Tuesday, 19 March 2024
Bills
Climate Change and Energy Legislation Amendment (Renewable Energy and Storage Targets) Bill 2023
Bills
Climate Change and Energy Legislation Amendment (Renewable Energy and Storage Targets) Bill 2023
Council’s amendments
Message from Council relating to following amendment considered:
Insert the following New Clause after clause 5 –
‘5A New section 7A inserted
After section 7 of the Climate Change Act 2017 insert –
“7A Independent expert advice in relation to determination for net zero greenhouse gas emissions
(1) In determining the amount of total greenhouse gas emissions attributable to the State, the Minister must obtain advice from one or more persons who are appropriately qualified, in the Minister’s opinion, to act as an independent expert.
(2) The advice obtained under subsection (1) must include an independent assessment of the amount of total greenhouse gas emissions attributable to the State.
(3) In forming the advice, an independent expert must consider –
(a) the demonstrated effectiveness of any proposed activities for the removal of greenhouse gas emissions from the atmosphere; and
(b) the likely effectiveness of any eligible offsets.
(4) The Minister must publish any independent expert advice obtained under this section on the Internet site of the Department as soon as practicable after the advice is received by the Minister.”.’.
That this amendment be agreed to.
I am pleased to say that the government is accepting of the amendment that has been moved and supported in the other place to require independent expert advice to be obtained when we reach net zero emissions in Victoria in 2045. Under the current act and regulations reporting on greenhouse gas emissions is aligned with the Commonwealth, state and territory inventories, and this process will continue. When we reach net zero by 2045 it is crucial that we ensure the integrity of our net zero declaration, and while the states and territories inventory is a robust process, independent expert advice will provide additional assurances to Victorians that we have met our targets. I do want to thank the Greens for engaging in very productive discussions with the government on this amendment.
Broadly speaking, the Victorian government is very proud to be leading the nation on climate action, and this bill only strengthens our position at the forefront of this critical transition. Upon passage of this bill Victoria will become one of the very few state or federal governments anywhere in the world to legislate a net zero date of 2045 or earlier, and we know that we can achieve this ambitious aim because we have beaten every one of our emissions and renewable energy targets thus far. These are interim targets that we have set.
Our climate and energy agenda will continue to create jobs and grow the economy, and by legislating our suite of targets we are providing industry with the certainty it needs to continue investing in new clean technology. We know that by meeting our 2035 emissions reduction target – that is, one of the interim targets – we will unlock more than $63 billion in value for the Victorian economy, while our 95 per cent renewable electricity target will create 59,000 jobs by 2035. This target of 95 per cent renewables by 2035 is critical to ensuring energy security and cheaper power for Victorians.
Our government is committed to building the cheapest new-build energy generation on the market that is renewables and only renewables. Putting downward pressure on prices is a critical part of this agenda, as is of course cutting our emissions. As the old and ever increasingly unreliable coal-fired power generators exit the market, bringing more renewable energy into the system is the only way to ensure our power grid works for all Victorians.
Our energy storage and offshore wind energy targets complete the picture by ensuring that we maintain confirmed renewable generation 24 hours a day. These targets are supporting the creation of whole new industries in this country, and Victoria is proudly getting on with delivering big batteries and the nation’s first offshore wind generators.
We are also further integrating climate change into our planning system through a new objective in the Planning and Environment Act 1987 and creating a new head of consideration for planning authorities to consider climate change when preparing a planning scheme or planning scheme amendment. I do want to acknowledge and thank the Minister for Planning for this very important reform.
Climate change is a critical challenge for our state and our planet, and the Victorian government is tackling it head on. This bill further raises Victoria’s ambition as a world leader on climate action and will further catalyse our renewable energy transformation. I commend this bill to the house.
Ellen SANDELL (Melbourne) (16:40): This bill is coming back to the lower house because of an amendment the Greens secured support for in the upper house. We will be supporting it. It is our amendment – I wrote it – so of course we will be supporting it. I just want to outline a little bit more about what the amendment does and why it is so important.
I would like to extend my thanks to the Minister for Climate Action, Minister D’Ambrosio, and her office in particular for engaging very constructively with the Greens on this and supporting this amendment, which allowed it to go through the upper house. I would also like to thank those in the upper house who did support it – the rest of the Labor government, the Animal Justice Party and Legalise Cannabis – who all spoke in favour of it, and I believe it went through on the voices in the end.
