point Cook) (16:18): The member for Polwarth started so well – you started so well. You got off to a brilliant start earlier. You said that the Victorian voters are savvy – and yes, they are savvy. They returned 56 Labor members in the lower house. When the federal Leader of the Opposition came out against ruling out nuclear, the members and the community of Aston returned a Labor member for Aston. So yes, the members of our community are very savvy. That is why they reject nuclear when those opposite do not. The Leader of the Opposition said:
I don’t think you should ever rule it out.
…
You know, nuclear is going to be part of the mix at some point …
The inevitability of nuclear is what lives opposite us here – the pro-fracking, pro-nuclear coalition that sits on the other side of the chamber. Bev McArthur from the other place said:
Nuclear … must be considered.
Nuclear must be considered. When will you walk away from being mouthpieces of the Institute of Public Affairs, of those people who fund your campaigns, and get back to supporting the Victorians who deserve –
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I remind the member that ‘you’ is the Chair.
Mathew HILAKARI: I apologise, Chair. I will continue. Victorians should fairly of course ask, ‘Where would we put a nuclear power plant? Would we put it in Toorak, would we put it in Hawthorn or would we put it down on the coast?’ Are these the places that would want nuclear power stations right next door to their houses? Because it has got to go somewhere. If you are going to build it, it has got to go somewhere. The electors of every community would ask the question, ‘How good is nuclear? How safe is it?’ Well, the more than 33 serious incidents and accidents that we know of say just how unsafe it is.
Fukushima was mentioned a few moments ago. In 2011, more than a decade ago, the Fukushima earthquakes, followed by tsunamis, followed by nuclear accidents, occurred. Both the Fukushima and Onagawa nuclear power plants have never reopened. There is a reason they never reopened. It is because half of the Fukushima power plant blew up. It is never going to reopen.
A member: Due to the tsunami.
Mathew HILAKARI: No, it was not due to the tsunami actually. It was partially due to that, and the Japanese parliamentary inquiry at the time went into this. They said it was collusion between the government, the regulators and the Tokyo Electric Power Company and it was due to the lack of governance. The Japanese inquiry said, ‘Yes, the first one would have blown up and was going to blow up as a result of the tsunami and the earthquake prior.’ But what they said about the second and third reactors that blew up is that they blew up because of the lack of decision-making to put salt water into the reactors to make sure that they too did not explode – because they were worried about the future profits of that company. Once you put salt water into the reactors, they are unusable – you cannot reopen them. That is why they delayed. That is what the Japanese parliamentary inquiry found. So it is actually all about the dollars in the nuclear industry. This side of the house does not support the nuclear industry, for good reason, because we are not about the dollars, we are about the safety of our community.
I ask those opposite: what are they going to do in Japan about the 1.25 million tonnes of radioactive water? What are they going to do with it? It is sitting on the site of the Fukushima power plant right now. They have no plan for what they are going to do with it. What do we make of those 16 people who died as a result of those explosions? What do we do with the increased radiation that was measured 225 kilometres away in Tokyo? That is the distance from this Parliament all the way to the New South Wales border. Nowhere is safe with nuclear power. What about the sea water that resulted in 1250 times the legal limit of iodine that went into those waters in those communities? The Japanese authorities think it is going to take another 40 years just to do the clean-up and recovery work. It is 10 years on already. Forty thousand people, a community the size of Traralgon – some people here might be interested in a community the size of Traralgon – cannot live there. For generations they will not be able to go back home. That is what a nuclear power industry does. Milk and water in the region continue to have high levels of radioactive iodine. That is what that industry does.
The Tokyo Electric Power Company, who ran the Fukushima plant, have a legacy of poor communication, concealment and misinformation about safety issues. This is an advanced economy. It is an advanced legislative agenda that they have in Japan. They have been running nuclear power plants for years, and yet this is what happened. It is a deliberate deficit of trust, something that it probably has in common with these ideas about nuclear in Australia. The other lesser known events are a cavalcade of nuclear leaks, releases of radioactive material, spilled fuel pellets, heavy water tank ruptures, malfunctions, explosive mechanical failures, severe damage to reactor cores, partial core meltdowns and fuel rods just catching fire and splitting. This industry has serious issues. It is not up to the task. It will not keep the communities safe.
