Tuesday, 30 April 2024

Bills

National Energy Retail Law (Victoria) Bill 2024

Second reading

Debate resumed.

David SOUTHWICK (Caulfield) (14:57): As I was saying, today a dangerous precedent has happened in which members of Parliament have been gagged from being able to raise important matters on behalf of their constituencies. Safety matters, social cohesion matters and the ability to raise concerns on behalf of Victorians in this Parliament absolutely matters. As I have said, for me to try to raise safety concerns in this Parliament but be gagged by the Labor government is an absolute disgrace. This is a really, really important matter. This is a matter for all of us. We have anti-Israel, anti-Jewish protesters taking over, literally moving in in the City of Melbourne and moving in on the parliamentary precinct. Members of the Jewish community do not feel safe coming into the city or coming into this Parliament. We also had issues as of yesterday, when there was an altercation on the steps of Parliament – there was an effigy of a Hamas terrorist, a prescribed terrorist organisation, at Parliament. One of these protesters has been charged with kidnapping and is also out there protesting.

This is a real concern for everyone that works in this precinct, for everyone that works here. I say that this is the time when we must be debating these issues. That is why the member for Brighton called for an adjournment to raise these important issues on behalf of constituents. It is important for all of us to be able to bring this to the attention of the Parliament. That is why we are here. That is why we have been elected. My community, my constituency of Caulfield, would be absolutely horrified to think that the Labor government gagged me today and prevented me from being able to raise important safety matters for our community, for the Jewish community, when it comes to these anti-Israel, anti-Jewish protesters.

We have extremists that are out and about doing things – violence – and this kind of thing should never happen. Social cohesion and safety should be absolutely paramount in what we do. We celebrate multiculturalism and we have been on a unity ticket so many times when it comes to these issues, but when a community does not feel safe then I think it is time for this Parliament to act. For this government to silence me today is an absolute disgrace. I am feeling like I have never felt before – to think that the government would silence me at a time like this. They may not agree, but they should at least give members of the Jewish community an opportunity to raise a point when it comes to safety.

Iwan WALTERS (Greenvale) (15:00): I also rise to speak on this procedural motion. I oppose the motion by the member for Brighton. It is a disappointing and slightly confused debate that we are having because the lead speaker from the opposition initiated the debate claiming to have been gagged a number of times and taking exception, I think, Speaker, to your rulings earlier today. I was not in the chamber at that point, but I was watching proceedings from my office at the time. I understand that you invited any member who had concerns to speak to you in your rooms to discuss the issues that were raised earlier this morning in this house and to seek to resolve the issue in that way. I think that would have been the appropriate way to deal with the disputes that arose in the house this morning.

We have then had successive speakers from the opposition, the Leader of the Nationals and the member for Caulfield, talk about really significant issues: the safety of Victorians on our streets and the politically motivated murders of parliamentarians in the UK, Jo Cox and Sir David Amess, and attacks on other parliamentarians like Mike Freer and sadly a number of others, and the security of this place. They are really important themes – of course they are. The safety of parliamentarians and the safety of those who work for us in this building, the safety of parliamentary staff and the safety of Victorians going about their lives in peace and seeking to live in safety and in dignity – they are really important themes. But that does not mean that it is an appropriate course of action to railroad the government business program and seek to discuss them now and in this way. They are important themes worthy of consideration and discussion – of course they are. But there is something ironic about complaining about being gagged from speaking on particular topics by then seeking to gag discussion and debate about the government business program and the very important bills that are contained on the government business program this week, including the regulation of the energy market and tax.

This is of course not to suggest that the issues the member for Caulfield has discussed are in any way unimportant – they are important issues. My suggestion, and the reason I rise to oppose the member for Brighton’s motion today, is that there is a time and a place for the discussion of those – it is not during the government business program. I look forward to the government business program being debated further this afternoon, and I look forward to contributing to the important pieces of legislation that are on that business program. So I rise to oppose the member for Brighton’s procedural motion. I hope we can vote on that, and then I hope we can get on to debating the business of the government business program – those significant bills that I talked about before. I look forward to you then providing the house with a ruling on the issues that you invited members to come and speak to you about earlier this morning.

The SPEAKER: The member for Prahran, by leave. Is leave granted?

Leave refused.

Assembly divided on James Newbury’s motion:

Ayes (31): Brad Battin, Jade Benham, Roma Britnell, Tim Bull, Martin Cameron, Annabelle Cleeland, Chris Crewther, Gabrielle de Vietri, Wayne Farnham, Sam Groth, Matthew Guy, Sam Hibbins, David Hodgett, Emma Kealy, Tim McCurdy, Cindy McLeish, James Newbury, Danny O’Brien, Michael O’Brien, Kim O’Keeffe, John Pesutto, Tim Read, Richard Riordan, Brad Rowswell, Ellen Sandell, David Southwick, Bridget Vallence, Peter Walsh, Kim Wells, Nicole Werner, Jess Wilson

Noes (52): Juliana Addison, Jacinta Allan, Colin Brooks, Josh Bull, Anthony Carbines, Ben Carroll, Anthony Cianflone, Sarah Connolly, Chris Couzens, Jordan Crugnale, Lily D’Ambrosio, Daniela De Martino, Steve Dimopoulos, Paul Edbrooke, Eden Foster, Matt Fregon, Ella George, Luba Grigorovitch, Bronwyn Halfpenny, Katie Hall, Paul Hamer, Martha Haylett, Mathew Hilakari, Melissa Horne, Natalie Hutchins, Lauren Kathage, Sonya Kilkenny, Nathan Lambert, Gary Maas, Alison Marchant, Kathleen Matthews-Ward, Steve McGhie, Paul Mercurio, John Mullahy, Tim Pallas, Danny Pearson, Pauline Richards, Tim Richardson, Michaela Settle, Ros Spence, Nick Staikos, Natalie Suleyman, Jackson Taylor, Nina Taylor, Kat Theophanous, Mary-Anne Thomas, Emma Vulin, Iwan Walters, Vicki Ward, Dylan Wight, Gabrielle Williams, Belinda Wilson

Motion defeated.

James NEWBURY (Brighton) (15:10): I rise to speak on the National Energy Retail Law (Victoria) Bill 2024. This bill is about ensuring that Victorians have an energy provider if their provider goes under – ensuring that there will be an automatic transfer of customer in those circumstances. It is a very, very simple bill, and for that reason the coalition will not be opposing it. But the bill is about so much more than just simply ensuring that a customer has a provider. At the heart of the bill, at the heart of this policy debate, is ensuring that all Victorians have access to reliable, secure, affordable and clean energy. This one bill, although a simple bill, is about ensuring that where an energy provider goes under, the Australian Energy Regulator will automatically transfer a customer to another provider.

Ensuring that Victorians have access to energy – have access to electricity – has been of great concern to Victorians, because we have seen so many Victorians left without reliable and secure access to energy. Many important organisations and independent thinkers have turned their minds to policies of energy and spent some time talking to the policies of energy. I refer to the most recent report Keeping the Lights On from the Grattan Institute, which looked at a number of the underpinning policy issues at play in this bill, because this bill is about ensuring that people have access to energy. That is what this is about. That report, Keeping the Lights On, is about that very same thing. What that report found was that there is an uncoordinated approach to energy at a national level but also more broadly. It also found that the energy market:

… may not be able to deliver enough investment in low-emissions generation, storage, and transmission, when and where it will be needed.

That goes to the very core of what this bill is about: ensuring that people do have access to energy and electricity. The report, which I will speak to in some detail, is significant, and it does go into quite important policy thinking around these matters. It was only released days ago, but it has provided an important policy contribution to these matters. I refer to the report:

Currently, the vast majority of power system outages occur because of problems with poles and wires, not lack of generation. But a reliability problem is emerging.

Before we go into the substance of the policy conversation it is important to note the report’s general observation that we have an uncoordinated approach, that we have power system outages which partly occur because of infrastructure and that reliability will be an emerging problem. As you delve further into the report and if you look at the statistics on what we have seen in terms of outages, you see an increase in that reliability problem emerging. If I can further quote from the report, it says:

As the Australian economy restructures to meet the challenges of climate change and net zero, it will rely even more on the electricity system. If this system fails, the country is in real trouble.

And what does that ‘real trouble’ look like? Well, 530,000 people in Victoria had no power at the last and biggest blackout that this state has ever seen, so there will be real problems. These are real problems. These are real policy challenges, and it is important to have a conversation about those policy challenges, not to be political about it but to understand that the experts are saying these challenges are going to get worse and need to be addressed. What the report recommends is:

… three priorities for planning this future market: a fit-for-purpose reliability framework, an emissions reduction policy for the energy sector beyond renewable electricity targets, and better integration of distributed energy resources. These must be accompanied by a major review of the governance structure.

Important findings – and things for us to think about as we consider what is a very, very simple bill in a very complex conversation.

I spoke a moment ago about trends that have occurred, and I make a point that has been referred to in that report, at page 10, which is that by the Reliability and Emergency Reserve Trader, between 1998 and 2016, backup supply was only procured on three occasions, in 2004–05 and 2005–06. But since 2017 there has been a striking change: backup resources have been procured and called upon in every financial year since 2017–18. It shows the trend. In 2021–22 this came at a cost of more than $125 million to energy consumers. We know there is a growing emergence of a problem, and that problem is about reliability. As we have a conversation today about the bill – which the coalition does not oppose – and ensuring that people have a switchover to a default provider, we do need to have a broader conversation about what these emerging trends are showing and the reliability concerns that are being pointed to that exist and the trends that are showing into the future.

I referred at some length to reliability, but I should also refer to the grid in some detail, because when we are talking about reliability we are not just talking about reliability of supply, we are also talking about the reliability and security of the infrastructure. We know that the Australian Energy Market Commission found that 95 per cent of blackouts in Victoria between 2009 and 2018 were caused by transmission and distribution failures, not the weather – 95 per cent. So there is an infrastructure problem – they are real issues. If I can refer to the Australian Energy Market Operator’s warning, it says:

To ensure Australian consumers continue to have access to reliable electricity … it’s critical that planned investments in transmission, generation and storage projects are urgently delivered.

We know there is a reliability problem. We also know from the experts that there is a trend, and we know from the market operator that we need urgent investment in transmission, generation and storage. We saw some of the reality of that play out in the AusNet report which was released around the time of the 530,000 Victorians being left without power, which found that one in seven of the 13,000 electricity transmission towers were damaged by patchy or extensive rust and about 8000 of them are now a decade or less from the end of their service life design. These are really concerning findings from an operator in the market, an operator who has conducted a report effectively into ensuring that we have secure and reliable electricity – findings that I am sure concern all of us. The report further found that 12 per cent of the towers were deemed to be in average condition, with patchy rust, and 1.5 per cent in poor condition that could pose a serious health and safety risk. So we know that there is a trend occurring in our supply, and we also know that our infrastructure is not secure, as we saw earlier this year with 530,000 people being affected and without power throughout storms. These are real concerns, so when we have a conversation about the bill before us it is important, and that is why the coalition will not be opposing the proposition before us that consumers will have an almost default provider provided in circumstances where their provider goes under.

We need to have a broader conversation, because what is being proposed by the government is not enough. The government is not doing enough to ensure that we are protected from the broader issues of reliability and security concerns. Referring again to that 2020 assessment, it further found that 11 ‍extreme wind events had knocked out 45 transmission towers since 1959, with a further six going down in the recent storm. But the pace is accelerating, and that is the point of the findings of this report. The pace is accelerating, with more than half of those towers – 25 – coming down in the past 15 years. What we are seeing from the Grattan report and what we are seeing from industry is a speeding up, if you like, of concerns around reliability and security, and what the government is not doing is fixing those problems. What the government is not doing is fixing those problems, and that is why you can see the Grattan Institute referring to an uncoordinated, ad hoc approach in terms of policy. In fact the report effectively says that in many ways governments are tripping over themselves and causing many of the problems we face. That is what the report says. It is not a direct quote, but if I can summarise it, it says that governments are often the problem.

Security is important and security of supply is important, because at the end of the day this is not just about people having access to an air conditioner when it is hot; this is about people having access to electricity that may save their life, may keep them alive, may provide their family food, may provide energy to ensure that their businesses operate so they can provide for their families. When we have the conversation and these debates about security and supply, we do not clearly enough, at times, talk about the real impact. When you hear big numbers like 530,000 people without power, that does not go into the real stories of what happened that day and the days thereafter – the impact. I am sure that all members in this place – I know I did – had people contact them who were desperately in need of power for life-saving reasons. Security and supply is not about making sure that someone has an air-conditioned home, it is about making sure they are safe, it is about making sure that their families are fed and it is about making sure their businesses are operating.

We have spoken about the experts, and we have spoken about industry in terms of operators. I should also refer to some of the industry more broadly. If I can refer to the chief executive, Paul Guerra, of the Victorian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, after that blackout he was quoted rightly as saying:

The fragility of our existing system was exposed. We can’t get to net zero on a hope and a prayer.

And further:

… the concern lies in how are we actually going to get there?

And further:

We cannot let energy security be the casualty of the transition to net zero.

He, as a representative of industry, was making the points that I made earlier, and making them on behalf of business, on behalf of industry, that we need a better plan to deal with the problems we face, more than just the policy plans that have been put forward by this government.

When we talk about security one of the things that is often missed is the real impact of the cost increases of energy. A business certainly feels that, and I will get to some comments about that shortly. At the end of the day, we know the cost to the consumer, the cost to someone at home, is hurting them. It is really hurting them, the cost of energy. St Vincent de Paul recently found that there had been a 22 ‍per cent increase in gas and a 28 per cent increase in electricity costs, which is roughly in line with the ABS finding of a 25 per cent increase in energy costs. These costs hurt. These numbers, which may sound cold, have an impact upon the people that can least afford it. We know that those costs also have an impact upon business in a very meaningful way, not just when the lights go out and the business is forced to close and throw out its goods but also upon its thoughts about continuing as a going concern in this state.

I have referred to it before, but the chamber did a survey of members in terms of costs, and it is worth repeating those findings. They found that energy policies were a top concern for two-thirds of Victorian businesses. That is an issue at the forefront for businesses operating in our state. Eighty-six per cent believed that the move to renewables would impact upon their output; 73 per cent said that the blackout earlier this year had forced them to close – three out of four forced to close, a significant hit on their capacity to trade and provide for their families; and finally, cost was cited 81 per cent of the time as a main barrier to switching from gas to electricity.

Although I will not go into too much detail on gas, we have in this place talked a lot about gas and Labor’s pernicious gas ban. We cannot allow as a state this government to ban gas. We know that a supply of gas should be provided to ensure security of energy to Victorians. By banning gas, Labor is effectively undermining that security. What is interesting is what the minister is saying to gas producers when the door is closed. That is what is interesting. What the minister says in public and what the minister is now starting to say in private are two very, very different things.

A member: That’s not true.

James NEWBURY: That is true, and that is coming from the industry themselves. They will start standing up and calling that out. They will start calling out what the minister is saying behind closed doors. If I can refer to a comment from Mr Guerra on gas, where he said:

Specifically on gas, if we don’t have a clear plan which also includes affordable pricing, and if we get out of step with the other states in Australia by becoming more expensive for energy, that increases the operational risk for business.

We saw only a couple of months ago ABS figures which showed a net decrease of 7606 businesses in Victoria. Anecdotally, not just by the numbers, when you talk to business, business talks about leaving the state. Tim Piper, a director from Ai Group, said, and he is right, that:

Some (companies) are able to stay here, (but) it is the continuing reinvestment that is the real problem …

That is the message that business gives you when you talk to them. There are businesses that are operating. But it is the reinvestment, and you can see reinvestment decisions are now being made interstate. You can see businesses considering what they will do in the future, and they are talking about South Australia and they are talking about Queensland regularly. It is a very common conversation to talk to businesses and for them to say that. Further, Mr Piper said:

… I know some big companies that are saying this is beyond the pale, they’re not going to be able to pay the level of gas prices especially, and they are having to reconsider their positions …

in this state. These are very important points.

We see it more broadly in policy more generally. We saw it with wind generation, and hasn’t wind generation been a real concern for Victorians? We have seen the federal government state that there will be no meaningful wind generation, in its view, until the late 2030s. But the government has a legislated target in Victoria for well before then. This parliament passed it. In good faith we had a conversation in this chamber and that bill was passed because we want energy generation to succeed. We want it to succeed. We want people to have reliable, secure and affordable energy. But we saw with wind a complete collapse of wind policy, and it is for a number of reasons that these policy areas have failed – one, because of poor policy work. Poor policy work has been a key issue in that, when you look at states like New South Wales, there has been an incredible lag in this state on policy in energy and working with industry to ensure it. We are years behind other states here. I recall speaking early in this chamber, five years ago, about that very fact and looking at New South Wales. The Victorian government has now started to, in recent parliamentary weeks, implement some of the measures that were passed in New South Wales, to bring those in with VicGrid most recently in the last sitting week.

The government proudly boasted in bill briefings how they modelled themselves on the New South Wales model – some seven years behind New South Wales before we have even got off the ground, so we are going to be the best part of 10 years behind. That is not something to be proud of, because what that means is we have a reliability and security and affordability problem with energy. That is the problem.

There is a policy concern, but there is also a lack of community buy-in. We saw that with the government modelling with their public report – a need for 70 per cent of agricultural land to be covered by renewables to meet targets. That report was removed from the government’s website. People in regional communities were deeply concerned that the minister had released a report – and I have a copy here with the minister’s coloured photo – announcing that up to 70 per cent of agricultural land would be required to reach renewable energy targets, without any consultation with the communities. And then when the media wrote about the report, they pulled the report, hiding it, not stating otherwise but hiding it. You can understand why communities look at that and believe there is a lack of trust. You can see more recently, with decisions made by the Premier and the Minister for Planning around bypassing communities on any renewable project, why communities are upset, and what we will sadly see is communities become more and more upset by the government’s approach.