This is an amendment to the Climate Change Act 2017 which closes essentially a loophole in our laws that could allow dodgy offsets and unproven carbon capture and storage to be counted towards Victoria’s net zero emissions reduction targets. Let me explain what that means. This bill sets a target for Victoria becoming net zero with our emissions by 2045. That is a good aim, net zero by 2045. However, what ‘net zero’ actually means is the important thing here. Currently in the Climate Change Act there exists this loophole that essentially allows offsets or carbon capture and storage to be included as counting towards our net zero targets.
As it stands, the law in Victoria states that the minister alone firstly determines the amount of greenhouse gas emissions that are attributed to Victoria when it comes to meeting our net zero target by 2045. The minister also has sole power to say whether carbon offsets and carbon capture and storage can contribute in calculating what net zero means, so how much offsets and CCS contribute to our emissions reduction targets. What this means in practice is that a government could essentially say that we are at net zero, that we are meeting our net zero targets, but that could include a huge amount of dodgy offsets. It could include untested carbon capture and storage that in reality means we are not actually reducing emissions much at all. It is essentially a dodgy accounting trick allowed in the current law.
Under our amendment, our proposal – which if passed through this house will be accepted into law – before doing that the minister would actually have to seek independent expert advice about the veracity of their emissions calculations. This scientific, independent advice has to specifically include whether offsets or carbon capture and storage actually lower emissions or whether they are just dodgy accounting and do not do very much at all. It is a really sensible thing to require that independent advice to make sure that we are not just saying that we are at net zero, that we are not using accounting tricks but we are actually reducing emissions, because that is what we are all here for, right? That is what the bill is supposed to do.
In fact Victoria already does something like this when it sets our emissions reduction targets overall. The government already has to get independent expert advice on what the Victorian targets should be according to science. So it is not something that is unheard of; it is not a new thing. We are just saying, ‘Let’s get independent expert advice on net zero targets, offsets and CCS as well.’
I would like to especially thank Environmental Justice Australia and Environment Victoria for helping us with this amendment. It was a joint effort, and I am really pleased that the Greens were able to shepherd it through the Parliament and make it law.
I want to talk a little bit more about why the independent advice is really important, because time and time again we actually have seen dodgy offsets and carbon capture and storage used as Trojan horses for the fossil fuel industry, which have then been accepted by governments to make governments feel like they are doing something good in reducing emissions when in fact we are not actually reducing emissions at all. We are just allowing big fossil fuel corporations to keep polluting.
The climate continues to heat up. All we have done is spend taxpayer money to allow fossil fuel companies to keep polluting the atmosphere, and we actually have seen this happening for years now. If you look at the federal carbon offset scheme, it relies basically on fraudulent carbon credits. Last year ANU researchers found people were obtaining credits for not clearing forests that were never going to be cleared anyway, for growing trees that actually already existed, for growing forests in places that it was clear were never able to sustain forests and for operating generators at landfills that were already going to operate anyway. So these are dodgy offsets that we do not want to be any part of the net zero targets in Victoria. We do not want to use these dodgy offsets to say we are meeting net zero but actually not get the outcome that we all want to achieve. That is why this amendment is so important; it is getting independent scientific expert advice on whether offsets are real or not.
On carbon capture and storage, look no further than the Gorgon project, Chevron’s super massive LNG plant in the Pilbara. The WA government only approved this plant on the explicit condition that Chevron could capture and permanently store at least 4 million tonnes of CO2 a year. But in fact what happened was that it failed to store a single tonne of CO2 in its first three years of gas exports. In 2022 the Gorgon gas project emitted more greenhouse gas emissions than any other industrial facility in Australia. This was put up in lights as the golden child for carbon capture. This was going to be the project that demonstrated that carbon capture and storage could work, yet last year it only captured a third of the capacity that it promised it would. This is not working. Carbon capture and storage does not work at a commercial scale anywhere in the world. Even in these huge, big projects that have been given so much money and that are desperately trying to make this technology work, it is not working. So we do not want dodgy carbon capture and storage, something that is untested or dodgy offsets to be used to say that Victoria is reducing our emissions when we are actually not reducing our emissions.
Our hope is that through this amendment, by ensuring independent verification of net zero, Victorian governments and fossil fuel giants are put on notice that we actually have to hit our climate obligations. If we want to actually hit our climate obligations and our targets, offsets and CCS really should be systems of absolutely last resort. We should be reducing emissions at the source, not just emitting and then hoping that we are able to capture them later with technology that is not working. At a bare minimum, offsets must deliver effective, equivalent and permanent reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, and they need to be independently verified to make sure that is actually the case. That is what this amendment helps us do.