I am sure there is no problem with 35 litres of highly enriched uranium solution leaking during a transfer. These are serious issues. They should be considered properly by a government. They should be considered properly by an opposition. I am sure the workers who have suffered exposure to radiation – some have suffered radiation burns and some fatal overexposures – cannot but be a very human example of the costs of the nuclear industry. And of course we have Chernobyl, the most infamous of all nuclear accidents.
The industry is not up to the job of thinking about the long-term consequences of an industry like the nuclear power industry. In 2019 a steel encasement – ‘a steel sarcophagus’ they call it – was put in place over Chernobyl. That was the latest fix-up job. Maybe it will last 100 years. Nuclear waste lasts for somewhere up to a million years. How many times will we have to repeat this process? How many problems are we leaving to the next 10,000 generations – not just this generation and not just the next generation?
We are fortunate in Australia that the Commonwealth already prohibits the construction and operation of nuclear power plants. We do the same in Victoria. As the minister mentioned, the CSIRO, in their most recent GenCost, says that nuclear is the most expensive form of power. Nothing could be more expensive. There is nothing fast about nuclear either. It is going to take at least 10 years to develop, and it takes more than a decade to shut nuclear power plants down.
The UK is building nuclear power plants at the moment. The cost went from $30 billion to $60 billion. The costs that are laid out at the start are always well under the actual costs in the end. In France, and I am glad we brought up France a few moments ago, their latest nuclear plant is running 10 years late. It is not producing any electricity. It was meant to be finished in 2012. When you talk about reliable, dispatchable power, it should not be reliable and dispatchable in 20 years, 30 years, 40 years time or whenever they bother to get it done.
I am glad to talk about our record a little bit in the moments that I have left, because since we came to government we have increased the amount of solar energy by 3½ times. That is not in 10 years, that is not in 20 years and that is not in 40 years.
Mathew HILAKARI: Those over there who are having a meltdown over their concerns about their friends in the nuclear industry –
Richard Riordan: You are getting your lessons from the minister here.
Mathew HILAKARI: Thank you. I should be so accomplished.
Our targets of a 75 to 80 per cent reduction by 2035 and net zero by 2045 should be lauded and do not require the nuclear energy industry to be a part of it. I thank the member for Polwarth for indicating the savviness of Victorians, and may they continue to be just as savvy.
Peter WALSH (Murray Plains) (16:28): I rise to speak on this motion. I suppose in starting off I found it curious during the previous speech that the member for Frankston actually asked questions on behalf of the people of Frankston. I am surprised it was not the member for Tarneit that was asking questions on the people of Frankston’s behalf.
Sam Groth: The member for Point Cook.
Peter WALSH: The member for Point Cook, sorry, who actually lives, I think, in Frankston, so he should have been asking questions on behalf of the people of Frankston.
This motion has three components to it, which most people have not stuck to as they have gone through the debate. There has been a lot of trying to rewrite history. The first bit of history that was being rewritten was that somehow the coalition, the Liberal and National parties, were in favour of fracking. We are not in favour of fracking. We have had a policy against fracking, and we had a policy in government against fracking. If you look at the history of gas in this state, it was the Brumby government, the Brumby Labor government, that issued 23 fracking licences in this state. The Labor Party has supported fracking in this state by issuing those licences. They also issued another 70 licences for onshore gas exploration. We actually do need gas as part of the transition to renewables. As our coal power generation ages and is closed down, we do need gas as an on-demand power as we transition to more renewables and the infrastructure is built to do that. The Brumby government, a Labor government, approved fracking licences in this state. The Brumby government approved 70 onshore exploration licences. This side of the house has never, ever approved a fracking licence and had a very deliberate policy against fracking in this state and put that into legislation, which the Andrews government has now continued. So if you are talking about fracking, which the other side have, they have got their facts totally wrong around that.