You cannot walk into a community and override that community, because communities at the end of the day have built themselves around people who have been there since the community was formed, who have been part of the community groups, who have built the houses. Governments cannot walk into those communities and say, ‘We’re not going to ask you what we’re going to do. We don’t care what you think. We’re going to build what we want.’ It is just wrong. You can see it with renewable energy; you can see it with planning more generally. I mean, the planning system is heading down a dark path where communities have no say over their own streets or towns – none at all.

I was recently at a community meeting in Meredith where a wind farm has been proposed, and some 400 people turned up to talk about the project a kilometre away from an airport, an airport that has served the community for some 30 years and is a point for emergency services to land and use. And the community has said, ‘We’re open to having a conversation about this project, but can you give us some guarantees around what this will mean about the capacity for emergency services to provide the services they have been providing?’ They have not had an answer. So is it any wonder that 400 people turn up to say, ‘We’re not asking for much. All we’re asking for is the courtesy of a conversation, not simply being ignored.’ We will see with wind, we will see with renewables and we will see with offshore wind – we will see communities, we will see councils starting to say, ‘Enough.’ That is what we will see over the coming year. Either the government are going to learn that lesson before they make the change or they are going to learn that lesson the hard way as the year goes on, because community trust is important, and the government do not have an ounce of it. So the government has failed on that measure.

When it comes to energy, we must have reliable, secure, affordable and clean energy, and some of the big policy conversations we need to have are being ignored. And though we will not oppose this bill, because it does something, it does not do enough in terms of fixing the big challenges we face and the big policy challenges that this state faces into the future.

Josh BULL (Sunbury) (15:40): I am pleased this afternoon to have the opportunity to contribute to debate on the National Energy Retail Law (Victoria) Bill 2024. Before I go to some of the changes and the mechanics that are contained within the bill this afternoon, I just want to pick up on some of the comments made by the previous speaker. We on this side of the house know that the energy market is a very dynamic one. It is indeed a changing market that responds to both a growing population within the state and a need to continue to invest in many of the new technologies that we know exist within local communities. The previous member summarised his contribution by saying that we need reliable, affordable and secure energy, and on those points I agree. But for much of his contribution the previous member spoke about a lack of energy policy and a lack of community buy-in. Sometimes I actually think that the member and I live in different states, because from my experience moving around the local community and speaking to people about solar, about wind and about the opportunities that renewables can provide – not just for the state but for what is critically important: household bills – we know and understand that there is significant support within local communities for many of the policies that this government has implemented and will continue to implement.

I also want to make the point that the notion of a lack of policy during our time sitting on the government benches is astounding to me, because as I have made previous reflections on in the house, just imagine where we could have been at a national level if we had had national leadership from the previous LNP governments – for nearly a decade – in this space. We in Victoria have had to go it alone and have had to invest in so much technology – in wind and solar and all of the things that are contained within the Victorian renewable energy target and more – to ensure that we are providing critical leadership within the space.

The piece of legislation that is before the house this afternoon, the National Energy Retail Law (Victoria) Bill, provides for the adoption of the National Energy Retail Law retailer of last resort scheme. The bill will apply to specific parts of the National Energy Retail Law to give effect to the retailer of last resort arrangements in Victoria. It also provides for regulations to be made under the bill that can modify those applied parts to achieve consistency between the adopted scheme and the broader Victorian energy retail law framework.

We know and understand that providing certainty and safety and making sure that we are working with those people right across our state – as I mentioned earlier, we are indeed a growing community and a growing Victoria – is critical within the market. There are many, many, many examples that I and I am sure many members in this house have spoken about before about this government’s leadership. We have put our foot down. We have been investing through the budget and a whole range of initiatives and projects time and time again to make sure that we are transitioning, working hard to bring down costs for households and making sure that we are doing the critical work: listening to science, listening to new technologies and manufacturing, particularly within regional communities, to know and understand the importance of transition. This piece of legislation goes to fairness and safety and makes sure we are continuing to deliver all of those things right across the state. Specifically, the bill applies provisions of the National Energy Retail Law model for powers for the Australian Energy Regulator to enable the designated retailer of last resort to access gas supply and pipeline capacity contracts purchased in the case of a failed retailer and of course many of the other provisions which go to ensuring that those critical steps are taken to provide for certainty and, as I said earlier, surety within the market.

We know and understand that this is an incredibly important and dynamic space. We know and understand that making sure that we are working with communities right across the state to deliver in this space is critically important to driving down those prices and making sure that we are listening to many of the changes within technology to come. We also understand that local communities have a determination and a real passion to see some of these new technologies come on board and of course to make sure that those costs are coming down. We know and understand – and I have heard many members in the house over a long time speak about this – the importance of transition and the recognition that we are a changing, evolving community, and ensuring that the legislation and the framework are in place is fundamentally important.

I only go back to these points because what I think time and time again we see from those opposite – and I note in the previous speaker’s contribution there was no opposition to this piece of legislation before the house – and what is astounding is a lack of recognition of so much of the work that has been done within this space. If we were to travel back seven, eight, nine or 10 years within this state, we would see a vastly different energy market. We of course have been really up-front with local communities. We have been incredibly strong in our investment and we have been incredibly determined to see that delivered, but we are not here by any sense of the words to tell every single Victorian that this is not a challenging market. We are not here in any sense of the words to say that we are not going to have storms and a whole range of serious weather events that impact the grid and of course go to the infrastructure and the provision and movement of energy right across our state, because we know and understand that that is just not reality. We need to be up-front with people, and that is exactly what we are.

But what we will not cop is those opposite coming in here and saying that there is a lack of – how was it put? – policy in energy and a lack of community buy-in. I think that members on this side of the house know and understand that when we move around our local communities – whether it is doorknocking or whether it is at street stalls; looking at some of these members I think there are many of those events that happen – and talk to our local communities there is genuine passion and excitement about much of this policy. But of course there is a recognition that we need to keep doing more, both through the budget process and through working with new technologies and of course with our providers, to make sure that we are supporting communities at each and every opportunity.

We on this side of the house will always invest in making sure that we are supporting communities to be safe and to be able to go about their business each and every day as they move around their local communities in a way that gives them the very best opportunities, both within those communities but also when moving across the state. We have got a massive investment right across transport, health, education and energy. There is so much to deliver. What we know and understand is that being up-front with our local communities and having honest conversations about the need for and the importance of that investment is something that we on this side of the house – this Allan Labor government – will continue to do each and every day.

This is a bill, again, that goes to fairness, safety and security, but what is most important is the broader frame – and that is a frame of investment, certainty and honesty and doing things for and with the local Victorian community that ensure that our community, those that we represent, can be their absolute best. What we cannot have is an ideological debate based on, well, ideology – not science, not fact – on this legislation before the house. I commend the bill to the house.

Tim McCURDY (Ovens Valley) (15:50): I am delighted to rise and make a contribution on the National Energy Retail Law (Victoria) Bill 2024 and to talk about energy retail and all things power. This bill, I know, in short is designed to make the Australian Energy Regulator responsible for ensuring Victorians are not left in the dark if their energy provider goes under. I support the fundamentals of the bill and I support individuals being protected, but can I say that at the same time as we are introducing legislation that protects families and protects individuals, in regional Victoria, at the other end of the energy cycle, families are getting thrown under a bus, and that is due to this bloody-minded appetite for renewables at any cost – renewables regardless of impacts to communities.

Again I remind this house that regional people strongly support renewable projects – overwhelmingly we do. We want a smooth transition. We want a greener power supply, a future for our children, less reliance on coal and sustainable renewables, but energy sustainability also means sustainability for our communities. I am talking the whole paddock to plate, the beginning to end – start with the end in mind. The tunnel vision of this government, with its single-minded power vision, is really ripping the heart out of some of our communities. I speak specifically of Meadow Creek and Dederang, which I have spoken about before in this house.

Just out of Wangaratta, Meadow Creek is a 56-hectare solar factory that is going to start operating on prime agricultural land; and in Dederang there are two BESS – battery energy storage system – projects. Again the community supports the idea, supports the notion, and supports these projects going ahead, but they are the right project in the wrong place. It is like the definition of a weed: a weed is a grass species in the wrong paddock. These renewable projects are the right projects; they are just in the wrong communities.

In fact, to show my support for renewable projects in our communities, this Friday I am turning a sod at the CleanPeak energy project in North Wangaratta, and I am really looking forward to that opportunity because this is the right project in the right place. The local mayor Dean Rees, the mayor of the Rural City of Wangaratta, and I have been very consistent. We have been on the same page for many years. You talk to your community, you lay your cards on the table, you have robust discussions and you agree or you agree to disagree on the outcome and you move on and you go forward. This is unlike some of these projects that are happening.

In particular Mint Renewables at Dederang refused to talk to the community for over six months – they would not talk to the representatives of that community – and they refused to answer questions even via email. The Victorian government becomes an accessory when it tells farmers and communities they can no longer go to VCAT or they can no longer appeal the decisions that are made. It is really, ‘Suck it up, Princess. It’s here to stay whether you like it or not.’ After six months Mint has finally agreed to have a meeting this Saturday morning, which I am keen to be at, and I will be at. But it is like tying the hands of the community behind their back, putting a blindfold on the community and saying, ‘Okay, now we can sit down and have a genuine discussion about how this is going to roll out’, but what they are really saying to our community is, ‘We’re not going to discuss options.’ This is the ‘brace yourself’ position. Brace yourself; the knock-out blow is about to come. Again the Victorian government is an accessory to this crime, and I call it a crime because it really is criminal to violate the Dederang community’s rights.

They talk about bringing back the SEC, making everything cheaper; it is all complete spin. This bill is standing up for people who have been dealt a poor set of cards, and I support that. I support the idea that if their provider goes under, the Australian Energy Regulator will make sure that people can get further support and be moved to a provider that can support them, but what about my communities in Meadow Creek and Dederang? They have been dealt a poor set of cards – a bad hand – but the Victorian Labor government seems to be turning its back and saying, ‘It’s not our problem.’ I have not seen any Labor MPs – not even the local upper house members – come to the community.

I hear the member for Sunbury talk. He talks about his communities in Sunbury. Does he have wind farms? Does he have solar factories in Sunbury? I am not sure that he does. He may have. He may correct me if I am wrong. Talking to his communities about renewable projects – that is great when you are a receiver of that renewable energy, you are not the producer and you do not have all the concerns that go with the production of that renewable energy. Even our local independent federal member for Indi is very silent – in fact I think she is in witness protection. They just will not come and talk to our committees about how we can do this better. We support renewables, we support wind farms, we support solar, we support batteries – everything that this government is trying to achieve for Victoria – but at the end of the day we are being left out of the loop.

Last week I was very fortunate, along with some others in this house, to visit Anzac Cove. It was a wonderful experience. I could not believe it, to be honest. To drive from Istanbul down to Çanakkale ‍– 4½ hours, prime agricultural land, absolutely prime. There was wheat, there were cereal crops, olives, orchards – all sorts of things. It was a sight to behold. Renewable energy? Yes, there was. There were wind turbines at the top of the hills – at the very peak of the hills where it is pretty much useless for any agriculture. You could hardly even build a house up there. Wind turbines were up there. Did I see any solar farms, any solar factories? No, I did not see any. I did not see one single one on prime agricultural land, which is common sense to me. I did not see any battery factories either – prime agricultural land. It appears to me a country like Türkiye has struck that balance between renewables and farmers and renewables and communities and is making it work, unlike this Victorian government, which is running the heavy roller over our smaller communities. Then there is no right of appeal. I really believe it is unconstitutional. It is certainly just not right.

This bill is about fairness. It is about justice. It is about equality for people who have been dealt a tough hand. Where is the fairness for the people in Dederang and Meadow Creek? Where is the justice for those people and where is the equity and the equality for the people of Dederang and Meadow Creek, who are the producers of this energy? The people of Melbourne are the beneficiaries. All they request is that discussion. Now they have got their hand up saying, ‘Talk to the hand.’ The government, who we are seeking fairness from, are now missing in action. In fact they are hiding behind new regulations. They have not even got the gumption to face up, this government for Melbourne. If you really want to govern for all Victorians, at least show your face. At least put the stake in someone’s heart, not a knife in their back, because we are Victorians too, and we deserve the same rights that this bill delivers. As I say, this bill delivers fairness, justice and equality. Our people deserve the same equal treatment – not being treated as second-class citizens. Where are our Labor upper house MPs? Are they too busy, are they too lazy or are they just too scared to come to the communities?

I want to refer to the second-reading speech in the few moments I have left. The second-reading speech says:

This Bill marks a significant step towards safeguarding the interests of energy consumers in the face of an evolving and, at times, challenging energy landscape.

Where are the safeguards for the Dederang and Meadow Creek communities? Where are their safeguards? It also says:

… the Bill spreads costs across a wider consumer base, mitigating the impact on those unexpectedly affected by the aftermath of a retailer failure.

It is mitigating the impact on those unexpecting affected people, so where is the support for those people, again, in Meadow Creek and in Dederang? Just like this bill provides for the people who are beneficiaries, where is the support of our people?

My communities of Meadow Creek and Dederang will be affected, while the Victorian government has stood by and basically ignored and failed our communities in that respect. This bill is demonstrating the double standards that we have in this state. If you are a beneficiary and you live in Melbourne and things go sour for you, this bill is going to support you. But if you live in one of my communities and you are a producer and you have got prime agricultural land and the farmer next door decides to put up a solar factory or a battery operation, there is no justice, there is no equality and there is no fairness for you. I really feel that as we think through this process of renewables, which we all support, we need to look at both ends of the energy cycle, not just the retail end – not just those who are beneficiaries but the producers as well.

Steve McGHIE (Melton) (16:00): Today I rise to contribute to the National Energy Retail Law (Victoria) Bill 2024, and the National Energy Retail Law (Victoria) Bill 2024 represents significant advancement in protecting consumers and bolstering the resilience of Victoria’s energy retail market by adopting the national retailer of last resort scheme. Of course the bill aims to safeguard consumers’ interests in the face of a dynamic and sometimes challenging energy landscape, and I am pleased that the coalition will not be opposing this bill.

I did want to pick up on a couple of things that the member for Ovens Valley just stated in his contribution. He said that they were the right projects in the wrong place, and I just wonder if those opposite are being honest with their constituents about them even suggesting nuclear energy and looking at nuclear energy and suggesting that it should be part of the process. I am just wondering whether the Leader of the Opposition would rule out building nuclear reactors in the backyards of Victorians, and if not, whether he would be happy to have them in his electorate or in the electorate of Ovens Valley or in other opposition electorates and whether they have been honest with our community members in regard to nuclear energy. We know that before the election last year anonymously there were four coalition MPs that spoke to the Age around about 12 June last year indicating their support for nuclear energy to be included in Australia’s future energy mix. We know what the federal opposition leader has stated in regard to nuclear energy, and I think he actually even indicated back in September last year that the old Anglesea coalmine might be an appropriate location for a nuclear reactor, and that was written up by the Times News Group. I am sure the locals of Anglesea would be very happy with that, let alone the tourists that go down to Anglesea! They would be very happy with things glowing at night! You would not have to get a suntan in Anglesea in the future; you could just glow by being close to a nuclear reactor. How would that look in your speedos? Send Tony Abbott down there in his speedos – that would be fantastic. But anyway, put that aside.

Of course a member in the other place, Mrs McArthur, stated in January last year that nuclear must be considered in our energy mix. It has been repeatedly called for nuclear power to be introduced into Victoria. Again, I just wonder whether those opposite – while they are supporting this bill, which I am pleased to say – have been open and honest with constituents around the state about their position on nuclear energy and whether they will be coming out and being public about it and being honest with the people. If you are supportive of nuclear energy, well, tell us about it – and tell us where you would position the reactors, let alone where you would dump the waste. I am sure not only the people in Anglesea would be up in arms but in other locations they would be up in arms.

A member: Melton.

Steve McGHIE: Yes, come and tell the people of Melton that you think you are going to have a reactor there and you are going to dump the waste in Melton. Just come and do that. That will go down really well in Melton, I can assure you! I can assure you it will go down really well in Melton!

The ACTING SPEAKER (Daniela De Martino): Through the Chair, please.

Steve McGHIE: Sorry, Acting Speaker. So of course, as the Leader of the House mentioned earlier today, I too am very proud of this legislation. It continues our nation-leading reforms. This state is leading the nation in regard to our commitment to renewables, and we are leading that race. As the member for Sunbury stated in his contribution, this bill will provide security and safety and fairness for consumers, which is obviously what we are seeking to do. Of course if you live in Victoria and you use electricity or gas, this is important legislation for all Victorians. The legislation is going to make it so that if your retailer for gas or electricity goes out of business, Victorians are covered, and this is about not leaving customers in the dark when the power goes out from one particular company, one particular provider. The energy regulator makes sure that the customer has another provider.

We have reduced our greenhouse gas emissions more than any other Australian state consistently from when the Andrews Labor government was elected back in 2014, and we have increased our 2030 renewables targets by 15 per cent because we have already smashed our targets. We have brought forward by five years our net zero emissions target, from 2050 to 2045, which means the target for 2035 of 95 per cent is well within our reach, contrary to what the member for Caulfield was tweeting out some time ago. We have delivered 300,000 solar rebates to households in Victoria to help them reduce their bills and control their energy. This is such a fabulous initiative, and it is something that in my family my wife and I hope to be undertaking very soon, when we build a new house within the next 12 months. So there you go – totally renewable out there in McGhie land, totally renewable. It will be quite interesting for an old fellow like me, I can tell you.