We also hope that with this amendment – and hopefully we will have the Liberal and National parties also support the amendment – then every other state and territory and even the federal government will also look at this and see that we cannot con our way to net zero emissions and we cannot do it by just paying a pittance over here to pretend that we are planting some trees and hope that that will allow us to keep polluting. Net zero actually needs to mean what it says on the tin: it actually needs to mean net zero emissions. It is a small change, but I will be very pleased if we are able to get this modest but very important change to the Climate Change Act through. On that, I would like to commend the amendment to the house.
Nina TAYLOR (Albert Park) (16:49): I would firstly like to acquit the amendment. On a positive note, I should say we are supporting the amendment, and I just want to make a couple of points with regard to that. Firstly, I would say that the inventory that we have in the state is a robust process; however, the independent expert advice will provide additional assurances to Victorians that we are meeting our targets. I would like to allay the concerns of the Greens political party that our tripling of investment in renewables is not about feelings, it is about making significant structural change and investment in cleaner energy for Victoria, and we certainly have good form in this space.
Upon passage of this bill Victoria will become one of the very few state or federal governments anywhere in the world to legislate a net zero date of 2045 or earlier. Let us unpack that a bit. I should also say that we always have a holistic approach when it comes to investment in the energy sector and investment broadly across all infrastructure across our state, because our climate and energy agenda will continue to create jobs and grow the economy by legislating our suite of targets – very strong targets, again, not feelings, but actual targets for emissions reduction and renewable investment – that we will deliver on and have already delivered on to date. We know that by meeting our 2035 emissions reduction target we will unlock – I am going to reassert this, because when you are looking at the holistic picture of investment in energy – more than $63 billion in value for the Victorian economy. Our 95 per cent renewable energy target will create 59,000 jobs by 2035, and our 95 per cent renewable energy target by 2035 is critical for ensuring both energy security and cheaper power for Victorians. I know during the recent wild weather that we had there were some equally wild suggestions – ‘Oh, let’s jump to nuclear, because that will just fix everything’ – when in fact we know that nuclear still has to pass through poles and wires. It is not going to magically go from the nuclear power plant to houses. So when you have thousands and thousands of trees knocking over thousands and thousands of poles and wires, lo and behold, not even nuclear can help in that situation. I am just putting it out there. I was actually on the inquiry into nuclear prohibition, and I must say that –
James Newbury: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, this is an extremely tight debate about an amendment. It is one amendment. It is one very, very tight amendment, and the debate that is currently occurring is not in any way related to that specific amendment, which is what this debate is about.
The ACTING SPEAKER (Jackson Taylor): The member had strayed from the debate. I ask the member to come back.
Nina TAYLOR: Absolutely. Yes, indeed. I accept your ruling there, learned Acting Speaker, noting that I was within the frame, or I seek to be within the frame, of energy and energy security. I hope that that was not understood otherwise in the chamber, but I respect your ruling also.
Of course we are committed to building the cheapest new-build energy generation on the market, renewables, putting downward pressure on power prices and cutting emissions. Consistent with the central tenet and purposes of the Climate Change and Energy Legislation Amendment (Renewable Energy and Storage Targets) Bill 2023 we would say that how we invest in energy in this state is indeed relevant to the underlying purposes of the legislation, because we know as the old unreliable coal-fired power generators exit the market, bringing on more new renewable energy into the system is the only way to ensure our power grid works for all Victorians.
I just felt that there have been a lot of discussions about what that means for energy security into the future and how we best accommodate that for our state, both for commercial industry and also for residential consumers as well. That is why the discussion must pertain to, ‘Okay, what is the relevant source or sources of energy for our state?’ On that note, our energy storage and offshore wind energy targets complete the picture, because it is not only about the energy generated. It is also, of course – and I am not saying anything that the chamber is not aware of, just reasserting the relevance of energy storage and offshore energy wind targets to complete the picture by ensuring we maintain firmed renewable energy generation 24 hours a day. I just want to be very clear for the chamber that we do not wish to undermine in any way energy security, and in fact we are asserting that and we are reaffirming that through the significant investment in clean renewable energy and storage and by setting really strong energy targets. On that note, I will commend this amendment to the house.
James NEWBURY (Brighton) (16:55): I rise to speak on the amendment that has been agreed to by the Legislative Council. When this bill first came to the chamber in this place there were three matters that were spoken to that were specific to this amendment that the coalition raised, one being the matter of the Premier and minister determining the point at which the targets are reached – and the Greens have spoken to that matter in terms of this amendment. We raised our concerns because the legislation did simply allow the minister to decide – and the Greens have eloquently put the need to stop dodginess – when that point was reached, with no depth behind it.