There have been a lot of people talking about the SEC and what the Liberal and National parties may or may not have done with the privatisation of the SEC. The minister gives us a daily rant about the SEC which is factually wrong, because as the member for Narracan pointed out in his inaugural speech, as an apprentice at the SEC he was made redundant by the Kirner government when they started to privatise the SEC. Again the other side of the house think if they say it often enough it becomes a fact. Fortunately, there is Hansard and there are records about what has actually happened in this state, and those on the other side would do very, very well to go back and look at history before they make a contribution in this house and before they read the cheat sheet that has been put in front of them – a cheat sheet from the Premier or the Deputy Premier’s office – and take it as a fact that ‘This is what we’ll say, and if we say it often enough, it will become true’. The member for Narracan very clearly set out what the truth was about the privatisation of the SEC in this particular state.
The minister in her rant again today was a one-trick pony. It is the same story, the same story, the same story, the same story – thinking that somehow everyone will buy it. I think what the Leader of the Opposition was saying when he had his discussion on the Neil Mitchell program was that we need to have a genuine discussion about what forms of energy we have in the future. Everyone has reservations around the safety of nuclear, and we on this side have that same reservation around the safety of nuclear. If you step back and look at the facts about product stewardship and look at the costs of the various forms of energy, the facts are there that nuclear is more expensive than the other forms of energy. But I do not believe that necessarily all the forms of renewable energy have a true whole-of-life product stewardship to their particular production systems, because at the moment we have no way of disposing of used solar panels. We have got hundreds of thousands of solar panels on roofs in Victoria. In my area and other parts of Victoria we have huge solar farms now, and the community is very supportive of that infrastructure and understands we need to move to renewables, but what happens to those solar panels when they get to the end of their life in 20 or 25 years time? At the moment those solar panels go to landfill.
If you are thinking about long-term planning and thinking about how you are going to generate the energy that we need into the future, we do need energy, because we are not going to give up our air conditioners or our heaters. We are not going to give up our refrigeration. We are not going to go back to Coolgardie safes. We are not going to go back to all the things that our fore fathers and mothers used to keep cool or keep warm. We are going to have to have energy into the future. So if you are talking about product stewardship and responsible government, you would have a plan where solar panels could be recycled or something could be done with solar panels instead of just going to landfill. We are reinventing the mistakes of past generations with the way that we have put stuff into landfill rather than finding a way to use it. All the items we recycle now used to go into landfill. We are doing the same with solar panels, and I think that is wrong. You need to have full product stewardship around how those products are recycled, re-used, repurposed or re-something other than just being tipped into landfill.
The same issue applies to wind towers. There is the issue about what is going to happen to wind towers when they reach the end of their useful life. Depending on the contract that has been signed with the landholders, in some cases it has now been found that the landholders are going to be responsible for the remediation of those disused wind towers. Someone is going to bear a huge cost in the future as to how those wind towers are actually going to be decommissioned. If you go to California and you drive between San Francisco and Sacramento and you go through what is called Death Valley, there is a high-traffic wind valley there where there are multiple generations of wind towers, and as is the wont quite often with America, no-one thought through what was going to happen down the track. They all rushed in and built these wind towers. You now see brand new big wind towers next to old rusty wind towers because no-one has actually taken away the old wind towers. So again, if you are talking product stewardship and our energy needs into the future, you need to think about what is going to happen to the old wind towers when they are decommissioned.
As someone was saying before as this debate was unfolding, if you have been to Europe, there were out-to-sea wind towers where there was a contract for them to be remediated when they ended their useful life, but the contract was on-sold with no clause that the new purchaser actually had to remediate those old wind towers or pull them down and recommission the seabed where they are. Now you have got an issue where no-one knows whose they are and they are sitting there and rusting. So the minister can give us the daily rant about renewables. I understand it is her role to do that – it is her role to sell the government’s message – but she should go back and have a look at what the government policies are around the whole product stewardship around renewable energy projects that are here in Victoria so we do not find we are actually leaving a huge pollution mess for generations into the future.
Today has been a little bit like a matter of public importance when it is not an MPI. The government have a program where they have got a motion or two every week, because there is no legislative program at the moment. At the start of a term of government, to come to this place and only have two bills to debate each week says the government has no agenda for this term. They have no plan to actually improve the lives of Victorians other than standing on the other side and ranting and raving and wanting to criticise whatever they want to about the opposition, and that is what this is about. I think the Leader of the Opposition was very sensible in saying, ‘Let’s have a discussion about the forms of power we’re going to have in this state in the future.’ The other side have a closed mind to whatever may be there in the future, as has been demonstrated in the debate that has come across the table today.