Juliana Addison: When is the house-warming?

Steve McGHIE: If I could get a decent council that would give us a planning permit, then we would be doing okay.

The opposition’s lead speaker the member for Brighton raised the issues of transmission and storage, and the member for Eureka and I have been involved in the process with the western transmission network project for some time because our electorates are affected by the suggestion of above-ground transmission wires. I have got to remind those opposite that there were many members from the opposition that attended public meetings and objected to this transmission project because of it being above ground, but they did not have any alternatives apart from ‘Oh, maybe it should go underground’ or things like that but knew that the costings were enormous. So for the lead speaker of the opposition to suggest transmission and storage is important – it is. There is no question it is; it is right around the country and all states are facing the problem of transmission and storage. But unless we introduce these projects that problem will just continue. We need to transmit the renewables and we need to work with the communities and consult with the communities and work through these problems, and I have attended many meetings in trying to assist with that process. But I just want the opposition to get on board with these projects – rather than make suggestions that transmission and storage are key to this transmission of renewables get on board and help us deliver these projects and provide all this renewable energy to our local communities and reduce costs for our constituents.

If electricity and gas retailers do go out of business, it creates a substantial volume of uncertainty, not just amongst customers, whether they are residential or small businesses or big business owners, but also across the wider community. It is fundamental to people’s lifestyles to have these utilities available to them at all times. This bill does not just help the end customer and consumer, it helps new companies taking over by making sure they have enough resources to handle the new customers.

I want to refer to an article that was written I think a couple of years ago now; I cannot remember the exact date. It was actually an article on ABC News, and it was on my constituent Heather Westaway’s home, which was unbearable in the winter:

Heather Westaway’s home used to be unbearable in winter.

She would wear puffer jackets around the house, close all her blinds and rely on a 35-year-old power bank heater to keep her warm.

She dreaded her power bills each quarter – becoming more expensive as the winter progressed.

But more importantly, the 81-year-old was embarrassed about her cold home.

“It was so cold, I felt embarrassed asking people to come over because I’d have to ask them to bring their coat and wear it inside my home,” Ms Westaway said.

“And because of that, a lot of people didn’t come and visit.”

We went and visited Heather Westaway in her house, with her conversion to heat pumps, to split-system air conditioning and to other things that support her – solar and things like that. It has just been a great benefit to Heather and to many other households. I think there are a thousand households between Melton and the Goulburn Valley that took on these programs. This is our commitment to Victorians. I am pleased that this bill has been introduced. I am pleased the opposition are supportive of it, and I commend the bill to the house.

Nicole WERNER (Warrandyte) (16:10): I rise to speak on the National Energy Retail Law (Victoria) Bill 2024. Energy security and energy prices are a key issue in my local community, and I appreciate any opportunity to speak on this key issue. Today I rise to speak in support of a pivotal piece of legislation that stands to profoundly impact the lives of households in my electorate of Warrandyte and to fortify the resilience of our energy retail market.

The government knows that it has failed Victorian households. It knows deep down that the energy market it has created is just as reliable and stable as any policy it brings forward. I think we can all remember that terrible day when our energy market fell apart and we experienced one of the biggest blackouts in our state’s history.

At its core this bill embraces a nationally recognised retailer of last resort scheme enshrined within the National Energy Retail Law. This scheme serves as a lifeline for consumers, ensuring uninterrupted energy supply in the event of a retailer’s failure. In a market as critical as energy, where stability is paramount, the existence of such safeguards is not merely desirable, it is imperative.

Why is it that our electricity market is so fraught with unpredictability? Why is it that we are so regularly at the whim of mass blackouts like the one we experienced recently? What is the key problem according to Minister D’Ambrosio? According to her second-reading speech, it is unexpected global events like the war in Ukraine. Wow. Now, while I can understand a brief surprising moment when this horrific war began that we would not be prepared for, we are more than two years from this war beginning, and using the excuse of an unexpected global event will not pass the pub test. Perhaps members in the house would remember when the government used the same reason – the Ukraine war ‍– as an excuse to cancel a certain sporting event. That is, at its heart, what is wrong with this government. How about taking responsibility for their actions? How about not passing the buck? How about letting the opposition speak and bring their motions to Parliament as part of the democracy that we have here in Victoria? How about that? The irony is that those opposite have been in power in this state for nine years. If there is a problem in this state, any right-minded individual would assume it was the fault of those responsible, but no, as always, Labor governments just seem to have the worst luck.

Enough is enough. The Labor government must take responsibility for their energy greed and stop blaming geopolitical events thousands of kilometres from our front door. One clear reason why power bills have skyrocketed is Labor’s secret energy tax – that is, the electricity easement land tax bill that is passed through from energy companies to energy consumers. Over the last four years this easement land tax bill on energy providers has totalled $772 million. The electricity transmission easement land tax has increased from $161.4 million in 2020–21 to $246.7 million in the current year, 2023–24 – an increase of 53 per cent. Labor’s approach to the cost-of-living crisis is to jack up prices through land tax increases, meaning that it is Victorians who are paying the price.

But of course this bill is a smokescreen – a red herring, if you will. Those opposite know that the Victorian public do not trust them with energy policy, and why would they? Electricity prices have increased 25 per cent. Gas bills have increased by 27 per cent. Recent figures reveal the number of Victorians seeking assistance to pay their gas and electricity bills has risen more than 40 per cent compared to the previous summer. This follows a recent St Vincent de Paul Society report finding that Victorians have paid 22 per cent more for gas and 28 per cent more for electricity over the past year. According to Lifeline, crisis supporters have reported a significant uptick both in the number of people stating that finances and cost of living are causing them distress and in the levels of distress being felt. As the member for Warrandyte, I know I have received calls to my office from Victorians who are struggling in this cost-of-living crisis, and my heart goes out to them. This is why it is so important to speak about this today. Victorians are having to pay the price for Labor’s energy mismanagement.

The Australian Energy Market Operator, otherwise known as AEMO, in its latest Gas Statement of Opportunities has warned that gas demand could outstrip supply in Victoria as soon as the middle of next year. Further to that, AEMO has forecast the entire east coast gas market will be in deficit until action is taken to secure additional supplies and upgrade infrastructure. Labor’s gas-phobic policies are driving jobs out of our state and into states with smarter, evidence-based energy policy. For example, recently Seeley International announced it would close its Albury–Wodonga facility by 2025 and consolidate operations in Adelaide – why? – citing the Allan Labor government’s hostile gas, energy and business policies. This is not even an ideological battle. There is no Labor–Liberal divide. This is just thanks to Victorian Labor and those opposite. Even South Australian Labor Premier Peter Malinauskas, one of their own, has criticised the Victorian government’s energy policies, confirming gas has a role to play in the transition to net zero.

Minister D’Ambrosio presents legislation today purportedly aimed at safeguarding our energy supply. However, let us not be fooled by the government’s superficial remedies. This legislation fails to address the root causes of our energy woes and serves merely as a bandaid on a gaping wound. We need gas in this state if we want to keep the lights on. That is why the Liberals and Nationals have committed to keeping the use of gas, like many cities and nations around the world which have chosen to continue to use gas, and not be gas phobic, so that they can use it as a transition to net zero.

The Allan government’s promise of an inquiry into the blackouts is nothing short of a charade. With its limited scope the inquiry conveniently sidesteps any scrutiny of the government’s own failings and turns a blind eye to critical questions. Did Labor take proactive measures to fortify Victoria’s transmission network? Were adequate steps taken to ensure resilience in the face of foreseeable challenges? These are the questions my community, who were without power, will never know the answers to. While transmission infrastructure may be in the hands of AusNet, the responsibility for ensuring uninterrupted energy delivery ultimately rests with the government. It is not enough to shift blame onto energy distribution companies: the government’s role must also be held to account. The buck needs to stop here. Until we address the fundamental weaknesses in our energy network, Victorians will continue to suffer the indignity of prolonged power outages at the most inconvenient of times. We cannot afford to stand idly by as families, businesses and essential services bear the brunt of government inaction. Therefore I implore Victorians to see beyond the Allan government’s smokescreen of political rhetoric and demand real accountability. Let us call for a comprehensive inquiry that leaves no stone unturned, holding the government accountable for its failures and charting a course towards a more resilient energy future for Victoria.

Gary MAAS (Narre Warren South) (16:19): I too rise to make a contribution to the National Energy Retail Law (Victoria) Bill 2024. Why would you want to talk Victoria down when indeed we are obviously in the best state in the country? We are the third most livable city in the world and the most livable city in the country, and I have got to tell you, it is as a result of the massive suite of reforms that has been coming through for the last 10 years from a very, very hardworking minister.

Right at the outset, big kudos to the Minister for Climate Action, Minister for Energy and Resources and now minister for the SEC, who is steadily and very progressively moving this state towards our 95 per cent renewable target in 2035. One can only imagine if we had the opposition in post 2014 where we would actually be now.

Indeed it gives me great pleasure, as I said, to speak to this bill, and as has been shown, our government really is very committed to protecting Victorians in the retail energy market. The bill itself works towards keeping energy retailers accountable and making sure Victorian energy consumers are protected. It does this by providing the national retailer of last resort scheme in Victoria, ROLR, and a better four-letter acronym I have not heard in a while.

Everyone uses essential services like energy, so it is important that everyone is protected in the event of a service provider failure. I know people in my electorate of Narre South, like all Victorians, welcome the chance to get the best possible deal from the energy system. As we work towards our transition to clean energy and our target of 95 per cent renewables by 2035 we are very committed to ensuring consumer protections are in place and keeping pace with this important transition. The bill, as we have heard, applies parts of the National Energy Retail Law in Victoria and adopts the national retailer of last resort scheme provided for in the National Energy Retail Law. The scheme is a successful safeguard in practice that transfers customers to an alternative energy company if their current provider fails in the market. The scheme ensures customers receive energy and gas supply with no interruption, in turn ensuring that they can continue their daily lives with these essential services.

The bill does a few things. It provides power for the Australian Energy Regulator to enable the designated retailer of last resort to access essential services like gas and energy from a failed retailer. It ensures that the retailer of last resort recovers costs that it incurs on or after a ROLR event by way of passing through the distribution network service provider payments to allow for recovery over the largest customer base. It ensures that the Australian Energy Regulator is able to appoint more than one retailer as a ROLR, and it gives an express power to the AER to request financial information and customer information from a retailer. It ensures that energy regulators must notify one another of any matter that could give rise to a ROLR event. The bill will also repeal provisions that affect the Victorian ROLR scheme contained in the Gas Industry Act 2001 and the Electricity Industry Act 2000, amending these to ensure the law operates as intended. The bill was developed in consultation with the Australian Energy Regulator, the Essential Services Commission and the Australian Energy Market Operator as well.

In terms of context the bill is crucial to ensuring energy consumers have a reliable energy supply. It ensures that if a consumer’s energy retailer fails they are quickly transitioned. We have had a successful ROLR scheme in place since 2007, and this reform will update the scheme’s suitability in line with national standards. We have seen an unpredictable energy market since mid-2022, when energy prices hiked significantly, so this bill is an important part of updating and keeping up with the changing landscape. We know that this cost-of-living crisis is hard, and we know that consumers should not need to worry about unregulated service providers. The National Energy Retail Law (Victoria) Bill will enhance protections for Victorian consumers and strengthen the resilience of the retail energy market. With four retailer failures in Victoria this past year, it is important that we enhance the scheme and continue ensuring consistency where Victorians need it most.

In terms of our renewables record, we know that this is particularly important as we shift towards clean energy sources, a move this state is making with gusto. We are paving the way, the most progressive in the country, with one of the fastest energy transitions in the world. We are home to the largest battery in the Southern Hemisphere, and the state has more than tripled its share of renewables in power generation, and that has all been achieved in just eight years.

I have seen an increase in constituents, however, who have come to my office concerned about their energy prices, and we know it is something concerning Victorians. We are putting in place incentives to help with this. There is the $1.3 billion Solar Homes program, which has saved households over $1000 a year. We have provided 300,000 rebates to help households install solar panels, and there have been some 320,000 installations of solar panels, batteries and hot-water systems in total. I know members in the outer south-east who do lots of doorknocking in the electorates get to see all of those solar panels and all of those solar hot-water services, and indeed batteries now popping up around those households, when they are out there doorknocking and talking to their constituents. This puts the power in the hands of Victorians to help reduce their bills and do their part for the planet.

The Allan Labor government is committed to making energy fairer and more affordable for Victorians. Measures like the Victorian default offer provide a baseline for private industry to compete. It increases competition and it brings down prices. The VDO will create on average a $112 decrease on Victorian residents’ energy bills and a $206 decrease for small businesses. We know this will make a real difference to families as well. The reduction in energy bills is largely driven by wholesale energy costs declining as a result of Victoria’s investments in renewables.

We do know that those opposite prefer to sit on the fence about climate change. Let us face it, before 2010 they pontificated about nuclear energy and then did nothing about it for four years. We came in in 2014, and thankfully we have moved another way, towards much cleaner and renewable sources of energy. We have also seen that when they were in government they privatised the energy network and left Victorians hanging. When they were in power between 2010 and 2014 disconnections doubled. Under the Liberals vulnerable Victorians were left without heating and power.

It has been well discussed about how we are bringing back the SEC. I will not go too much into this but I will pick up a point that the member for Brighton made in discussing Tim Piper from the Ai Group. In a former role I used to have a lot to do with Tim Piper from the Ai Group, and I can tell you that when it came to talking about reinvesting back into that business from savings that he in essence wanted to take from workers’ pockets. I saw very little reinvestment going back into those businesses. All I saw was those dollars going immediately to the bottom line of the company and profits for executives, so I do not think you can hold in too much esteem what Mr Piper says.

In conclusion, this bill is another example of our government delivering real reform, real certainty and a real safety net to our energy sector. It really is terrific for the consumer, as it ensures the best possible deal that can be the outcome from our energy system. It is an excellent bill. I again commend the minister, I commend the department and I commend the bill to the house.

Jade BENHAM (Mildura) (16:29): It is my pleasure to rise to talk about energy in the National Energy Retail Law (Victoria) Bill 2024. It is lovely to see you in the chair this afternoon, Acting Speaker De Martino. This bill, as other members in this place have asserted today, is designed to make the Australian Energy Regulator responsible for ensuring Victorians are not left in the dark if their energy provider goes under. It seems like a good day to have this conversation given that it is becoming more obvious how hard it is to do business and how tough businesses are doing it in this current climate.

So it is a real reality. We have seen it with builders, we see it with airlines today, we see it with small businesses and we have seen it for the last few years. So having a safety net for consumers to keep the lights on is obviously something that we would support. But let us talk about not being left in the dark. If that is a consideration, then obviously we would like other safety nets as well, and we would support other measures such as not putting all energy eggs into one basket. That requires, obviously, conversations about alternatives and what is best for different communities.

I actually had the chance over the break to travel to France to attend Villers-Bretonneux, which is a sister city of Robinvale, my home town, to celebrate the 40th anniversary of the twinning of the cities, spending a few days there with mayors and councillors and also their department heads and senators and riding around some sites on the western front in the north of France. And in the words of Mayor Dinouard, who is the mayor of Villers-Bretonneux, the landscape is polluted with wind turbines. They are everywhere. In the area of Villers-Bretonneux itself they produce about 6 per cent of France’s wind energy. They have been there for about 20 years – we had a conversation while we were driving around. They have been doing this for 20 years and the turbines are approaching end of life, which has become a concern for his community. There have been all sorts of concerns from the community, but they are now looking at new renewable technology. France uses a lot of nuclear, yes, but they are also very, very aware of the advances in technology that are happening very quickly, and they are technologically agnostic, as are we. We just know that there needs to be safety nets in place. He was talking about new technology in solar – which is something that I know the federal Leader of the Nationals has been talking about – putting panels on every rooftop, whether it is big warehouses or homes, and having batteries where the power is needed. Because the other issue that was discussed was that even though the north of France around Villers itself produces 6 per cent of France’s power, they cannot actually get it to where it needs to go – they cannot get it to Paris because of transmission issues.

A member interjected.

Jade BENHAM: Transmission issues, I know, which might lead me on to another subject that is quite contentious in my community. Let us talk about the VNI West project, shall we, because I did not get to speak about this last time. The transmission projects that are on the table in Victoria at the moment seem to be reckless, unplanned and a rush to unrealistic targets. The issue for communities in Victoria – in my communities – is that they are not having the chance to have their say. When being given the chance to speak on energy legislation, I cannot let the opportunity go by without expressing the discontent of people in Charlton, in Donald and everywhere that is illustrated in the VNI West plan, with the reckless rollout of renewables and these targets.

I will repeat again: we are not opposed to the transition to renewables. We are technologically agnostic. We want it done in a common sense, well-planned, thought-out manner – like using existing easements and upgrading both of the lines that already exist. What we are opposed to is having the lifeblood sucked out of regional Victoria and the lack of opportunities for communities that are directly affected having their say. In this place today it is very apparent that democracy in Victoria is dying. We have been gagged. Communities feel they have been gagged. They have lost the ability to have a voice, and we cannot do –

Danny O’Brien interjected.

Jade BENHAM: Yes, exactly, member for Gippsland South, a bit like the chamber. It is an absolute disgrace.