We also raised the point at that time that the reporting of the ongoing level which the targets are at is not transparent. They are not available to the community. We moved an amendment that spoke specifically to that, and we talked about the need to be more transparent. I mean, we should have a situation where kids at school, students – whoever it is, whoever is interested – have the capacity to jump on a website at any time and look at where these targets are currently at, what the goal is and where the targets are currently at. We know you cannot do that, because of – the third point that was raised – the lack of reporting under the bill. Effectively, the minister comes into this place at a time of their choosing once a year and reports it. So there were three, I guess, transparency measures that were raised in that debate: the reporting and the lack of reporting, the online accessibility of where the targets are at at any time and also the minister’s capacity to make a determination.
Now, this amendment, which the coalition will not be supporting, though I understand the sentiment behind it, does include in the drafting that the minister can appoint a person who in the minister’s opinion can act to provide advice. And it is a concern for the coalition that the existing legislation, which we are speaking about today, pretty much says that the minister in their opinion can determine when we reach targets. So the government has agreed to a Greens amendment which says that the minister can appoint someone who in their opinion is going to provide advice. What we know from this government is that ministers appoint people who often, you know – you do have to ask whether the people that are being appointed are providing fulsome advice. Because of that element to the amendment, we say that the government is not fully embracing the need to have an independent set of advice, because there is no protection from the minister now – in their opinion, in the words of the amendment – appointing someone who provides what they want. It does add one extra layer, but it certainly does not add the level of transparency that is required.
The other thing the government has not accepted, which we think would add to a full package of transparency measures, is ongoing reporting of targets – where they are at at any time – and also the minister providing more details than simply providing that to the chamber at a date in the year. So in terms of transparency around this bill, this bill is entirely lacking. The coalition is not reflecting on some of the sentiment of the amendment, but the amendment does not fully provide the transparency required.
In terms of targets more generally, the coalition before the last election committed to introducing and legislating targets as part of our policy package, and I recall the Premier – I spoke about it in the debate on the second-reading speech – effectively saying to me across the chamber that it would be a cold day in hell before the government introduced them. So here we are. With a change of Premier there has obviously been a change of heart, but targets will only work if there is transparency around them – if they are reported to the community, if we can see where there are at. We know that when it comes to targets the government does not report where we are. I refer to electric vehicles and the commitment to 50 per cent by 2030. Currently it is 6 per cent when there is a national average of 8 per cent. You need to do more than have a target. You need to do more than hide where you are sitting against your own target. For that reason the coalition will not be supporting this amendment.
Daniela DE MARTINO (Monbulk) (17:01): It gives me great pleasure to rise to speak on this amendment to the Climate Change and Energy Legislation Amendment (Renewable Energy and Storage Targets) Bill 2023. I have been listening with great intent to the debate which has been unfolding, and I have to say I am very excited about this. The reason I am excited about this is that once passed, this legislation will cement in black and white our net zero target for 2045. There have been amendments made here, and I know there has been really constructive work done on this.
I would just like to state that I think it is incredibly important that we acknowledge how much work has gone into doing this. As a state – and I have said this before in this place, and I will say it again no doubt – we are leading the nation when it comes to setting renewable energy and net zero targets. We should be incredibly proud of what we are doing, because not only are we leading the country, we are leaders in the world. Again I have said this before: there has been a power of work by the minister and her team to get us to this point. This is not blue-sky thinking on the government’s part, because we have already exceeded the targets that we have previously set.
A member interjected.
Daniela DE MARTINO: We have indeed, and now we have actually said that we have made a commitment, a firm commitment, which is going to be enshrined in this legislation, to reach net zero by 2045. We have good form in this regard. The new technologies which are being developed to propel us forward to meet these targets are something to behold, and they are driving energy prices down as well. There are so many benefits for our state and for all of us across the state, be it small business owners or be it residential consumers.
Obviously, we have here an amendment which states that:
… the Minister must obtain advice from one or more persons who are appropriately qualified, in the Minister’s opinion, to act as an independent expert.
I heard with interest the member for Brighton’s concerns about this, but I think we do need to look at the fourth point, which says that:
The Minister must publish any independent expert advice obtained under this section on the Internet site of the Department as soon as practicable after the advice is received by the Minister.
So that advice will be out for all to see, and that is an important part of this amendment as well.
Without a doubt I support this. I support the bill in its totality, and I support it with the amendment that has come here too. I have to say the reduction of harmful CO2 emissions is the entire aim of this bill. It is a critical issue for all of us. It is a critical issue for every single person around this planet, because the harm which is occurring as a result of CO2 emissions, which have only been increasing up until recent years because of our use of fossil fuels since the industrial age, has resulted in climate change, which is causing destruction in places. As the member for Monbulk, I see it writ large every time there is a freak storm, which is no longer unprecedented.