Just in the last minute left, for the Minister for Public Transport at the table, he might go back and research the facts that he quoted in question time today, because as I understand it the operator of the ticketing system in Dubai is not who he said it was. They are in for the tender process, but I am not so sure they are actually delivering those tickets at the moment. So the minister might want to check the record and maybe make a personal explanation next time we sit here. It is very important. Being a minister, there is a responsibility to make sure you get your facts right and do not just on the spur of the moment use things to defend what is a very indefensible decision.
John MULLAHY (Glen Waverley) (16:38): Firstly, I would like to thank the Minister for Energy and Resources, Minister for Climate Action and Minister for – one of the best portfolios to exist – the State Electricity Commission for moving this motion. The minister and her team have put a tremendous amount of work into making Victoria the leader of the nation when it comes to climate change action. Recently the leaders of the federal and state oppositions have declared their support for nuclear energy, a position that is not supported by the community, the energy industry or in fact our laws. What I find amusing about the Liberals’ nuclear plans is that under both federal and Victorian law the construction of nuclear plants is prohibited. But in the words of James Carville, ‘the economy, stupid’. The CSIRO’s recently released report GenCost 2022–23 on the cost of electricity generation lays it out in clear language. Solar and wind power are by far cheaper than nuclear. Wind and solar will cost $83 per megawatt hour in 2030; meanwhile, nuclear energy through small modular reactors is predicted to cost anywhere between $130 and $311 per megawatt hour.
Those opposite love to claim that they are the true economic managers, but I am not sure how spending more money on powering Victoria is efficient economic policy when we already have working renewable energy in this state. Not only would nuclear through small modular reactors be far more expensive but the technology does not actually exist yet. The CSIRO has stated that there is ‘no prospect of a plant being deployed in Australia’ before 2030.
Theoretically speaking, what would happen if we built a nuclear power station? The CSIRO has argued that it would cost at least $25.6 billion to build a 1600-megawatt capacity power station. For context, this is a similar capacity to the decommissioned Hazelwood power station. The reality is that the estimated cost of $25.6 billion would most likely blow out. We have seen this happen in the UK, where the nuclear plant they are building in Somerset known as Hinkley Point C was estimated in 2016 to cost $30 billion. It is now expected to cost the UK at least $61.2 billion. The nuclear power plant that the Liberals are so obsessed about building would almost certainly cost us more than the pricey estimate of $25.6 billion.
Furthermore, in case anyone has any doubts, the Liberals have a terrible record on climate change. Since 2014 the Liberals have voted against or tried to gut the following energy bills in this Parliament: the Climate Change Bill 2016, the Renewable Energy (Jobs and Investment) Bill 2017, the Renewable Energy (Jobs and Investment) Amendment Bill 2019, the Energy Legislation Amendment (Licence Conditions) Bill 2020 and the Energy Legislation Amendment (Energy Fairness) Bill 2021. By opposing Victoria’s renewable energy targets the opposition has risked thousands of jobs.
We already have several forms of renewable energy active in Victoria delivering energy to the homes and businesses of Victorians. It is cheap, it is efficient, it provides jobs and, most importantly, it exists. It is clear that the Liberals are only arguing for nuclear to distract Victorians from the very real work that the Andrews Labor government is doing to continue the rollout of renewable energy. Unlike the Liberals, the Andrews Labor government has a plan to address climate change while providing stable renewable energy to Victorians. Despite 10 years of failure by the Morrison, Turnbull and Abbott governments, in Victoria we have been paving the way on climate change action. We smashed our 2020 emission reduction target of 15 to 20 per cent. In fact we achieved a 29.8 per cent reduction in emissions, and just a year later we achieved a 32.3 per cent reduction. We have already announced that we will power 100 per cent of Victorian government operations with renewable energy. We have announced six solar projects that will help us get there. Everything from hospitals to metro trains and trams will be powered by clean renewable energy. In fact I was there with the minister, and the Deputy Speaker, when she made that announcement at Wilson Transformers in the heart of my electorate.