People in the communities of Victoria – particularly regional Victoria, who fear for their livelihoods, which is agricultural land – feel like it is one big contradiction. If they apply to put housing for workers on their agricultural land, they cannot do that because of all the red tape that surrounds it. Even in a housing crisis, even in a workforce crisis, they cannot put housing on their agricultural land because it is prime agricultural land, but when it comes to the reckless rollout of a transmission grid – which there are alternatives to, and it has been illustrated – then the need for community consultation has been taken away, and the ability to even fight against this has been taken away from them. You can understand why communities in regional Victoria feel like they have had all of their power taken away. It is not overstating it. There was another meeting in Charlton again last week, another rally, and St Arnaud again and Stawell were exactly the same. There are photos all over the internet. It has been widely reported about, the discontent in these committees. Again, it is not that they are opposed to renewables. They are opposed to not being able to have a say, to not being consulted properly. They feel like it is a bit of a tick-the-box exercise, and they move on. That is not okay. This is supposed to be a democracy, so you can understand why communities feel the way that they do.

Then after seeing programs, like I said, overseas that have been there for 20 years and now they are considering what the next step is, there is opportunity here to actually look into the future – at countries like France that have been doing this for a long, long time – and perhaps leapfrog past technology and move on to what is next and have a look at that in a much slower, considered, commonsense manner.

Let us talk about gas. I actually moved house recently and into a house that has a gas cooktop, which is actually life-changing. I can cook a stir-fry again. It is actually fantastic. The lack of thought and broad-minded thinking and just putting all your energy eggs into one basket is mind-boggling. However, this bill and adopting the provisions of the National Energy Retail Law and providing a retailer of last resort, if you like, and the arrangements and the provisions of that law that support effective operations of those provisions, will add some additional protection for Victorian households, which they will probably need, and it will also add protection to Victorian businesses if their energy provider does go under. We are not opposed to this bill. In fact we are in support of safety nets for Victorian households and Victorian businesses, because we know times are tough out there at the moment. We have increased taxes and more taxes. The budget is not far away. Things are going to get tougher before they get better. We do not oppose this, but I think there needs to be a broader picture view to more safety nets where the energy market in Victoria is –

Danny O’Brien interjected.

Jade BENHAM: I have said safety net enough, but I think it is required where we are talking about energy in Victoria.

Chris COUZENS (Geelong) (16:39): I am pleased to rise to contribute to the National Energy Retail Law (Victoria) Bill 2024. Can I start by thanking the minister for her work. The bill is yet another reform from our government to better protect Victorians in the retail energy market. The bill makes a significant step towards safeguarding the interests of energy consumers in the face of an evolving and at times challenging energy landscape. I am really interested to hear that those opposite are supporting this bill, because it does not really sound like it in some of the contributions I have heard. From what I have heard sitting in the chamber here from those of the opposition, it is really such a backward approach to climate change, to the energy issues that we experience.

Danny O’Brien interjected.

Chris COUZENS: You say you are supporting the bill, but some of your contributions almost sounded like a whole lot of conspiracy theories, from this side of the chamber. It was quite interesting to listen to some of that. I was also interested in the contribution from the member for Melton, who raised the opposition’s position on nuclear energy, and the comments that he quite rightly referred to about Melton and Anglesea being potential targets for nuclear reactors and waste to energy. I know that in my community of Geelong and right across the region, as soon as Anglesea was mentioned, people were outraged. They do not want that.

I am quite happy to encourage my constituents to read those opposite’s contributions to this debate in Hansard and other debates around energy, climate change and the environment, because they will be able to establish for themselves where the opposition is coming from. I do not know if they have a position or not. I do not know if they have policies. But perhaps if constituents read their comments and their contributions in Hansard, they might be able to get some idea of where they are coming from, which only supports our position as a Labor government.

I know that my community are very supportive of the work that we are doing on energy, so I think it is not going to take much for communities like mine and those around the state to determine who is best to govern in this state and the work that we are actually doing. We are leading one of the fastest energy transitions in the world. That is really clear, and my constituency understands that very well. We have more than tripled the share of renewables in power generation in just eight years. We have given over 300,000 rebates to Victorian households so they can reduce their bills and to give them control over their energy through our Solar Homes program, with strong take-up on solar energy in my community. In fact right across the Geelong region people are taking it up. They are making huge savings by doing that, and we know with the cost of living and those issues that are confronting people every day, having solar panels on their rooftops is saving huge amounts of money but is also beneficial to the environment. When I walk around my community, as other members from this side of the chamber have said, you are walking past hundreds and hundreds of houses that have got solar panels on their roofs, because people understand the importance of it, whether it is a financial commitment or whether it is to do with climate change. Whatever the reason, people are stepping up and taking up these opportunities. Of course the rebates help with that as well.

We held the Victorian renewable energy target auction, the country’s largest reverse auction for renewables. We have installed the Victorian Big Battery, the largest in the Southern Hemisphere, and made Victoria the home of the big batteries. Of course we have that in the seat of Lara, the Big Battery, which has been there now for a couple of years.

My community is really excited about those opportunities. When I talk to people from Geelong Sustainability, probably the biggest environment group we have right across our region, they are excited about these opportunities. They are excited about working with government to ensure that these sorts of things are being rolled out, whether it is the Big Battery, whether it is putting solar panels into public housing or into community organisations. We are supporting them to be able to do that. As a government we are supporting groups like Geelong Sustainability, which we are all really proud of. These actions will reduce greenhouse emissions by more than any other state in Australia since 2014. As I said, this is exactly what our communities want. This is what they want their government to be doing, not sitting around talking about climate change as something that is not a real thing. They want us to do the hard yards. I am really proud of the minister for the work that she has done, because she is leading the way. This government is leading the way. They are so committed, and my community actually supports that, as I believe most Victorian communities do.

With essential services like energy, it is critical that Victorians are protected from adverse consequences in the private market. The retailer of last resort scheme ensures that customers of failed energy retailers are quickly transitioned to another retailer to avoid disruption in their energy supply. Victoria has had its own successful retailer of last resort scheme since 2007. However, we have seen much instability in the energy market over the past few years, and this is why we have reviewed the scheme’s suitability. Over the past year alone there have been a total of nine retailer failures across the east coast electricity and gas markets, including four in Victoria. To enhance the scheme, the bill proposes the adoption of the national retailer of last resort scheme in Victoria. This national scheme, already operational in several jurisdictions, provides a uniform framework for managing retailer failures, ensuring consistency and reducing the risk of unintended consequences for customers.

This bill adopts the national retailer of last resort scheme in Victoria provided for in the National Energy Retail Law. The retailer of last resort scheme is a key consumer safeguard designed to transfer customers to alternative energy retailers should their current provider fail in the market. The scheme ensures customers continue to receive electricity and/or gas supply without disruption. The bill will apply provisions for the National Energy Retail Law. The bill will provide the Australian Energy Regulator with the power to direct the failed retailer’s gas contracts and supply to the retailer that takes on the failed retailer’s customers. This ensures that the retailer has the necessary gas to service a larger customer base. This provision addresses a crucial gap in Victoria where the Essential Services Commission does not have the equivalent powers in Victoria and the Victorian retailers of last resort are at risk of having insufficient capacity to service their new customers.

The bill also allows for the transfer of affected customers to multiple retailers, minimising the disruptive impact across the community and energy market. This stands in contrast to the current Victorian scheme, which does not allow additional retailers to be appointed after an event, placing undue pressure on a single retailer. The bill provides better financial protection for affected customers of a retailer of last resort event. Unlike the current one-time fee imposed on customers of failed retailers in Victoria, the bill spreads costs across a wider consumer base, mitigating the impact on those unexpectedly affected by the aftermath of a retail failure. Unlike in other jurisdictions, where energy retail laws are regulated by the National Energy Retail Law and monitored by the Australian Energy Regulator, Victoria maintains its own regulatory framework enforced by the Essential Services Commission. Victoria has some of the strongest energy protections in the country, and these will continue.

As I said, for my community this bill is really important. For all communities across Victoria it is an important bill, and I commend the bill to the house.

Danny O’BRIEN (Gippsland South) (16:49): I am pleased to rise to speak on the National Energy Retail Law (Victoria) Bill 2024. I will begin by expressing my bemusement with many of those opposite talking up particularly the minister but generally the government’s policies on energy and how wonderful they are and how nation leading they are and how Victoria is leading the way on energy policy – all on a bill, I might add, that is dumping a Victorian scheme in favour of a national scheme. It is quite bemusing to me as well that this legislation is in fact dropping what was introduced by the former Labor government in 2007, because it recognises that it is probably not fit for purpose and that we should adopt the National Energy Retail Law, which is a national scheme of course. I am bemused at the way these things come. Someone did not check that in the caucus notes that went around as to how to talk up the government on this bill.

But the legislation, as my colleagues have indicated, is not being opposed by the opposition. It is sensible legislation to ensure that we protect consumers in the event of retail failure, which as the second-reading speech indicates, does happen. In fact in an ‘efficient competitive market, market exit is a natural occurrence,’ the second-reading speech says, which is interesting. It does not seem normally that the minister actually believes in an efficient competitive market; she believes in government intervention – but I might come to that a little bit later.

This legislation basically provides a retailer of last resort. It ensures that if someone’s retailer goes under, that customer is swiftly transferred to another provider and ensures that their power stays on, which is something that I want to touch on a bit. It has become increasingly a big issue in my electorate and indeed I am sure right across the state – the lack of reliability of supply. It is nothing to do with the retailers but everything to do with the transmission and distribution system that has been repeatedly failing, no more so than in the storms event of 13 February earlier this year. Not for a second, though, am I blaming the transmission and distribution companies for what was a freak storm, particularly as it hit my electorate, most particularly in the township of Mirboo North.

We had people across the state off power for three, four or five days, but in places like Mirboo North and a number of other locations across Gippsland in the north-east for longer than seven days. The seven days is important, because this generous government, which is always apparently looking after the issues of energy consumers, provided a support package for those who had lost power but not unless they had lost power for seven days. I heard one of the minister’s good friends on the radio this morning talking about how he and many others in Mirboo North were reconnected to power after six days and 22 hours. Therefore, notwithstanding the fact that they had lost considerable goods – particularly out of their fridges and freezers but also incurring significant costs in terms of diesel for generators and the like – they were eligible for precisely nothing from the Allan Labor government. The Premier and the Minister for Energy and Resources came to Mirboo North on the Friday after the storm that occurred on the Tuesday afternoon and announced this scheme. It is great that the Premier and the minister came to Mirboo North at the time to announce that scheme, but not a single person in the state was eligible for it because they had to be off power for seven days and it was only four days after the event. As it turned out, as I have indicated, many, many people did not qualify.

There is one particular niche issue that I want to raise here. The prolonged power outage payment, for which, as I said, people had to be off power for at least seven days, had a household and a business component. Whilst a number of constituents in Mirboo North did get access to the business component early on in the piece, I have subsequently discovered about a dozen or so constituents who have not been able to, and these are businesses operating from home – home-based businesses. The rule initially ‍– it was available on the AusNet website – was that if you operated a home-based business and you were a registered business with the relevant state authority, you could get the residential component plus the difference between the residential component and the business component, and a number of businesses did receive that. But at some point in time – I do not know whether it was that the Treasurer came in and took over or whether the department saw an opportunity to make some savings – they made home-based businesses absolutely ineligible for that prolonged power outage payment unless they had a separate business electricity account. If you are running a small accountancy firm, a photography studio, a hairdresser or any other business – one business I spoke to was a PR firm – from home, you are not going to have a separate business electricity account. For the government to say ‘Sorry, you don’t qualify’ after these people and their businesses had been without power for more than seven days is absolutely obscene penny pinching.

Of the people that I heard of, and I advertised this issue on the Mirboo North Facebook page and had a number of people come back to me about it, it might be in total across the state maybe 20, maybe 30 ‍people. That equates to a total of $20,000 or $30,000. These businesses are going to miss out on an extra payment because they do not have a business electricity account at home, notwithstanding that they are legitimately operating a business from home. The government has said, ‘No, you’re getting nothing; you get the residential payment and nothing else.’ That is the meanest penny pinching. If the boot was on the other foot with this government, those opposite would be going spare about it, and quite rightly, because this is just absurd. These small businesses – they are mostly mums, they are mostly young women – are being denied access because this government has made the criteria so tight. I think that is just absolutely wrong.

Previous speakers have also highlighted the issues that are occurring more broadly in the energy market and the development of the renewable energy policies. We have seen today in this chamber some absolutely disgraceful behaviour by the government trying to shut down any voices, but in the energy space we are seeing it more broadly with the decision of the government last month to introduce amendment VC261. I am sure all members opposite have been reading amendment VC261. I can see the member for Frankston nodding. He would have been having a good hard look at it, because he would know that his constituents now are going to be muzzled when it comes to objecting or raising concerns about renewable energy or the transmission and distribution lines, or the batteries that the member for Geelong raised as being so welcomed in her electorate. If you are subject to one of those being developed nearby under amendment VC261, you will no longer be able to have your objection heard at VCAT. You will no longer be able to have a planning panel because of this change. The government has put out the explanatory report on this change, and it states inside, on pages 1 and 2:

Additionally, as there is an urgent need to maintain Victoria’s electricity supply, the state will need to begin rapid renewable energy facility construction which will include new and upgraded utility installations.

The justification for silencing regional Victorians who might be opposed to a renewable energy facility or indeed the transmission and distribution lines, which was not actually made clear when the government first made this announcement, is that we are going to do so because the government has to replace energy supply to meet its policies, because its policies are actually shutting down our energy supplies. That is happening because of the 2035 renewable energy target – 95 per cent – which is going to ensure that not only Yallourn but Loy Yang and Loy Yang B power stations will close. As a result the government is madly scrambling to try and meet those targets under renewable energy and in the same process is shutting down the voice of regional Victorians who might have something to say about it. That is a disgraceful decision by this government. It is removing the rights of particularly regional Victorians. I say regional Victorians because all those over there, with a few exceptions, do not actually have the impact of renewable energy facilities in their electorates, because they have actually been specifically precluded in most cases by this government’s laws. The government stands condemned for that. This National Energy Retail Law is sensible and reasonable to ensure that retail consumers are protected, but they are not protected from the failing policies of this Allan Labor government.

Nina TAYLOR (Albert Park) (16:59): I am very pleased to speak to this important bill.

A member interjected.

Nina TAYLOR: Yes, but I will note that there were a number of topics that did not actually specifically pertain to the central tenets of this bill. However, noting some of the, can I say, inaccuracies that have been put forward to the chamber, I feel it is important or incumbent upon me to address some of the matters that have been put forward to the chamber to ensure accuracy for the sake of those who may be watching. There are so many watching us today, I am sure, out there – at least one or two.

Gary Maas interjected.

Nina TAYLOR: One or two thousand – exactly right. There was a rather spurious connection between energy transition and blackouts. Let us be honest here: we could have all the solar and wind covering every inch of every element of the state, we could have federal opposition leader Dutton’s dream of nukes from one end of the state to the other, small modular reactors – albeit that they are unaffordable and, I would say, undeliverable in the foreseeable future, and nobody wants the waste anyway; there is no social licence – but when you have an extreme weather event that knocks down hundreds or maybe thousands of poles and wires, energy cuts out.

Who knew? Unfortunately the Labor Party and our Victorian government do not control the weather ‍– maybe the opposition think they have a mechanism to do so, but I am just putting it out there – save for mitigating the impacts of climate change. Obviously we take that very seriously, and that is why we have various mechanisms in place and being rolled out to adapt to and to mitigate the impacts of climate change. This is part of the urgent imperative to transition our energy resources because of the impact of extreme weather events. But also it makes sense to be efficient with energy resources when we are looking at mitigating and mediating costs into the future for Victorian consumers.

So noting that the Victorian government does not control the weather, we fully acknowledge and accept the very unfortunate impacts of climate change and hence the imperative to have a cleaner energy future. This is why it is important to be very accurate and to not create, as I say, spurious connections between energy transition and blackouts, which are an inaccuracy at the least and also unnecessarily concern Victorians and perhaps create a hesitancy that really is not helpful and is not in the interests of all Victorians when it comes to transitioning our energy for the benefit of all Victorians into the future.

Also this is nothing to do with the premise of this bill but I just want to address another point that was raised by I think it was the member for Mildura, who took a trip to France. It is always good to see other countries and see other ways that countries are generating energy. She noted that they were polluted with wind turbines. I hope that was positive pollution in the sense that I hope that was a positive connotation on her part and that the word ‘pollution’ was not implying that somehow wind turbines are polluting. On the contrary, these are actually a clean energy source, noting the abundance of wind and noting also the importance of certain geographical areas within Victoria. Obviously we do not put turbines in place to punish people. These are put in optimal positions to be able to capture and to take advantage of an ample supply of wind. It was funny because the member for Mildura also said – I hope I have not misunderstood her – in France they are putting solar on top of buildings and houses, and I am like, ‘Oh, funny that,’ because that is exactly what wea re doing in Victoria on government buildings. We have the greener schools program, so we are putting it on school buildings, on police stations, on hospitals and on the museum. The museum is covered. I know many of us have been up there and seen it with our own eyes. It is also helping to transition our whole transport sector. So who knew? You did not have to go to France to be able to see this energy revolution. It is happening right here in our wonderful state of Victoria.

I am going to come to the purpose of this bill, because I think that is actually why we are here, to debate this bill today, but there was one more point that was raised – I hear this a little bit from the opposition – this idea of being energy agnostic. Well, let me say here I would not be so proud of being energy agnostic. I am not agnostic about fracking. We are very opposed to fracking, which is why we have embedded a ban on fracking in the constitution. We are not ambivalent about energy sources here. We are quite specific and strategic about the mechanisms with which we will make the energy transition in Victoria because there is an accountability with that. Similarly, we are not hurtling towards nuclear. I was on an inquiry in which it was emphatically proven that it does not make economic sense, and it takes years and years and years and years to build. We know even SMRs are not going to be commercially viable in any way that would be affordable for Victoria or our country in the foreseeable future, and of course there is no social licence for the waste. We are not energy agnostic, but with good reason. And I would not be proud of that particular term, because it is basically saying it is a free for all: ‘We’ll take any energy, regardless of the drastic impact it might have on our environment.’