It is so important that we do this from existential perspective, but the way we are doing it too will generate also 59,000 jobs. It will be healthy for our economy, and it will drive the price of electricity down. That is absolutely critical as well. We know that today there was wonderful news talking about the fall of electricity prices here in the state of Victoria, and that is attributable to our renewable energy progress because we have such a high percentage – I believe it is about 38 per cent – of our generated energy coming from renewable sources. Enshrining our net zero targets in this legislation is fundamental to ensuring that we keep our eye on the ball moving forward and do our absolute best to ensure that we are no longer a carbon-emitting state by 2045, and that is absolutely critical. It was mentioned before by the member for Melbourne that hopefully the rest of the country will follow suit. I sincerely hope that they do and at pace, because there is no time to waste in this regard.
There is nothing but wins here for us. It is a positive bill with positive outcomes that will be derived from it. I have to say every time I speak about energy, I am quite passionate about this because the environment and climate change have been things that I have been focused on for several years. I think I said I was 17 the first time I ever watched An Inconvenient Truth, and I do shudder when I hear some people deride climate change or try to attribute it to some kind of natural phenomena when the world’s climate scientists know –
James Newbury: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, this is an extremely tight debate around one specific amendment. There has been some latitude given from this side of the chamber, but with respect, this is not a debate at this point around this amendment.
Daniela DE MARTINO: On the point of order, Acting Speaker, this amendment considers several things. New subsection 3 states:
(a) the demonstrated effectiveness of any proposed activities for the removal of greenhouse gas emissions from the atmosphere; and
(b) the likely effectiveness of any eligible offsets.
With 3(a), one must discuss the varying types of renewable energy and their impact.
James Newbury: Further to the point of order, Acting Speaker, it does not include what people watch on TV. This is a very, very tight debate around this amendment and only around this amendment.
The ACTING SPEAKER (Paul Edbrooke): Member for Brighton, I will just rule on the point of order because you cannot speak consecutively on a point of order I have just been informed. On that point of order, I will just remind the member for Monbulk to not stray from the bill at all. It has been a wideranging debate, but we will keep it nice and narrow from now on, thank you.
Daniela DE MARTINO: Thank you, Acting Speaker. Ultimately, I would like to commend this amendment to the house. I would like to thank the minister once again for all the work that has been done by her and her team, not just on this bill but on the previous legislation and all the work that surrounds this goal, which I hope we all share, in ensuring that we have a carbon emissions free future. I commend it to the house.
Assembly divided on motion:
Ayes (56): Juliana Addison, Jacinta Allan, Colin Brooks, Josh Bull, Anthony Carbines, Ben Carroll, Darren Cheeseman, Anthony Cianflone, Sarah Connolly, Chris Couzens, Jordan Crugnale, Lily D’Ambrosio, Daniela De Martino, Gabrielle de Vietri, Steve Dimopoulos, Paul Edbrooke, Eden Foster, Matt Fregon, Ella George, Luba Grigorovitch, Bronwyn Halfpenny, Katie Hall, Paul Hamer, Sam Hibbins, Mathew Hilakari, Melissa Horne, Natalie Hutchins, Lauren Kathage, Nathan Lambert, Gary Maas, Alison Marchant, Kathleen Matthews-Ward, Steve McGhie, Paul Mercurio, John Mullahy, Tim Pallas, Danny Pearson, Tim Read, Pauline Richards, Tim Richardson, Ellen Sandell, Michaela Settle, Ros Spence, Nick Staikos, Natalie Suleyman, Meng Heang Tak, Jackson Taylor, Nina Taylor, Kat Theophanous, Mary-Anne Thomas, Emma Vulin, Iwan Walters, Vicki Ward, Dylan Wight, Gabrielle Williams, Belinda Wilson
Noes (26): Brad Battin, Jade Benham, Roma Britnell, Tim Bull, Martin Cameron, Annabelle Cleeland, Chris Crewther, Wayne Farnham, Sam Groth, David Hodgett, Emma Kealy, Tim McCurdy, Cindy McLeish, James Newbury, Danny O’Brien, Michael O’Brien, Kim O’Keeffe, John Pesutto, Richard Riordan, Brad Rowswell, David Southwick, Bridget Vallence, Peter Walsh, Kim Wells, Nicole Werner, Jess Wilson
Motion agreed to.
The SPEAKER: A message will now be sent to the Legislative Council informing them of the house’s decision.