It is no secret that here in Victoria we have the strongest legislation on climate change in Australia. We are aiming for a 75 to 80 per cent reduction in emissions by 2035 and to reach net zero by 2045. This falls within the Paris agreement targets of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees. Furthermore, we have reduced our emissions more than any other state since the Andrews Labor government was elected, and we have also decarbonised the economy at the fastest rate in Australia. In our first two terms of government we have proved to Victorians that we are serious about acting on climate change.
We are leading the nation in adopting several forms of renewables, including offshore wind. Our offshore wind project is set to deliver 2 gigawatts by 2032, 4 gigawatts by 2035 and 9 gigawatts by 2040. Such projects are not only good for the environment but good for our economy. Our renewable energy projects are powering the economy, supporting businesses and creating thousands of jobs for Victorians. Last November Victorians overwhelmingly voted for a continuation of ambitious climate targets, once again proving that only Labor can lead the fight against climate change.
I could not get up here and talk about energy without talking about the SEC. The SEC is a vital part of our plan to deliver affordable, reliable and renewable energy to all Victorians. The SEC will help us deliver our ambitious and achievable targets of 50 per cent renewables by 2030 and net zero by 2045, and it will deliver 59,000 renewable energy jobs along the way. Many Victorians remember the days when the SEC was strong, but after the Kennett government completed the sell-off most Victorians saw their energy bills skyrocket. Several decades later Victorians, including those who were not even born when the Kennett government was in power, are feeling the effects of privatisation every time they receive an energy bill. It is why so many of my constituents and I reminisced over the SEC and were determined to see its return.
I am proud to say that after astounding support at the election the Andrews Labor government has brought back the SEC. By the end of this year we will be delivering the first project under the SEC, powering 60,000 homes and delivering at least 100 megawatts of power. Not only will the SEC deliver affordable and renewable energy, it will also create 59,000 jobs, and 6000 of them will be for apprentices and trainees. I am sure the team down at the Electrical Trades Union will be excited about this, as the next generation of electricians will be trained up through the Centre for U. The ETU are working in collaboration with Holmesglen TAFE to train the next generation of electrical professionals. Once again our government is taking action on climate change while keeping the lights on.
Additionally, we have invested $42 million to install 100 neighbourhood batteries in Victoria. This investment will support up to 25,000 homes in having access to renewable energy and bring down the energy prices for Victorians. In fact Victoria is home to one of the biggest batteries in the Southern Hemisphere. In my old home town of Geelong – go Cats! – we have been given 30,000 home battery rebates through our Solar Homes program. We are helping families buy household batteries, once again saving them money and helping us reach our renewable targets. We are already seeing the benefits of the Solar Homes program, with those who have accessed the program saving an average of $1073 per year. Additionally, last year more than 510,000 Victorian households and 49,000 businesses received discounted energy-efficient products and services. This is providing relief for the bills of Victorians while helping us transition our state to net zero emissions.
So why do the Liberals have such strong opposition to renewable energy? Why are they obsessed with nuclear? At the end of the day, it is because they and their mates are unable to make a profit from renewable energy like they currently make from centralised coal and gas. Meanwhile, we are putting power back into the hands of Victorians. From community batteries to solar panels, Victorians are receiving cheaper, localised and renewable energy, and of course we have brought back the SEC. Victorians voted for clean, affordable and reliable energy, not for nuclear power that does not exist. We are not looking for obscure forms of energy, as I have outlined. We are getting on with the job.
To finish, here we are again: every couple of years when things are not going well for the Libs, they float the idea of nuclear. Make no mistake, the idea is always floated at a time to distract people from the Liberal Party’s woes. On 12 May last week the Leader of the Opposition, in trying to escape from the nuclear wasteland that is their party room, said:
I don’t think you should ever rule it out.
…
You know, nuclear is going to be part of the mix at some point …
Well, what happened on 12 May? The Liberals tried to protect themselves from something quite radioactive – essentially tried to control a nuclear reaction. I hope the Leader of the Opposition understands the concept of half-life, because this radioactive member has not reached it yet. But one thing we can be certain of is that the opposition is in a state of exponential decay.