Rest assured we are very specific and precise about the selection of energy generation in Victoria. Why? Because Victorians care about the impact of energy and energy generation on their lives. They want their kids to have a real future. You can go to any primary school in Victoria, let alone secondary school, and what are the kids talking about? They are talking about – and they understand the science of it – the importance of using this ample supply of sun and this ample supply of wind. Funnily enough, you have got to be a little bit careful too when you are comparing oranges and apples, because the weather in France is starkly different to the weather in Australia. I am just pointing that out. We have ‍–

A member interjected.

Nina TAYLOR: I know. Is that broadly known? I am just going to put it out there. But we actually have a lot more sunshine here.

A member interjected.

Nina TAYLOR: Yes, granted – even in Victoria. Therefore these are important elements that have to be taken into consideration – I am putting it forward there. I think that that is not an unreasonable proposition when you are looking at the energy sources that you use to support industry, to support transport and to support Victorian households individually.

Coming back to the purpose of the bill, with essential services, I had to acquit some interesting – I will say interesting; I am going to be generous – points put forward by the opposition. I hope that I have acquitted some of the interesting little journeys we took in the chamber that really had very little to do with the premise of the bill. So, why is this bill needed? With essential services like energy, it is crucial that Victorians are protected from adverse consequences in the private market. The retailer of last resort scheme ensures that customers of failed energy retailers are quickly transitioned to another retailer to avoid disruption in their energy supply. And I should say: what is wrong with that? What is wrong with this important structural reform?

I also heard from the opposition. They have said things like, ‘Oh, you haven’t solved every problem under the sun with this bill. You should be doing all these other things.’ Really it just seems like a diversionary tactic to vitiate the central premise of this bill, which is a really important one, and further to that, a way of not having to perhaps delve into the vacuum when it comes to the energy policy of those opposite. I am just putting forward a proposition. And when we are looking at the kinds of structural reforms that we are doing here, we know with things such as the war in Ukraine there are global pressures as well which are putting stresses in terms of cost et cetera in terms of energy supply, and in places such as the UK they have had to make some, can I say, comparable reforms. I will not say the same – obviously, again, oranges and apples – but I am just putting it out there that in the modern world we are very much cognisant of what is necessary to support Victorian consumers.

Tim READ (Brunswick) (17:09): I rise to speak on the National Energy Retail Law (Victoria) Bill ‍2024. I am not sure I can top the previous speaker’s reference to la météo française. The bill proposes to replace the current Victorian retailer of last resort scheme with the national energy retailer of last resort scheme provided for under National Energy Retail Law. A retailer of last resort is an energy retail business directed to step in and take on a customer’s electricity or gas contract if their own retailer goes under, to make sure their lights stay on regardless. Where the Victorian-only scheme under the state’s Essential Services Commission has been largely successful since 2007, it is now considered to have insufficient scale and flexibility to deal with potential future instability and higher wholesale energy prices that may force more retailers out of business.

This is particularly necessary for gas retailers, who face declining domestic supply and future higher prices for this polluting fossil fuel. The Victorian Greens support this bill in order to protect consumers, but as it moves through the Parliament, we think it is important to acknowledge the elephant in the room, which is the need for Victorian households and businesses to transition off gas appliances and towards an all-electric future far quicker than is currently occurring. As this bill shows, gas not only is a fossil fuel which is polluting, unhealthy and inefficient but is also expensive, vulnerable to global demand and supply shocks and therefore susceptible to an unstable wholesale and retail market that households can no longer rely on.

Methane gas is a significant contributor to climate change. In Victoria it is responsible for 17 per cent of total emissions. Victorian households are the biggest household users of gas in the country. It is estimated that over 2 million homes and businesses are connected to the reticulated gas network, with businesses responsible for burning more of the gas than households in this state. There is no denying Victoria has a gas problem, and we cannot pretend we have not noticed. We need to accept that the advanced world has evolved beyond burning wood and fossil fuels in the home for cooking and heating, whether it be the wood stoves of the Middle Ages, lumps of coal in the Edwardian era or bottled and reticulated gas in the last century. We have to accept the reality of progress means that the kids of today will look back on this time a bit like boomers now reminisce about the pre-internet era. Their own kids will ask them with incredulity, ‘In the olden days did people really pipe combustible fossil fuels into their homes?’

The Victorian government belatedly recognised this reality by releasing a gas substitution road map in 2022, which committed to very little, which was then updated a little over a year and an election later to include a much-needed prohibition on new builds connecting to gas. This updated road map was the essential first step, but still, all banning new gas connections does is stop making our gas problem worse. It does not make it any better. Until very recently the government was continuing to even subsidise people buying new gas appliances, which will be costing households thousands to run while polluting homes and the atmosphere for decades to come.

Of course there is opposition to change from those in the wholesale gas industry, the gas appliance industry and some of the plumbers who install them, and I understand that accepting change is always difficult. But to allow the gas lobby’s ongoing narrative of denial, disinformation and, dare I say it, gaslighting about electrification not only will leave households and the climate worse off but will also leave their own unprepared workers worse off as we inevitably transition. This is not unprecedented for the industry. The gas lamps on Melbourne streets in the 1890s were electrified by the 1930s, leaving about 132 Victorians employed as gaslighters without a job. With any dying technology and the industry that surrounds it there needs to be a transition plan in place for businesses and workers.

But denying the future is no longer an option. Plumbers need to be trained to install heat pumps. Manufacturers need subsidies to shift production to the modern, clean and efficient electrical appliances that will characterise current and future homes. The government must launch an education campaign. When I speak to energy engineers I hear that too many households still do not know that reverse-cycle air conditioning is the most efficient way of heating their homes, at least four times more efficient than gas. There is no logical reason why anyone should be replacing any of their household appliances with a brand new but already obsolete gas appliance today. It beggars belief. New gas appliances should not be on the market in Victoria.

As we electrify we must recognise the already growing energy inequality. The fact is that right now the wealthiest households in the country, who have electrified everything or soon will, have energy-efficient homes and have solar panels and batteries, are not paying any energy bills at all. Increasingly these households do not even pay for petrol anymore, and even if these homes do receive a rare energy bill in the winter, it is one modest electricity bill instead of two bills. It is not fair, and it is not equitable. All households, especially the most economically disadvantaged, deserve to enjoy free solar energy, to have comfortable homes to live in and at the very least have just one low energy bill to pay instead of two.

Once again the government’s Solar Homes initiative is an excellent start, but it must be rapidly expanded so that every household can enjoy these benefits. For example, how can the government still exclude insulation and draft sealing from the scheme despite it being the most cost-effective way of heating and cooling homes? And why must Victoria always be trailing behind the ACT in terms of energy efficiency subsidies and interest-free loans? Why can’t we be the leader?

We need to talk specifically about renters, who are so often left behind. I have spent enough time watching Shit Rentals and even inspecting them with Purplepingers to know that right now we are lucky if landlords provide walls or a functioning toilet with their rental listings these days, let alone installing energy-efficient heating, cooling and insulation. The government must mandate minimum energy standards for rentals, and these standards need to be enforced in rental properties. A good place to start would be to require all rental ads to provide an energy efficiency rating or the indicative heating and cooling bill costs for listed properties. Reverse-cycle air conditioning for both heating and cooling should be mandated now for all rentals rather than landlords being able to install just any old heater, as they currently do. Land tax incentives for landlords that improve the energy efficiency of their rentals, particularly if they electrify, insulate and install solar, should be considered too to offer some carrot along with the stick to convert rentals quicker.

In short, renters deserve the cheap, clean energy that is currently only accessible for relatively wealthy landowners. The fact that so many less wealthy households in Victoria, mostly renters, pay more to run polluting energy-inefficient appliances, have to pay both gas and electricity bills, live in uninsulated homes and are locked out of solar energy is not only bad housing policy, it is bad climate policy and bad public health policy, and it broadens financial inequality between the haves and the have-nots. The government needs to do more to get all households off gas sooner, and this means the homes renters live in as well.

Jackson TAYLOR (Bayswater) (17:17): It is great to be able to follow the previous government speaker, obviously before the member for Brunswick – a Taylor-to-Taylor handball.

Members interjecting.

Jackson TAYLOR: The member for Glen Waverley gave me that. It sounded better in my head, like a lot of things unfortunately. Thank you very much.

John Mullahy: Hey, don’t put it on me.

Jackson TAYLOR: Member for Glen Waverley, this was all your idea.

It is a great pleasure to rise today and speak on the National Energy Retail Law (Victoria) Bill 2024. I want to, from the very outset, give my thanks to the Minister for Energy and Resources, a fantastic minister who is often on her feet in this place. She has to be – in fact I am just going to say it: she is the best energy and resources minister in this country. There is no doubt about it. I am not biased, not one bit at all, but she is absolutely fantastic. I had the privilege of having the great minister out recently in my electorate, and there were words and acronyms that I had to google later – very, very impressive, very well briefed and very active within the government. She is a steadfast supporter and obviously leader of the Allan Labor government’s bold and progressive agenda when it comes to renewable energy and when it comes to reform in this space. I want to thank the minister. I want to thank as well the team and the departments who do a lot of the important work behind this reform, behind this legislation. I want to thank all of them for their hard work.

I want to reflect on a few contributions by some of our members. I particularly enjoyed the member for Geelong’s bill contribution. She mentioned something that I will go into in a little bit in my contribution – just about how the member for Geelong was encouraging perhaps some of her constituents to have a look into Hansard about some of the contributions from those opposite about, let us say, their willingness for nuclear. As the member for Albert Park talked about, they are energy agnostic. I can tell you right now, no-one in the community of Bayswater and the suburbs that I represent has come up to me going, ‘Jacko, can I get some nuclear? We’d love a reactor. You can chuck it right next to Boronia Mall.’ Those words will never be uttered. I particularly enjoyed the member for Geelong’s contribution.

The member for Narre Warren South was talking about another great thing that the Allan Labor government is doing, and that is rooftop solar. That is batteries and residential solar through our Solar Homes program, which has been incredibly popular. It is one of those things where a lot of other governments are copying our schemes. If you look across the country, we were the first to do it on such a large scale – hundreds and hundreds of thousands of solar batteries, gas water heaters replaced, solar panels on roofs.

I have been out to a number of my local constituents, and they are absolutely rapt with the difference it is making not just for the environment – that is critically important. But also it is about cost of living. It is about putting money back in people’s pockets. There has got to be a good reason to do it. The environment is a great reason, I would argue, but putting money back in your pocket is the real kicker. That is something that the member for Narre Warren South focused on and that I think has been a really big feature of our government’s reform.

I have got to say, obviously following the other Taylor in the government in this place, I do not know anybody more passionate about renewable energy than the member for Albert Park – very, very passionate. That and Metro Tunnel I think the member for Albert Park is very passionate about, as well as many, many other things. I always enjoy hearing her contributions. The previous Acting Speaker the member for Monbulk – just while we are talking about energy and while we are talking about some of the impacts that we know we can see on the energy grid, I want to give a quick shout-out to the member for Monbulk, as I have done in previous forums, for her work in the previous storms. She has been an absolute gun. She just has compassion and care like I have never seen before. I want to thank the member for Monbulk for all of the work she did and of course other members in their affected and impacted communities as well. But of course sharing a border with the member for Monbulk, I sort of get a bit of a front-row seat to her fantastic work in her local community.

We know that this bill is yet another reform from our government to better protect Victorians in the retail energy market and that this bill marks a significant step towards safeguarding the interests of energy consumers in the face of, as we know, an evolving and at times challenging energy landscape. As has been said many times, I know the member for Cranbourne is paying attention. She is up and about because she knows that Victoria is leading one of the fastest energy transitions in the world. Isn’t that right, member for Cranbourne?

Pauline Richards interjected.

Jackson TAYLOR: Audience engagement. I am bringing something new to Parliament: audience engagement. No, I am not. It is a one-off only. Do not hold me to it.

John Mullahy interjected.

Jackson TAYLOR: I started with you, and it has just gotten worse – sorry, not ‘you’, member for Glen Waverley.

We know that we are leading one of the fastest energy transitions in the world – and of course we are. It is because we are not waiting for others. We are not waiting for others. If we waited for others, like our previous partners in Canberra – of course we have got good partners in Canberra now under the Albanese federal Labor government. But we know that for years and years and years there was stalling, there was capitulating, there was energy policy after energy policy, leader after leader, but what we did not have were results on the ground and runs on the board. We know that our previous partners in Canberra obviously let this place down but also, importantly, let Australians down. We in many respects are so much further behind than we should be today, but I think in Victoria we have absolutely lessened the impact of their capitulation and stalling because we have set ambitious targets. We have bold policy – bold, progressive reform in this space – because we know it is the right thing to do. It is not about ideology, it is about doing the right thing. It is about using the best technology, using the resources in solar and wind that we have at our doorstep like nowhere else on this planet, and it is about harnessing it, because it is a real opportunity for Australia and it is a real opportunity for Victoria. It is something that I am very proud – in fact one of the things I am most proud – that this government is getting on with.

Acting Speaker Edbrooke, I am sure it is the same in your community as well. This is my take at audience engagement again. I did say I was not going to do it again, but here we are. We know that this starts because it is about our next generation. It is about making sure that we have got a planet we can all live on, that is sustainable. We know that that is an issue because of those reasons. That is very much canvassed at local schools. I find it incredible that every time I go out to local primary schools ‍– and I am sure you are the same out in Frankston in your patch – the number one issue that literally kids as young as five years of age and even kids in kinder are raising with me when I talk to them is climate change. It is about our transition to renewable energy. Clearly this is a very important issue not just for us but for future generations. Importantly, we have also more than tripled the share of renewable energy – since we are on that topic – in power generation in just eight years. That is a huge, huge thing that we should be incredibly proud of.

We have given over 300,000 rebates to Victorian households so they can reduce their bills, and of course have given them control over their energy, as I said, through our Solar Homes program. We know the power saving bonus was an incredibly popular program helping to put money back in people’s pockets. My office, as well as many others in this place – in fact I am sure everybody’s – was assisting local residents to apply for that, but importantly what is still available is the ability to get on there and find the cheapest deal to make sure that you are keeping your energy retailers honest. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that, because they are making plenty of profits. Making sure we are shopping around, getting the best deal we can, is incredibly important, and I will keep talking to my community about that.

Obviously we know we have held the Victorian renewable energy target auction, the country’s largest reverse auction for renewables. The member for Geelong also spoke about the Victorian Big Battery. We have installed that. It is the largest in the Southern Hemisphere, and we have made Victoria the home of big batteries. We had an election commitment in the electorate of Bayswater, and we are now getting on and delivering that. We are delivering a couple of pole-top batteries in Bayswater and Ferntree Gully, from memory, which is very exciting. Just around the corner from one of those batteries, we have also delivered Tesla batteries to the Bayswater Bowls Club. We have got solar panels out at the Boronia Bowls Club. It is absolutely all happening, not just at our local sporting clubs but also at our local schools. Wantirna Primary School, a great community school at Wantirna, has also benefited from our solar panels on schools program.

These are just some of the areas where our government is taking serious steps to help our economy transition to renewable energy. That does not just mean businesses and households; that is also public assets and of course our local community groups, which are of course under other levels of government as well, which is something we are very happy to partner in. We know through these actions we have absolutely reduced greenhouse gas emissions more than any other state in Australia since 2014. This is a great piece of legislation. It is a fantastic bill. I am happy to support it. I am happy I moved up the speaking list to speak in support of it. I am very glad to hear that those opposite are supporting it. It is just an absolute banger. Thank you very much. Cheers.

Annabelle CLEELAND (Euroa) (17:27): I rise today to speak on the National Energy Retail Law (Victoria) Bill 2024, a bill that we do not oppose. This is a bill designed with the intention of ensuring that Victorians are not left in the dark if their energy provider goes under. If this bill passes, the Australian Energy Regulator will automatically transfer customers to another provider if their existing energy provider goes under. This is done through a handful of amendments to the Electricity Industry Act 2000 and the Gas Industry Act 2001, as well as some minor technical amendments to improve their operation.

Gas has been something topical for all regional communities recently, with Labor’s gas ban set to hurt our communities. This city-centric policy fails to consider the necessity that this energy source has for members of regional communities like mine. Regional Victoria is set to be disproportionately impacted by the short-sighted transition, leading to higher energy bills and unreliable power supply. We know that many of our regional communities are only fitted with gas options for heating, cooking and their water. Removing gas options in these houses will only put further pressure on our electricity supply, which has already crumbled under the slightest bit of pressure over summer. I am all for the responsible transition to renewables, but how are our already-struggling communities meant to survive when there are no alternatives?

After power outages left much of the region without electricity earlier in the year, AusNet research found that electricity-only households were saddled with significantly higher costs than those that had gas connections as well. Electricity-only customers spent on average $1100 to respond to an outage over Christmas, whereas if they had gas connections too, that amount was reduced to just $360. This is something that is having a profound impact in my electorate of Euroa, with energy security perhaps the most pressing issue raised by my constituents. Towns like Euroa, Longwood, Violet Town, Ruffy, Nagambie and Strathbogie have been dealing with unreliable power and constant power outages for months now, if not years. Thousands of households have suffered regular outages, with towns like Euroa suffering from 17 unplanned outages during the Christmas period alone. Residents in some of the worst-hit towns in my region say they experienced up to 90 hours of power outages in December and January, with cuts ranging from several hours to several days in many cases.

Wild weather has caused havoc for the state’s power supply. These outages can be tracked back to issues with energy supply itself. There have been outages when it is cold, outages when it is hot, outages when it is dry, outages when it is wet, windy, calm and still. In absolutely all weather conditions, we have had outages. Many of the issues in my region are due to there being a single line of supply running from Benalla to Violet Town through to Euroa and spreading out across the surrounding region, traversing 1200 kilometres of powerlines running off the longest feeder line in the state.

