I am very happy today to stand here and support this motion condemning the federal opposition’s nuclear power policy. But before I go into a bit of detail as to why, I just want to remind the house that the member for Brighton said that the Premier is not focused on the things that matter to people on the same day that the Premier announced a comprehensive package to stop violence against women. How out of touch, on this day, to say that the Premier is not focused on things important to people.

Those on the other side seem to be quite obsessed with gas, talking a lot about gas as an energy source that we need to keep using. The Grattan Institute has stated that it is no longer plentiful, it is no longer cheap and it is also a fossil fuel, so we need to look at alternatives. We know, though, that the federal opposition would like to see nuclear in this country. We know that nuclear power is extremely expensive and the possible environmental impacts are devastating, and we heard the member for Point Cook highlight one serious and really sad example of the impacts that nuclear has. Those opposite have been quite inconsistent on this issue, flip-flopping between suggesting that it would be part of the energy mix if they were to form government and refusing to say whether they will remove the nuclear ban in Victoria: ‘We’re sending it off to South Australia.’ I am quite baffled at, I guess, the audacity, given that we know the history of nuclear testing in remote communities and the impact that that has had on First Nations people. So the suggestion that we perhaps consider South Australia as an opportunity is quite disappointing to hear.

It is very hard, but I will try to give nuclear power and those opposite the benefit of the doubt as much as possible, so I am talking the absolute best-case scenario for the timeline of establishing nuclear power plants in this country. The CSIRO’s most recent energy cost report card suggested that it would take 16 years to build the first nuclear reactor in this country. Let us assume that we have shovels in the ground tomorrow – let us just think about that, ignoring the fact that it would require legislative changes, planning approvals, the funding for the reactor and much more – whilst also assuming that there is not a time blowout from the initial 16-year timeframe. And we know in other countries there have been significant time blowouts and also cost blowouts, so we are clearly making a lot of assumptions in support of nuclear. Even when we ignore a number of very important issues that would certainly come up if a reactor was to be built in this state, the absolute earliest that plant could be online is 2040, so it is a long way away. If the grand ambition of this policy is replacing coal-fired power plants with nuclear reactors, then what this means is more coal for longer. Maybe I should have brought in a piece of coal, perhaps, like a former Prime Minister from the opposition.

We know that Loy Yang A power station is scheduled to close by 2035. I am wondering if those opposite support keeping it open until 2040 or 2045 even. And what policies would those opposite implement to make sure that private companies cannot close their own coal-fired power plants if they want to? I thought that they believed in the free market. The consequence of extending the life of coal-fired plants would be abandoning the state’s incredibly ambitious 2035 and 2040 emissions targets, which have been massively endorsed by the Victorian public. To be honest, I would not be surprised at all if those opposite are really just using nuclear power as a way to keep coal around for longer.

I want to make note of the severe consequences that keeping coal-fired plants online for longer would bring. The world is already teetering on the edge when it comes to emissions targets and the increase in global temperature. A cap of 1.5 degrees or even 2 degrees of warming is becoming harder and harder for us to reach, and the actions that those opposite implicitly support and their federal counterparts explicitly support would amount to environmental vandalism and would only make it harder for the world to reach those targets, let alone this state or this country. We can certainly experience climate change at the moment. We have had – who would have thought at the end of May ‍– 22 degrees.

Let us be very clear: if those opposite support nuclear power and the policies of their federal counterparts, the consequences of these reactors not being viable until the 2040s at the absolute earliest would mean that either we have no power or we have more dirty, expensive coal. This side of the chamber understands that lower power bills are a priority for households, and nuclear power clearly does not stack up when you compare it to cheap, clean renewable energy. The CSIRO’s most recent GenCost report reaffirms that nuclear power is the most expensive form of power generation available; even dirty coal-fired power plants are cheaper than nuclear. It is clear that renewable energy is the cheapest form of energy generation available and it is the best pathway to our goal of zero by 2045, and that is even when you include the cost of firming wind and solar with batteries as well as new transmission. It is obvious to any serious party of government that this state should take advantage of areas where we have a natural advantage compared to other parts of the world. We have been gifted with the best renewable opportunities in this world, and it would be simply foolish for us to ignore this opportunity. Victoria has the lowest wholesale power prices in the national electricity market because of our investments in renewables. Why would we want to backtrack on that? It just does not make sense.

And all of this is before we even consider the cost of constructing a nuclear power plant. According to cost estimates from the CSIRO, constructing sufficient nuclear capacity – a 1600-megawatt capacity power station approximately the size of the decommissioned Hazelwood power station – would cost $25.6 billion. It is an incredibly big estimate, but again I am trying my best to give the benefit of the doubt, because it could be bigger – we know in other countries it has been double that – if it even gets finished. The reality is that somebody is going to have to pay for that big amount, and whether those opposite would like to admit it or not, it might be with a nuclear tax. How do we pay for this? Someone has got to pay for it, whether that is in the form, maybe, of defunding public schools or maybe closing down hospitals. Who will fund this? What will happen?

To conclude my points, I have not had the chance to actually talk about other things, like if we put a nuclear reactor in Sandown, for example, in my electorate. We might have a meltdown in Sandown, and I certainly do not want a meltdown in Sandown, and neither do the residents of my electorate of Mulgrave. I might leave much of that there, but we have also got to think about consultation and what the community would say. What about First Nations people? What would they say? We need to ensure that local communities are on board with this hypothetical project. I would like to finish by reaffirming my support of this motion condemning the federal opposition’s policy on nuclear.