Matthew GUY (Bulleen) (16:48): I was not going to contribute to this debate –
A member interjected.
Matthew GUY: I am not sure who you are, but I am sure you will not be here for more than one term. The last guy I said that to was not.
I was not going to make any comments on this debate, but I was drawn by the minister’s claim in this juvenile and stupid motion that somehow all of us on this side of the house are in favour of nuclear energy and that was a fait accompli. This side of the house, unlike the government, believe in debate, community debate. We believe in our country’s future being owned and those key decisions being owned by all Australians and indeed all Victorians. A debate on whether nuclear power – as our uranium, some of the finest quality and the purest in the world, is sold to many, many countries for this purpose – is used domestically is not one that should be avoided; it is not one that we should say we should not have. I have not seen any comments from the state or federal opposition leaders to say anything different. It is odd that the government of the day says we cannot have this debate, but it is a signature of this government that we cannot have a debate. Because their decision is the decision; there is no community debate.
Let me be very clear: as the only member in this Parliament of Ukrainian heritage, sitting next to the member for Warrandyte – I think he and I are the only two people in this building who have been to Chernobyl – and as someone in this Parliament who is probably the only person whose family members died from the effects of Chernobyl, I am not in favour of nuclear power at all. I see it as exceptionally efficient, exceptionally clean, exceptionally worthwhile to debate, but the risks vastly outweigh those benefits. No-one, no leader in the Victorian Liberals, has said we have adopted a policy on nuclear energy – that is not true, and the minister’s comments demean her, in saying that is the case. For our side, having a debate on these issues is worthwhile. It is sensible. It is what you would expect a Parliament to do. To have juvenile motions on a Thursday afternoon when we should be talking about the crisis in our hospital system or the failings in our infrastructure agenda, which are falling over – they are probably more important.
When I was growing up we used to send many packages to our family in Ukraine, including those who suffered the effects of Chernobyl. They lived 600 kilometres to the east of the reactor. As I said, the member for Warrandyte and I walked through Pripyat. We went through the town of Chernobyl and we went past Narodychi. We saw the effects of what uncontrolled nuclear energy can do, and I know people will say, ‘Yes, that’s Soviet technology.’ Well, Three Mile Island was not, and Fukushima was not. And yes, Western Europe has been powered and much of the United States has been powered off this technology for decades, safely – not entirely – but those risks, to me, vastly outweigh the benefits.
We have for many years sent money back to my second cousin for her daughter, who suffers hearing problems to this day because in utero she carried radioactive particles which have affected her children. Her neighbours are the same. She was the first one of my family I met in that country back in 2008. That was the first time that any of our family went since my mum, her brother and her parents came out from Eastern Europe to Australia. Four of us met again in 2008, and the first person I met over there was my second cousin, who died aged 46, about eight years ago, from the effects of Chernobyl. Do not tell me it is safe.
Let me tell you about life under a socialist regime. It was still snowing on May Day, 1 May – the accident was 26 April 1986 – and on 1 May the kids had to attend the parade for May Day, 1 May. ‘С прадзнйком першй мая: you must celebrate 1 May. It is May Day.’ And off the kids were, out on the streets. But falling from the sky was a mix of yellow and orange fluorescent snow, and the kids were saying ‘Mама мама дивись! What is this, what is this? Look!’ That of course was radioactive fallout. Particularly the girls, who were out and forced by the commissars who were in each building and at the end of each street, when the parents were saying, ‘You must come inside, this is not safe,’ were sent out. They were told by the then government, ‘You must go out.’ So they went out. Now many of those girls carry the effects within their genes, particularly in their ovaries, and have children who are to this day born with birth defects. A third of Belarus is technically uninhabitable. Where my family lived, 600 kilometres to the east, was on no UN map. My uncle – yes, his name is Victor; they are all called Victor – was a liquidator, and his daughter said to me, ‘Watch the Netflix series. He said it’s very good, it’s very accurate about them throwing the material from the roof.’ I think they had 30 seconds or something like that, wearing a lead suit. He is very sick to this day and remains very sick. He is on a government pension, living in the village in the east. He has not been able to work for some time.