One disruption cuts off up to 5000 homes. Upgrading this infrastructure is essential and will go a long way to reducing the frequency of these outages. People’s health and safety, their ability to operate a business and their general wellbeing are all significantly compromised when there is a lack of reliable power. Since the outages began in my region I have met with more than 300 impacted community members at local town hall meetings and spoken with several more who suffer from the unreliable local power supply, and I want to share some of those stories today so we are all aware of the significant impact that a lack of power reliability can have on communities. Natalie in Euroa told me:

My concerns aren’t just for myself but for the elderly, especially those living by themselves.

I have a number of neighbours I check on every time the power goes out as they lose all contact because their phones go down and they don’t drive.

There are many vulnerable citizens in our area that deserve better and while many have bought generators, it’s just not possible for some to do this.

Irene in Euroa said:

I … use a CPAP machine for sleep apnoea and … I suffer dreadfully the next day from fatigue and brain fog when the power goes off during the night and am unable to use the machine.

My neighbour who also uses a CPAP machine sits up all night when the power is out as he is too fearful to sleep without the machine as he might die.

For so many our health and general well being are suffering.

Irene is one of 20 people I have spoken with about the torment of not having a working CPAP machine. Lib in Longwood said:

The experience of repeated power and mobile outages has been both frustrating and almost unbelievable in this day and age.

I have lived and worked in remote rural communities throughout SA, Central QLD and Victoria in the past and never experienced the number of power outages as I have in the last 7 months since moving to Longwood.

Judith in Nagambie said:

My husband is quite disabled and is suffering from terminal cancer.

Our main issue with the constant power outages is that we lose all our phone and internet connection.

Ausnet advise to keep our phones charged, which we do, but it doesn’t help when the whole system goes down.

When I say these outages are dangerous, I am not exaggerating. The ongoing power outages in my region have highlighted how dependent our community is on a reliable energy supply as well as showing the serious risks that come into play when outages happen. With our phone lines and internet connections being impacted, emergency services like the CFA and SES have struggled to communicate and respond to emergencies. We saw the same thing happen when the floods caused havoc with the electricity supply in previous years. Residents are unable to contact each other and are left in the dark as they struggle without power, light and in many cases water or a regular food supply.

The solution is not as simple as asking everyone to use a generator. Hospitals like Euroa run off a generator in order to provide essential health services to the region when there is a power outage, but they require diesel to run. Most fuel stations in the region do not have their own generators, and their bowsers are rendered useless when the power is out. We had situations this summer where local brigades were not able to be notified of nearby fires and residents were not getting critical emergency warnings. Locals were literally required to walk outside, hope the wind was blowing in the right direction and smell the air to see if there was a bushfire at their back door. This is not acceptable and not sustainable, and it has to be fixed as a matter of urgency.

Due to these outages and the impact they had on our community I arranged meetings with the AusNet CEO and the Minister for Energy and Resources. We discussed how this matter can be improved and how dangerous poor service delivery can be in the first place. Thankfully we are starting to see some progress. Since the regular outages over summer AusNet have confirmed they will be investing an immediate $5 million as their first step towards preventing what is happening across my region. The changes appear to be positive, but time will tell if they are effective and alleviate the issues that local communities like Euroa, Violet Town, Longwood and Nagambie all faced. AusNet indicated they are extremely confident the new changes will successfully improve the situation and confirm that no costs will be transferred onto customers. The changes include lowering the rapid earth fault current limiter sensitivity, repairing defective equipment and animal-proofing the lines, among many immediate changes, and this is all a good start. One of the most rewarding developments for the community is the $10 million resilience fund, allowing residents and local businesses to recoup costs from the outages. I have spoken to far too many businesses that have closed as a consequence of these power outages.

The community fund will work in three key areas: immediate support, community infrastructure and resilience. The community fund will provide immediate support to boost local recovery efforts and assist more businesses most impacted by the power outages who are not eligible for other payments. The fund will also involve supporting and enhancing community facilities so that locals can better access essential support, information and services. Local businesses will also be consulted to determine their specific needs, with supports such as education and facilitation of solar and storage solutions to aid businesses in continuity and other initiatives aimed at the recovery. This is a result of speaking out and fighting for better standards when we know we are not getting appropriate services.

I want to thank everyone in the region who contributed and shared their stories with me. It was so important to hear from those impacted by these power outages and understand the very real effect this is having on households and businesses. It does remain to be seen if these solutions will make a tangible difference to the current system and its reliability. However, I am glad to hear that AusNet are making changes and are taking the matter and the concerns of our community seriously.

Bronwyn HALFPENNY (Thomastown) (17:36): I also rise to speak on this legislation, the National Energy Retail Law (Victoria) Bill 2024. I was just listening to the member for Euroa and the accounts of people in her electorate and the terrible experiences they have had. It really is a terrible situation. I agree that the privately owned electricity and gas industries really are not looking after the people. That is the very reason why we are proposing legislation such as the legislation that we are here debating today.

This legislation I think has got to be seen in the context of the many pieces of legislation and action that the Allan Labor government has taken in providing more and more protections for consumers, for Victorians, so that they are not completely at the mercy of the power and gas companies and also by understanding that climate change does exist and that we have to take action to ensure that the planet is going to be around for our children and the future generations. I think it is really disappointing that many on the opposite side – there are very few people left – do not actually believe in climate change. It is really offensive when people say things like the Allan Labor government is not caring about regional Victoria when here we are taking strong action around climate change. Regional people are bearing the biggest brunt of the results of climate change, such as extreme weather events, whether it is drought or whether it is flooding. These are the things that climate change causes, and it is the Allan Labor government that is taking action to ensure that we do have a climate plan into the future and can therefore hopefully stop the tide of extreme and catastrophic events in terms of the weather.

This piece of legislation that we are debating today is actually a fairly narrow bill in terms of what it is about to do. Basically it is harmonising, if you like, or standardising legislation and adopting the National Energy Retail Law retailer of last resort scheme in Victoria, which is not actually addressing climate change in this instance but is all about protecting consumers by ensuring that they have an ongoing supply of power in the event that a power company or gas company goes bust. This is about ensuring that there is a retailer of last resort where consumers can go to continue to have power and gas supplied to their homes and for the things they need. The power and gas industry is an essential service. We all need it in order to live, and it is absolutely vital that the supply to consumers is kept up as best as it can be. In the Victorian jurisdiction we already have legislation for a retailer of last resort, but it is not really as up to date as the national legislation. Therefore Victoria is adopting the terms of that legislation, just as many other states and of course the federal jurisdiction have.

Some of the changes, or some of the things that will ensure that there is a bit more of an update to the legislation, will bring it up into more modern times and ensure that experiences or oversights or unintended consequences are addressed, and this national framework is able to best do that for Victorians. For example, when it comes to ensuring supplies of gas, this legislation talks about ensuring that when a failed business supplies gas or electricity, any contracts that they have continue on. They can be taken over by the new retailer that is going to provide for that consumer. This often gets into the more jurisdictional legislation around federal–state roles and responsibilities and that sort of stuff. The national law is better able to provide strong legislation and regulation around that, and of course it is the national energy regulator that will be overseeing these types of actions.

Of course Victoria has really paved the way in Australia around action to mitigate climate change, whether it is the solar panels on roofs or the great programs providing incentives and rebates and subsidies for those that switch to renewable electricity, for example. There have been programs about supporting and financially assisting people changing from gas heaters and coolers and things to electricity. We have also, of course, had the power saving bonus. I do not think there is a person in the Thomastown electorate that does not agree that was a great scheme. They have all taken up the opportunity to do that and it really has helped just that little bit extra when it comes to the cost of living in the area.

This legislation really, as I said, talks about protecting the consumer in a better way, particularly when a power company retailer fails. In the case of Victoria there have been to this point four retailers that have failed, and therefore those customers have been left struggling to get another provider and ensure that their gas or electricity continues. This legislation ensures that there are no disconnections and there is more of a seamless transfer to a different retailer so there is no disruption to the household.

Of course a lot of these problems have arisen due to the privatisation of the power and gas industries. We are still bearing the problems of that many decades after it first happened. I think there are still some people in the opposition who think this was a great idea, but really I think time and time again the legislation that we have to pass just to fix up some of the issues that have been caused by the privatisation of power shows the absolute negligence of the terrible actions of the Kennett government way back in the 1990s. It would be good if some of these people could be held to account for some of the decisions that they made which caused so many problems and hardships for the people of Victoria.

Again, the retailer of last resort scheme, as I have said, is a key consumer safeguard. It will make sure that there is that continuity of supply when a place goes bust. This adds to the ongoing work that the Allan Labor government is doing to protect consumers. I think it was after the first cycle of elections, after we were elected in 2014, when we introduced some of the default programs so that electricity and gas providers had to provide, by default, a reasonably priced scheme, so that they could not have particularly vulnerable Victorians on really high-priced programs just because they were not able to compare prices. They did not have the information in order to see whether they were getting the best deal or not. Those sorts of protections have continued, and I know that we get really good feedback from some of the residents of Thomastown around things like that.

This legislation is much needed. It brings us further in line with Australia, but it also allows Victoria to continue the work that it is doing to ensure that we do all we possibly can to move to renewables as quickly as possible in order to do our part when it comes to addressing the catastrophe of climate change.

Cindy McLEISH (Eildon) (17:45): I rise to speak today on the National Energy Retail Law (Victoria) Bill 2024. The core of this bill is around consumer protections when things do not quite go right, and I will have a little bit more to say about consumer protections and the government’s different approaches in different areas. Here this is about if your energy retailer exits the market. I just want to mention first of all that this is not a novel bit of legislation by the government at all. This is a move to adopt the National Energy Retail Law, which operates in other jurisdictions, with the South Australian act being from 2011. Victoria is essentially just adopting the provisions of the National Energy Retail Law.

But also included in this bill are amendments to the Electricity Industry Act 2000 and the Gas Industry Act 2001. What we have here is protection for consumers if your energy retailer, whether that be gas or electricity, exits the market. They can exit the market for a variety of reasons. Markets are pretty flexible, and sometimes things do not go as planned. You could have a failed retailer, and when you look at some of the figures on the east coast in the last 12 months there have been nine failed retailers, with four in Victoria. There are a lot of reasons why your retailer may exit the market: the company can simply want to change direction and leave that space; maybe they cannot compete anymore because the wholesale price of the gas or the electricity rockets, and they are not competitive; global events, and I know the government are particularly good at blaming global events for all of their failures – we have seen them blame COVID consistently and we have seen them blame Ukraine consistently; change of ownership; and insolvency.

I want to mention here that in the Gas Industry Act, for example – it is in I think clause 26, but I could be wrong – the commission may grant or refuse an application for a licence to distribute or sell gas for any reason. They have that option there that they have the discretion to do what they want. What happens here is we have got the introduction of the national retailer of last resort scheme, which as I said, is operational in other states. This then provides the government with the power to direct customers to a new retailer. There are multiple retailers that can be involved, so they are not putting all the eggs in one basket. But it gives them the power. What they want to be able to do is quickly transfer customers from the failed retailer – the exiting retailer – to the new retailer. It is looking, really, for a uniform framework for that retail failure and looking for some sort of consistency, and I think what is important is reducing the risk of unintended consequences. We know there are always unintended consequences, and it is something that we need to look out for. But one thing that is of concern to me is that with the changes to the government’s policy around gas and looking to ban gas, which is really quite significant and I think will have devastating consequences for consumers, they need to make sure that those who they transfer the customers to have the capacity to deliver, that they have enough reserves of gas or are hands-on able to get that quickly, and the same with energy. This, as I said, is going to become harder and harder.

I want to focus for a moment on consumer protections, because the framework that we are talking about, the retailer of last resort, is about protecting consumers. But I think that the government are really quite duplicitous in this area, because on one hand they talk about protecting consumers – and I am all for that – but on the other hand they take it away.

One of the things that seems to be consistent here is the government’s failure to listen, the failure to consult adequately with communities. More and more we see consultation via Engage Victoria, and that is a real furphy because people are not watching the Engage Victoria website; they do not know what is there and what is on. The other thing that the government does is tell; they think consulting is telling. That is not consulting; it is a two-way street. The government are also removing appeal rights, and they are really starting to ride roughshod over communities. They are ignoring any ideas, suggestions or feelings because they have the power or the authority to do so. The government more and more are riding roughshod over communities because they have the power, and I think that is quite duplicitous. On the one hand you are saying, ‘We’ve got to protect consumers, listen and look after them,’ and on the other hand you are doing the complete opposite.

I see this a lot, too, with some of the large renewable energy projects. I live off grid, so I am all good with renewables. There is not a powerline within cooee of my house. You cannot see one. They are kilometres away in every direction. But I see the way that the companies are not working with consumers, with locals, about how to develop some of these big projects. I have one that is bordering on my electorate, with the renewables, with wind turbines in the southern Strathbogie Ranges, impacting people in Highlands, Terip, Ruffy and even Gobur. It overlaps a little bit with the member for Euroa’s electorate as well. One of the things that does concern me is how these companies do business. They play landowner off against landowner and tell people or imply that ‘Actually you’re the only one who’s not agreeing with this. Your neighbours on either side think this is a great project, but you’ve got to keep this discussion confidential,’ so they get you not to talk to people. When people start talking to their neighbours they say, ‘I actually wasn’t in favour it. I don’t want that,’ and they are like, ‘Well, the proponent said you did.’ This happens time and time again, and I hear this consistently.

We have had this proposal for the southern Strathbogies, in the community called Highlands in my electorate, where they are playing off, first of all, communities and landowners about the location of wind towers and whether or not to have them. But that is only part of the issue, because then you have got to connect those turbines – and we have seen the failures of government to do this consistently – with the grid. It is how you get to the grid. All of a sudden it is not just the people who may be neighbouring the turbines but all those that are going to have these massive 330-kilovolt transmission lines going through their properties. Again, we see the companies and people go around and have confidential discussions and really play people off. They are not listening to communities, and they are just trying to work out the best path that they can get this through, because they think the government has given them a licence to print money for this because of the support for particular renewable projects. That is really what happens: they think they have got a licence to print money; they think they have got a licence to ride roughshod over communities.

What we see now happening through many communities in my electorate is there are multiple proposals about where the transmission lines will go, and it seems to change every 5 minutes. Every time I turn around somebody is telling me they have had a meeting about it because it is now going through their property. I am thinking, ‘Gee, I thought it was going to be going to Eildon via Gobur and Yarck,’ then I find it might be going through Whanregarwen and Molesworth and then I find out it actually could be at Killingworth or it could be just out of Yea at Homewood, so communities are really left in the dark.

There was a meeting at Yea on Saturday 20 April – standing room only – in the Country Club Hotel, with 200 people there to hear about it. This was new information for them, because they have not been told. They might hear about wind turbines in a certain area, but they have not been told about how that is going to impact them with the transmission lines. They have got to be hooked up to the Melbourne to Sydney transmission line somewhere between Glenburn and Alexandra, so it can impact on a large number of landholders. There has been a huge vacuum of information left by Fera. They have not consulted beyond little groups of landholders here and there, and they have got a few local champions who are really trying to push it, but one of the things that came out of the meeting was the number of people, through a show of hands, who were in favour of it, and overwhelmingly people were not in favour of it.

Some of the ways that they seek support are a bit misleading as well. If you ask a question, which happened at the Seymour Alternative Farming Expo, like ‘Do you support renewable energy?’, people say yes. That is a very different question from ‘How do you feel about this project in the southern Strathbogie Ranges?’ It is quite different. This is where I think they are not honest with communities, and they are losing their integrity. The government have to decide whether they want to protect consumers at all times or they want to work with communities rather than ride roughshod over them. Having the National Energy Retail Law in place is not a bad thing, though.

Tim RICHARDSON (Mordialloc) (17:55): It is great to rise this evening and speak on the National Energy Retail Law (Victoria) Bill 2024 and follow the contribution of the member for Eildon, who with a lot of contributions carries the coalition as one of the most frequent speakers on that side. When we have a bit of a chastising of those opposite for not fronting up and not speaking regularly on bills, you could never make that criticism of the member for Eildon. I will get to some of the points she made, because I am in a bit of disagreement, but I welcome the consistency in contributions.

This is a really important bill in the context of supporting consumers in our state and indeed across the nation who are impacted when a retailer goes under. I note that a number of members on this side are contributing to this bill in the context of our real policy drive both at a state level and federally on investing in renewable energy, supporting retailers and consumers and their rights and protections. I have a great turnout of colleagues, who will all get up as well, behind me. It will look good on Facebook later on when I download this absolutely sensational speech. I did request it, and I owe them all a Diet Coke later on, but it just shows the interest in this policy area and the importance of the model rules that have been put forward by retailers.

We have seen four retailers fail in Victoria recently, nine across the nation, and that causes a lot of uncertainty and distress for consumers, particularly those that a lot of us interacted with when we had the power saving bonus. The anxiety around the cost of living and what people were confronting, the nervousness around changing retailers with the thought of an impact on their cost of living, not trusting a brand name they might not know and then the journey that we went on with a lot of people around changing retailers – for a lot of constituents that we met within Mordialloc, it was a big step to take. They felt loyalty to a particular organisation. That loyalty was not necessarily shown to them in discounts unless they rang up and said, ‘I’m going to change my provider,’ and then suddenly a 20 or 25 per cent discount floated into the ether. That kind of loyalty, that kind of respect, was not shown to those consumers who for years would stay with the same provider, consistently pay bills, get the discount for paying early. They were never shown that kind of respect.

When we saw the power saving bonus come through, there was a great opportunity to hear those stories of constituents who had been trying to make ends meet, who had seen their cost of bills go up and who were aware as well of the context that we find ourselves in – investing in renewable energy, transitioning our markets and the whole story around the policy inertia coming back to the impact on their bill, on their bottom line, and needing to act on that as well. The stress and duress that comes from your provider going under and not knowing where you transfer is really where the National Energy Retail Law comes into play. We have had a state-based system that had one provider, but the national reforms will provide greater flexibility. Given the uncertainty and the changing nature of the retail market, I think on behalf of my constituents that is a sensible and reasonable position that we find ourselves in. As best we can, where circumstances change quickly, people are given that certainty of continuity on a particular utility that they so desperately need.

Going further into some of the importance there and what we have seen in that time, we have seen a really changing environment with the market. We see a number of other players come in, and we see the power saving bonus during that time being a really good catalyst for people to really engage in the complexity of issues around their bills and what goes into this work as well.

I think it is also important to reflect on why we find ourselves in these circumstances and the uncertainty and the fragmentation as well. We saw at a federal level policy inertia in this space and inconsistency until a federal Labor government came to power. We had states who really shouldered the burden on renewable energy targets. When federal leadership under the coalition was claiming renewable energy achievements, it was actually on the back of state jurisdictions acting time and time again in the lack of policy engagement. One only has to see the huge upheaval in the federal coalition that occurred with the national energy guarantee, which was not really a controversial policy position.

Dylan Wight interjected.

Tim RICHARDSON: As the member for Tarneit says, it was for them. If anyone is tuning in tonight and you have not seen Nemesis, like 3 million other Australians, it is high viewing and it gives you a good window into when it is all about politics first and policy second. That is where you find yourself on the wrong side of history.

Right now we have an interesting discussion that is occurring around what could be a substitute for baseload power, and we see a really interesting discussion around nuclear and where that might go. You see Peter Dutton, the federal opposition leader, leaning into this space and wanting to call for nuclear reactors to be established. The six sites we are not too sure about. We know the position and the concerns that the member for Morwell has put on the record in recent times, so I am really interested in whether members like the member for Morwell will, alongside his federal colleague Darren Chester, welcome the Leader of the Opposition down to announce nuclear reactors in his community, because that is what has been described. That is what has been discussed around our communities. Where will these nuclear reactors be established? Who is going to volunteer up their communities in the face of more than 10 to 15 years of needing to bring that on line and the insecurity around that?

It just shows that, when you see the contribution that was made recently on Insiders, it is more about kicking the can down the road of New South Wales and Queensland Nationals than it is about actually a serious policy debate. They were meant to announce the sites only recently, and still we have absolutely no idea how this policy would be achieved. It will be interesting, when the member for Morwell gets up, whether his community is the one that will be put forward for the nuclear intervention that has been made by the opposition leader federally. We have seen a very quiet policy space. We heard the Leader of the Opposition say, ‘We should have a discussion’ – a great way to say, ‘I haven’t actually asked everyone in my party room yet or know where the numbers are on that’ – not wanting the ire of federal Liberals or Nationals as well, such is the unpopularity of some of their policy position.

You cannot blame them for some of that policy inertia, because the former leadership of the Liberal Party here, despite trying to reform themselves as champions of climate change in recent times when teals ran through some of their eastern suburb seats, are on the record as opposing the Climate Change Bill 2016, the Renewable Energy (Jobs and Investment) Bill 2017, the Renewable Energy (Jobs and Investment) Amendment Bill 2019 and the Energy Legislation Amendment (Energy Fairness) Bill ‍2021 and on the record as supporting a market-led intervention in coal-fired power, which was the policy position of those opposite in 2018.

Not to have a bit of a crack, but it is worth reflecting: remember that David Speers interview with the Liberal candidate for Frankston, the one that said that we would leave it up to the markets, that the free markets would determine where the next coal-fired power station would be built, which could have happened at any moment. After being asked 12 times, the then candidate conceded that it would be funding intervention from the state Liberals if they were in government that would actually be how they build more coal-fired power stations. That just showed how failed their policy was.

It does not stack up on the market, and it is why our intervention with the renewable energy supercharge that is the State Electricity Commission coming back and the whole policy investment is really important, because we have to provide that certainty to communities and that investment. That will take away some of the risk that we see where international investment comes in, where scale-up of renewable energy happens. That is the kind of certainty, that is the kind of investment attraction, that comes from having a long-run policy indication that says, ‘Invest, transition and help us on that journey, whether it’s in that baseload or storage and how we scale that up over time.’ That is an important mix as we move towards an 80-plus per cent renewable energy target by 2035 and then net zero by 2045. It is something we are really passionate about across portfolios.

I say as well that every single area of our communities and government services is doing that work. We have a policy to transition government services to net zero really soon. We see that in the health industry – we see fully electric hospitals being established for new builds. That policy engagement and the transition that will happen in our existing built forms – that is some of the policy energy and transition that we are looking at.

This bill is all part of that broader mix of supporting consumers in their homes, in the grassroots, supporting them with their bills and their transition as well, because to not do that hard work and that policy work over a number of years would fail all Victorians and leave them in a worse circumstance year on year. We need to make that transition, and we need everyone’s shoulder to the wheel on that work. I commend the bill to the house.

Martin CAMERON (Morwell) (18:05): I rise today to speak on the National Energy Retail Law (Victoria) Bill 2024. As our lead speaker the member for Brighton said, we do not oppose this bill. It is good to see that we are not opposing the bill, because we do need to make sure that consumers, who sometimes get lost in the bigger picture if an energy provider falls over, have got that mechanism, that they have the security to know that they will be moved on to another provider. They do not have to spend their time looking for a provider. It does make it a little bit hard when you are a little bit nervous that your provider is not there anymore – is your power going to be able to stay on, do you need to do it quickly? To take that impost off the consumer for a little bit is great.

The bill is designed to make the Australian Energy Regulator responsible for ensuring Victorians are not left in the dark if their provider is no longer a viable option. If an energy provider does go by the wayside, the AER will automatically transfer its customers to another provider, which is great. The main purpose of the bill is to apply the laws of Victoria, subject to any necessary modifications. The provisions of the National Energy Retail Law – because this does go on in other states at the moment ‍– provide a retailer of last resort’s arrangements and other provisions of the law to support the effective operation of those provisions. We are talking about electricity and we are also talking about gas. The bill makes other minor technical amendments to the Electricity Industry Act 2000 and the Gas Industry Act 2001 to improve their operations.

As I said, this is a good thing for consumers. I do not know how many people have had to use an option if their provider has fallen over, but I know the impost if you do have to change your provider, the hoops you do have to jump through, as the member for Mordialloc said before – all the stuff that is set up when trying to change. You say you are leaving the provider, and then they come and say they have a 25 or 30 per cent offer to give to you. We take that out of the hands and the worry of consumers and do that. It is a good bill that will protect Victorians. Why should they be left in a worse situation, as I said before, if it is not their fault? Households are under enough stress at the moment with the cost of living. I have had my gas bill and power bill. I think the power bill I have to pay at the end of this week. They are not going down at the moment. They are continuing to rise. Households are stretched right across Victoria at the moment, so to have a safety net like this is a good thing.

It has been a very wideranging debate, as we have gone through. It is not a debate actually, because we are all in agreeance, but our time line to move into renewables is starting to be questioned by a lot of people. We have moved to Yallourn shutting in 2028, and Yallourn actually provides about 22 per cent of Victoria’s power. In 2028 that will come offline as we transition into renewables. I listened intently to both sides of the house as they talked, and I think everybody now realises the impact that renewables are going to have and how good it is going to be for the environment and so forth. But we need a structured time line that does not make people worry, because the clock is ticking and there does not seem to be a lot of infrastructure in place at the moment. We will follow with Loy Yang B shutting in 2035 – they pump about 30 per cent of the power resources that we need into Victoria.

I listened to the city MPs talk about how they engage with their communities – we do the same thing in regional Victoria – and how right across the board constituents really welcome renewables. To a certain extent I think most Victorians welcome the transition to renewables. I listened intently before to the member for Albert Park saying that renewables do not pollute. Well, by the time the infrastructure is done for the wind turbines, with the steel that needs to be made, the turbines being put in place, the footings that are below the seabeds, the ships that transport these wind turbines out to sea and install them and the oil that needs to go into the turbines, yes, they are nearly pollutant free. We talk about the pollution that we see from the wind turbines. It is the visual pollution that we talk about, whether it be wind turbines or transmission lines. We have spoken about it often in the chamber.

We have farmers and people that live in communities who are going to be subjected to 80-metre transmission towers. If you look around the state – you probably see them as you come through the major transmission lines on the way into Melbourne – they are 40 metres high. The new transmission lines that are to be put in place for the upcoming change to renewables are 80 metres high, so they are big, cumbersome structures that people in regional Victoria will have to wear, looking out of their windows and across their farms. Then there are the wind turbines – the visual pollution there. These wind turbines are going to be as high as the Rialto building. They are going to be 300 metres high. The blades that they are currently saying will be on the turbines are up to 150 metres long – each blade. There is a lot of visual pollution, and that is the pollution that we talk about, which people in regional Victoria will for the rest of their days have to look at.

We know this stuff needs to be done, because we have made the decision to move out of fossil fuels and we need to transition into renewable energy. I think everybody is on board with that. But as I said before, it is just the time line of how it is all going to work. There are questions that I get asked in my community – because we are the hub; we have the two power stations that are currently there – about what we are going to be left with, because all the transmission lines are going to come into Loy Yang, as such. What are we going to be as a part of the manufacturing scheme moving forward – a hub down in Latrobe Valley for renewable energy?

The other thing that we do get once the power stations close is the rehabilitation of the mines. Speaking with the mine owners – and Hazelwood power station has started the rehabilitation process – about what they are looking to do, we have the Big Battery that everybody wants to talk about. It is in Hazelwood, which is in my patch. I have driven past it a few times. They are also looking to put in solar farms, which I hear about from the other side of the house – all these solar farms that we are going to need to create the power. Well, there is also going to be a big new one set up in Morwell, and they are going to be part of the rehabilitation of the mines moving forward. It will be interesting to see the amount of solar panels that we do need to power Victoria. We are just starting to get the information out about how many that will be. There is talk that up to 70 per cent of our farmlands will have to be covered with solar panels allegedly, at this stage, to make sure that we do meet our targets and keep the lights on in Victoria. We have had the minister come down and speak to people at Loy Yang, but that is in a closed environment. We have a minister in the other place who does have an office in Morwell, and they need to come down and talk to the people of the Latrobe Valley, which they have not done as yet, because we do have questions that we need answered. So it would be great for them, and I do invite them to come down.

But I think one of the most important things we do need to do – because we do have the member for Euroa, the member for Kew and the member for Ripon now that are going to be starting new families ‍– is we need to make sure the power stays on so their baby monitors and everything they need for their babies are on in the future.

Iwan WALTERS (Greenvale) (18:16): Acting Speaker Mullahy, it is great to see you in the chair, looking resplendent. I also rise to speak on the National Energy Retail Law (Victoria) Bill 2024. It has been a wideranging debate, so I am going to be controversial and seek to talk about the provisions of the bill itself. In some respects it is a technical bill, but it is an important bill. It is an important bill because it speaks to really significant dimensions of consumer protection in the context of markets. I talked in my first contribution in this place – and I am sure you remember it well, Acting Speaker – about the way in which markets can, when they function effectively, create wealth, spread wealth and act as vehicles of efficient distribution of goods in a society. But markets can fail, markets can be imperfect and markets are not the only way in which goods and services can be allocated and distributed, and in contexts where markets fail it is people who suffer. In contexts where markets are imperfect it is the role of government to ensure that there is still the adequate and efficient distribution and allocation of goods and services.

This bill is an important one in that it seeks to provide for the national retailer of last resort scheme in Victoria by, in doing so, applying parts of the National Energy Retail Law, or NERL, in Victoria but with modifications of its application provided for in Victorian regulations made under the bill to ensure consistency with existing Victorian energy retail law, while simultaneously giving effect to that national retailer of last resort scheme, or ROLR – and there are some good acronyms in this bill. The crucial part of the bill that I want to talk about is the way in which the proposed bill will enhance protections for Victorian consumers while simultaneously strengthening the retail energy market by transitioning, as I say, Victorian consumers to the Victorian retailer of last resort scheme within that national retailer of last resort scheme.

This is needed and important because the energy market as we know and utility markets generally are quite complex, sophisticated entities but they really matter for people’s lives, because keeping energy, whether it is electricity or gas, connected and in people’s homes is fundamentally what enables people to heat their homes, to cook, to bathe – those really fundamental building blocks of life. So these are markets, but they are markets which must be properly regulated. So when we talk about markets in the context of utilities, particularly electricity and gas, as this bill touches upon, the concomitant dimensions of regulation are really important. You cannot just have the free market running wild; it is absolutely imperative that there is effective regulation that protects consumers and ensures the efficient distribution of electricity, gas, whatever it might be – but in this context it is those specific goods, which are integral to people’s lives – because if that breaks down then it has real costs for society, and I will talk about those in just a little while.

We know that the energy market is volatile and complex, particularly at the moment, but also fundamentally unpredictable. The collapse of retailers perhaps could be defined as grey swan events in that we know that they might happen because some retailers are ineffective, poorly run or whatever the case might be, but we do not know where or when they will collapse. In that context there needs to be provision for consumers to be supported through the collapse of their retailer. In the context of a market, they have imperfect information. They do not know what is behind the facade of a retailer; there might be trouble. Whatever the circumstances are, it is not the consumer’s fault that that retailer has collapsed, but there is a real problem if that retailer does collapse and there is not adequate protection for consumers to be able to transition to another retailer in as seamless a way as possible, because if that does not exist then it is consumers in Victoria – residents, families, businesses and fundamentally people – who suffer the consequences of a retailer collapsing. So this is an important bill because it seeks to pre-empt that unpredictable outcome, one which we know has occurred nine times since 2022, I believe, and which may occur in the future.

I just want to thank the minister and her team for the consultation that they have engaged in with regulators across the country to ensure that the provisions of this bill go as far as possible to embedding that kind of adequate consumer protection in our energy market. I understand there have been substantive discussions with the Australian Energy Regulator, Australian Energy Market Operator and of course the Essential Services Commission (ESC), which already is best standard in the country for regulating the energy markets in this state. It is another substantive piece of reform on the part of this government and particularly this minister. Just in the last few months in this place you will recall that we have discussed and debated significant pieces of legislation looking at the generation of energy, particularly in offshore wind settings, and also bills looking at the transmission of that energy from offshore settings onshore, ensuring that there is the capacity to get renewable energy, which is getting Victoria on track for those ambitious targets to be met, onshore into the wholesale market and then ultimately to consumers.

This is another tranche of important substantive legislation that will make a material difference in the lives of consumers across Victoria. As I say, it really is needed, and it is particularly important to support the work that the ESC is already doing, which ensures that Victoria’s energy laws are catering for Victorian conditions. But also we are a government that consult closely with other governments and with national regulators to ensure that our provisions are aligned with national schemes where it is in Victoria’s interests and, crucially, the interests of Victorian consumers for that to be the case.

I have talked a little bit about the importance of robust regulation in the context of utility markets and talked about how we do this in order to pre-empt and respond to, as I say, perhaps those grey swan events which arise from time to time in utility markets but which have a real and negative consequence on the lives of consumers, businesses and Victorians generally if they are not anticipated through effective regulation with provision to respond to them. A particular example that I want to think about today is what is happening in the water market in the UK at the moment. Of course we have not privatised the water market in Victoria for a very good reason – fundamentally it is a natural monopoly. It makes no sense to have a privatised water market in the context where water is collected in reservoirs, piped into treatment plants and then on to people’s homes. It makes no sense for there to be parallel systems conveying that water – it is, as I say, in effect a natural monopoly – but yet the UK conservative government in its wisdom privatised its water system in the 1980s.

London and the south-east of England now find themselves in a position because of the weakness of regulation and consumer protection which did not accompany that privatisation whereby Thames Water, the water distributor and retailer in the south of England, is labouring under £15 billion worth of debt. Not being compelled by regulation to invest in its distribution networks, it is still distributing water through Victorian-era pipes with vast amounts of leaks, not treating water, pumping raw sewage into waterways – things which we, I think, in a modern society would not expect to see. Labouring under that £15 billion of debt, Thames Water has effectively defaulted upon it, and yet because it is a natural monopoly and an absolutely essential utility the government really has nowhere to go. It is too big, and the debt burden is too big to absorb onto the public balance sheet. It cannot magically create another water retailer or another water distribution system because, as I say, it is a natural monopoly. The 15 million people in the south-east of England rely upon that water to be distributed to and utilised in their homes and their businesses.

There is no capacity to have a retailer of last resort scheme in that circumstance. But as a consequence of the lack of capital investment and as a consequence of weak regulation and of weak consumer protection, the UK – the southern part of the UK particularly – now finds itself in a position where its water market is fundamentally broken. The reason that is relevant to this bill is that particularly in the context of utility markets there are crucial dimensions of those markets that people rely upon every single day in every single aspect of their day: the lights being kept on and the capacity to heat their homes, to feed their children, to feed themselves, to wash and to bathe. All of those things, which are the fundamental building blocks of life, are put at risk if markets fail, if markets are imperfect and if government does not play its role to ensure the effective functioning of those markets and also to guarantee consumer protections. That is why this bill is so important. I commend the bill to the house. In doing so I thank the minister and her team for bringing it here. I hope it has a speedy passage.