That is my view, and I put that as my view – which is different to many – on nuclear power. But I say to people who have this fascination with nuclear energy: it requires a huge amount of water. I would never wish a nuclear facility on my community in Manningham. Therefore I do not think I should advocate it for anyone else’s, because if it cannot be in mine, it should not be in anyone else’s either. I would not advocate it for my residents. I would not expect it for anyone else’s either.
But there is a point, and many on the left say this: to get to climate change targets, one step back for two steps forward is very important. Many on the left say you can adopt safe nuclear technology, which will wipe out your coal fire, be vastly more efficient and be vastly better for the environment and CO2 emissions, and that is true. But the truth of the matter is, in my view – and my view is one person’s view out of 88 people’s views in this chamber – that the risks outweigh those benefits. We must find other ways. You can debate whether it is this way or that way.
When my family came to Australia they worked for the SEC. I mean, they have got different stories about the SEC than the previous speaker might have. He might not know what the SEC was. I do: we in the Latrobe Valley know what it was. Sure, the member for Morwell does and the member for Narracan does. I do: I have been in those power stations, in those dredges, in the little railway that used to operate through the open cut. We know what the SEC was like. We know what power strikes meant. We know what the cutting up of Yallourn was, where I was christened and where my parents were married, so we know about the SEC as much as we do nuclear power.
I say to this chamber: I would hope that on a Thursday afternoon we would have motions that come to this chamber that are of genuine debating worth, and nuclear energy should be one. You know my position – most in my party who have asked know my position – but it is not a position I will enforce on others. I think it should be a sensible and genuine debate, not the juvenile rubbish that the minister has put her name to today.
Vicki WARD (Eltham) (16:56): I thank the member for Bulleen for his contribution, although I do think that in talking about having a civilised debate it is probably a good idea not to be rude to anyone else in this place in order to convey the emotion which the member feels about this issue. I agree with him: Вибачте, це кошмар. Or Vybachte, tse koshmar. It is terrible what happened in Ukraine – it is absolutely terrible – and this is the reason why I can never support nuclear energy and I can never support nuclear warfare. Now, there are those on that side of the chamber who are of a similar generation to me who grew up in the 1980s, and there is no way, as a child of the 1980s, that I can support anything that involves the use of uranium and nuclear energy. I am not even comfortable with uranium mining. I do not like it. I do not like the danger that it creates, and I think that the member for Bulleen has spoken incredibly eloquently about how dangerous nuclear can be.
I also agree with the member for Bulleen that we do need to have constructive dialogue and argument and debate about this. It does not help when we have histrionics from either side, but we have particularly seen a fair bit of that from the opposition on this issue. It is not helpful when we have a federal opposition that is so keen to play stupid games with something that is absolutely so important, something that needs to be taken incredibly seriously. Because really when you run out of ideas, what do you do? You go nuclear. Those opposite have gone nuclear, for example, on the Suburban Rail Loop. They do not want it, they do not think we can afford it, yet there are a number of them who think that we can afford the billions upon billions of dollars to build a nuclear reactor that will take decades to build. It is ridiculous.
A member: It doesn’t make sense.
Vicki WARD: It does not make sense at all. This is the party that made it almost impossible to build windfarms, yet they think that we are going to find someone’s neighbourhood where we can put in a nuclear reactor. The truth of it is, whether you agree with nuclear energy or not, you are not going to find anyone in this state who is going to want a nuclear reactor in their community. They are not. The member for Bulleen is absolutely right: there is no hope in hell you would have a nuclear reactor in my electorate. There is no-one on this side of the chamber who would want a nuclear reactor in their part of the electorate. I wonder if the member for Polwarth wants one in his part of the electorate.
A member: No.
Vicki WARD: Or does he want it on the Great Ocean Road? Does he want it in Loch Ard Gorge? Where would it go? The member for Bulleen is right: it needs a lot of water. It needs to be on the coast. So which National Party-held seat or Liberal Party-held seat would a nuclear reactor go into?
The SPEAKER: Order! The time set down for consideration of items on the government business program has arrived, and I am required to interrupt business. The member will have the call the next time the motion is before the house.