Emma KEALY (Lowan) (18:26): I rise today to speak on the National Energy Retail Law (Victoria) Bill 2024. Energy of course is something that is spoken about quite frequently in my electorate, for many reasons. They are around the cost of living and energy prices continually being seen to escalate between bills. Whether they are looking at their electricity bills or their gas bills, it is causing an enormous amount of pressure for people in my electorate. It is not just people who are in the lower socio-economic band, it is also people who are really struggling with the cost of living across the board. There are so many things that people are seeing where those little increments are adding up over time. It is when you go to the supermarket. You fill up your shopping trolley and you notice that your groceries are costing a lot more than they used to. Of course this is flowing on from the freight costs going up and up and up; the registration costs – something imposed by the state government – are increasing; and the cost of running a vehicle is increasing because of damage to vehicles because of our pothole-riddled roads. We also see so many other issues. It is simply costing a lot more through regulation and the quality requirements that are required as well.

So we see this incremental creep with little changes – and maybe it is one of the 53 new taxes that the Allan Labor government has brought in and imposed on Victorians. This is what is pushing up the prices of so many things in Victoria and the reason that the cost-of-living crisis is a homegrown crisis. It is not something that is being generated overseas; it is not something that is external to the state of Victoria; it is something that was created through policy decisions of this government – and I think it is very, very important that everybody in this place understands that and articulates that very well to their constituency. When people are facing these price increases for energy, for electricity, of 25 per cent since 2011 and when they are looking at increases in their gas bills of 27 per cent, they are wondering, ‘How on earth am I going to keep the lights on and the house warm? How am I going to cook food for my kids over this coming colder period?’ – particularly for older people. We always hear of a terrible story at some point over the wintertime of where a pensioner is shivering under a blanket or a pile of blankets and ends up in a critical condition with pneumonia in hospital. We know that often that can have devastating outcomes and the loss of life. It has implications when you push up the cost of living, the cost of electricity and the cost of gas.

What we have seen from the government is some relief for Victorians through the power saving bonus. We had four rounds of $250 each of the power saving bonus, but just as we started to see that massive creep in cost-of-living pressures and when people were starting to feel it with interest rates also rising, we saw the government all of a sudden scrap that program. We have got the budget next week. I am very, very hopeful that the Labor government will focus on opportunities to take the pressure off Victorians who are struggling with the cost of living. This program was one mechanism; I do not necessarily think it was the best mechanism. I think that if the government dealt with supply shortages in the first instance it would have helped to bring down the overall power costs, but as a backup, as something that is interim, that really would help a lot of pensioners make sure they could keep the lights on and keep their houses warm this winter. It is something that I believe the government should reconsider. I know that it would be welcomed by so many elderly people across my electorate. We know though that for this government, as I mentioned earlier, it is not the best solution to just have a handout of money to Victorians who are struggling with cost of living.

What we have got are some faults in the policy planning by the Labor government when it comes to ensuring we have sufficient supply of energy across the state. We all learned back in high school about supply and demand. If demand exceeded supply, then that would automatically push up prices, and that is exactly what we are seeing in the state of Victoria. By no means does this side of politics oppose renewables or oppose the need for us to reduce our carbon emissions. We absolutely accept that, but we need to do it in a way that is balanced, ensuring we have sufficient supply to keep the cost of energy down. This race to renewables we are seeing in Victoria, with the early closure of coal-fired power stations – we have also seen the banning of gas – has cut out two of the cheapest energy supplies in the state. It also has put a block in place that international investors and even local investors are not looking at building a new coal-fired power station which might have lower emissions, the HELE power plants, the high-efficiency low-emission power plants.

I did see that finally we have seen the Labor government follow a policy that we took many years ago now – I look at my neighbour the member for South-West Coast next door – where we made the announcement looking at waste-to-energy projects as well as how we could look at increasing the energy supply into the state of Victoria. The concern is that by making these early decisions to cut off alternative suppliers, this race to renewables is pushing up prices of energy in the short term. We also know that there is no interim plan to meet that supply, so it is not, like some of you are talking about, just for this budget or just for this year. This is something that is going to escalate and grow year on year into the future.

This comes into another aspect which is quite important to constituents in my electorate, which is how we balance renewables with the right to farm and the access to agricultural land. Of course my electorate is the largest electorate in the state. It is 20 per cent by land mass of the state, and that is because we grow a lot of Victoria’s food. We know that there already is this intricate balance of wondering: is the priority for this state to grow food and fibre, or is the priority about expanding renewables across the state, trading off our agricultural produce and the injection that that gives to the local economy?

This is not something I am just making up. There was a report that was published on a government website by the Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action in March of 2022 which clearly stated up to 70 per cent of agricultural land could be required for wind and solar farms if offshore alternatives are not secured. It is no surprise that the government has since taken this report down. It is no longer publicly available, and that is because I think there is a realisation that this is not going to be acceptable for the Victorian public. They want to be able to buy food and fibre which is grown in Victoria. We recognise that our rural and regional communities rely on the agricultural sector to drive their local economy. We can be protected from so many other events around the world if we can support that local agricultural economy, and it is so, so important that we continue to support that. But there is great concern amongst the agricultural community that Labor have a policy which is to shut down agriculture in Victoria and just move totally to renewables, and I will be deeply concerned if 70 per cent of our agricultural land is lost to renewables.

We also look at the other aspect of the right to farm, and that is around the rollout of transmission lines across the state. I refer specifically to VNI West, a project that will connect the grid in Victoria up to New South Wales. There is an alternative proposition which has been put on the table by Professor Bruce Mountain. He has put forward plan B, which is upgrading the existing infrastructure, and I was so pleased to speak to Professor Mountain recently, because it was actually something that I was saying 9½ years ago when I first entered this place – that we need to look at upgrading the existing lines, which are brittle and flow in the wrong direction. We have not got a grid which actually is designed to collect energy in the far reaches of the state and drive it back into Melbourne from the west of Victoria.

Plan B is a fabulous proposition. Not only is it a shorter line length, it uses mostly new easements. If you do a comparison, VNI West takes up 1270 kilometres of new easements over existing agricultural land whereas plan B is just 130 kilometres of new easements. It is much cheaper to go with plan B; it is half the cost to roll that out. Let us not forget that the cost of any new transmission lines ends up on the power bills of Victorians. That is what we are very concerned about – the hidden costs when it comes to these great, big transmission line projects. It will actually result in an increase to everyone’s power bill. I have heard that there will be increases doubling or tripling bills for commercial businesses and adding between $300 and $600 a year for residential businesses. We need to ensure there are protections in place, and while we do see that there are elements of this bill that will bring us into line with the national standard, we also need to ensure that we have got a state government that can ensure we can deliver lower power prices.

Dylan WIGHT (Tarneit) (18:36): It gives me great pleasure this evening to rise and speak on the National Energy Retail Law (Victoria) Bill 2024. Contrary to the contribution from the member for Lowan just previously, this is not a bill about cost of living at all. This is not a bill about our energy transition. What I will say to the member for Lowan is that it is slightly rich to stand up in this place and blame solely the Victorian government for a cost-of-living crisis.

Emma Kealy interjected.

Dylan WIGHT: What I will do is point the member for Lowan – if she cares to listen – to shipping costs in the Northern Hemisphere. I will point the member for Lowan to oil supply issues throughout the Middle East causing significant rises in the price of goods in places like supermarkets and also rises in petrol prices. When those two key indicators happen, typically what you get is higher interest rates, which cause inflation, which causes a cost-of-living crisis.

What this bill is about is building on the Labor government’s landmark energy reforms over the last 10 years, providing cheaper, more reliable and in this particular case fairer energy for all Victorians. As I said, this bill is not about a cost-of-living crisis. What this bill is about is protecting consumers from market failures. The way that this bill will do that is by playing a pivotal role in safeguarding Victorian consumers in the ever-evolving energy sector as we progress towards our ambitious renewable energy targets. As I have said many, many times in this place, it is not just the most ambitious in Australia but one of the most ambitious anywhere in the world – 95 per cent renewable energy by 2035. The bill will also provide a critical framework to ensure reliability and stability in energy supply.

I have also heard many contributions, one from the member for Morwell – I am not having a go at him; he is a great guy – and also one from the member for Lowan just then, that consistently quote this report that says that 70 per cent of Victoria’s agricultural land is going to be required to reach our renewable energy targets, but that is exactly why we are pushing on with our offshore wind agenda. That is exactly why we are doing that. It actually quotes that. It is disingenuous to stand up here and say that 70 per cent of Victoria’s land is going to be needed to meet our renewable energy targets. It is utter, utter dross.

The National Energy Retail Law (Victoria) Bill will introduce a national retailer of last resort scheme for Victoria. Unfortunately, we have seen over the last little bit, over the last small period, four retailers fail in Victoria, nine across the country. When that happens, that can cause obvious and significant distress for consumers. As I said, what this bill is designed to do is protect those consumers from market failures. The scheme is part of the national effort to standardise consumer protection right across Australia, adapting the existing Victorian measures to align with the national standards. By doing so, the bill ensures that all customers enjoy uninterrupted access to energy services, fostering a resilient energy market capable of handling the challenges posed by retail failures and also market fluctuations. Simply, if you are with an energy retailer today that may go into liquidation, that may fail, when the market fails it is the government’s job – it is a requirement of government – to intervene to protect the consumer. That is exactly what this bill is about.

Previously the costs incurred – as I said, it has happened four times in Victoria previously – from a retailer failure could lead to increased charges for the affected consumers. So you not only have a business, a consumer, that is stressed out that their retailer has failed, is no longer providing their energy, but then they will also incur and be hit with higher costs as well. This bill changes that by allowing such costs to be distributed more widely across all energy consumers, reducing the financial impact on individuals directly affected by a retailer failure.

Since coming to government, I think almost 10 years ago now, this government has had a consistent energy policy all the way through. This government knows that we have to transition from coal and from gas to renewable energy. A large portion of that will be offshore wind – we know that – but there will also be a mix of solar, a mix of offshore wind and even a little mix of gas as well as we get to 95 ‍per cent. But contrary to those opposite, we have had a consistent policy. They still do not know what their energy policy is. Some, depending on where they reside, would like to continue with coal and would like to continue with gas. Some would even like to start fracking gas out of the ground again.

Members interjecting.

Dylan WIGHT: Jesus. We get some that speak really glowingly about renewable energy. Typically it is those that live around Brighton, a little bit further into the inner city, because their constituents do not mind renewable energy. Then we get some that speak about nuclear. The member for Mordialloc’s contribution, talking to the member for Morwell – it was completely fair enough. I would love to ask the member for Polwarth: is he willing to go into his electorate, to go into the communities of Anglesea, to go into the communities of Aireys Inlet, to go into the communities of Torquay, and tell them that he would like to plug in a small –

Emma Kealy: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, while I understand it has been a somewhat wideranging debate, I believe that the member for Tarneit has significantly strayed from the bill that is before us today, and I ask you to draw him back to the legislation that we are debating.

Vicki Ward: On the point of order, Acting Speaker, I think it has been, as the member indicated, a wideranging debate that does talk about energy, and when those opposite, including an upper house member, have got an intern looking into nuclear energy, I think it is entirely appropriate that the member continue in this vein.

The ACTING SPEAKER (John Mullahy): I draw the member for Tarneit back to debating the bill before the house.

Dylan WIGHT: As I said, it would be incredibly interesting for me to see if the member for Polwarth was willing to do that. As I said, those opposite have not had an energy policy since we have come to government, for 10 years. As I said, it would be interesting to see if the member for Polwarth would do that, but he would probably have to go and ask the real leader of the Liberal Party first, the heavy hitter Mrs Bev McArthur in the upper house.

Emma Kealy: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, the member for Tarneit is misleading the house in saying that the Liberals and the Nationals have not had any energy policy for the past 10 years. I therefore ask that you request the member for Tarneit to withdraw his comments, because alternatively he is misleading the house, which has significant consequences.

The ACTING SPEAKER (John Mullahy): It is not a point of order, it is a matter for debate.

Dylan WIGHT: What have I got, 8 seconds left? I had better touch on Tarneit. Tarneit is absolutely pulling its weight in Victoria’s renewable energy transition with its great neighbourhood battery.

Roma BRITNELL (South-West Coast) (18:46): I rise to speak on the National Energy Retail Law (Victoria) Bill 2024, because energy is a very significant topic in South-West Coast. South-West Coast have taken a huge amount of the burden for the onshore wind farms because we happen to have had the transmission line. Frankly, we are not against renewables. We absolutely endorse the journey that we are embarking on as a world to improve the environment and reduce emissions, but sometimes it has to be taking a bit of a fair share for others around the state. If you look around this chamber, you see most of the transmission lines and the wind farms on properties are mostly in my electorate and some of the electorates in Gippsland, like the member for Gippsland South’s electorate and the member for Polwarth’s. I do not see these onshore wind farms in the electorates of members from across the chamber in the Labor Party.

When we see a Labor Party saying, ‘We are rushing ahead, beating everybody else to improve the reduction in emissions and get towards a renewable future,’ it is admirable in itself in some ways, but it is certainly not admirable when we have people struggling to pay their bills, because Labor have not actually got a real plan. They have got a false plan that just relies on solar and wind. There is not a country in the world that can do that without some sort of power to back it up. They have banned gas and are telling people constantly that gas is really bad. Well, the reality is we have to have some baseload power, and gas in Victoria is not as impure as it is in other countries, like the UK, and we certainly are not fracking or intending to or thinking about that on this side of the chamber. The Liberal Party have had a moratorium against that, unlike Labor. We have had every single extraction licence delivered by them in the state of Victoria. All those exploratory licences before the moratorium were issued by Labor. They put out a lot of propaganda, they say they are going to improve the environment, but they are prepared to risk the environment often.

That brings me to the offshore wind farm projects that they have announced with absolutely minimal, if any, consultation with the people of Port Fairy and Warrnambool, who are absolutely outraged, and rightfully so. I will stand shoulder to shoulder with them to fight this offshore wind farm. It is not appropriate to be in South-West Coast, where we have a whale migratory pathway and a whale nursery. Harpooning, when we settled this country, nearly annihilated the whale populations. Now we have worked so hard to get them back, and I was told recently by a renewable environmental scientist that there is nowhere in the world that a whale migratory pathway has been a place where they have put offshore wind farms. Why risk that in Victoria?

We know we cannot trust the Allan Labor government. We know that they are intending to override an internationally acclaimed Ramsar wetland site in Hastings to go ahead with their renewable port hub despite their own Minister for Planning just two years ago saying you cannot touch that area. Then the federal government environmental minister stepped in just a few months ago saying exactly the same thing. Yet we heard from the Premier, ‘We will find a way, we will proceed regardless.’ Using the environment as an excuse to destroy the environment does not make sense, and that is why I apply the same theory to South-West Coast, where you say an offshore wind farm will be placed in a whale migratory pathway and a whale nursery when there is no way you can possibly give me the evidence, because it has never happened before, that it will not disrupt the whales.

These are turbines that are massive in height and do interfere with the wind and make current changes. And not only that, while those wind farms are being built – and it will take many, many years, those transmission lines going under the seabed, all that construction noise for all the people in the area for a long period of time – of course that is going to interfere with the whale migration pathway. It just does not make any sense, and it is not something that we can consider in South-West Coast, our pristine coastline with our fishing, our vistas. It is a massive tourism area. It is just not the area for an offshore wind farm. The community are really angry about it, and rightfully so. The government needs to think about where they are going to place offshore wind farms, and there are many places that are not whale migratory pathways, for a start, and that are not whale nurseries, that the government can consider.

This bill talks about going towards an energy future. The government are putting forward lots of bills around energy. But really I do not see progress when we see the energy prices going up – I mean, a 25 ‍per cent increase in electricity, a 27 per cent increase in gas. The government have the levers, and they have chosen to pull them in a direction that is raising the cost of living to the point where families are struggling to pay their bills. They open up their gas bill, their electricity bill, and they are really concerned about how they are going to pay it. Elderly people – I have seen this in my nursing career, where they come to winter and they just refuse to put the heater on and genuinely end up in hospital with pneumonia. I have seen it. So how are they going to be feeling this year when they see the price of energy when they are having to turn on a heater? I will be very shocked if we do not see an increase in deaths over winter in the elderly from this exact issue, caused by viruses that they could have avoided if they had used the heating, which I am sure they will turn off.

This government have actually even brought out the $250 power saving bonus. Whilst I do not actually think handouts are the answer, I think the government has the levers to pull to make sure we can have affordable and reliable power. But honestly at the moment they have done such damage to the power bills that that is probably why they introduced it. And now to pull them when many pensioners will have no way of paying their electricity – it is the wrong time. The budget is next week. I think surely the government can see that they will need to reintroduce that bonus to just assist people with their power bills at this point in time.

So this supply and demand of power – the reason the power has gone up is because the government have shut down the power companies. They have put taxes in place and sent a clear message that they are not wanted here. But to not have a plan to transition smoothly is ludicrous, because what we are seeing is that prices are just pricing families to a point where they are hurting. But it is not only families, it is the restaurants, it is the family businesses, the coffee shops, all the businesses. Last week the circus was in town – $180 for the circus to get a family ticket for four. Well, you can only imagine the costs they have got – insurance, which this government have increased through their 53 taxes that they have increased over the last 10 years they have been in government. Insurance costs, registration costs, electricity costs and staffing costs have gone up purely because of the levers of this government here in the state of Victoria.

I know it is hard for the community to see where the taxes from Victoria go. They do not get a bill like we do from the local council with our rates bill. But it is quite clear that the policies of this government have resulted in increased electricity costs and increases in 53 new taxes – and I think one more even has been put into the media today that is being introduced. I am sure next week in the budget we will all be horrified at the state of Victoria and the budget that comes out due to the fact of the mismanagement of a government who cannot manage money, who cannot manage projects and who are trying to fund their way out of the massive cost blowouts and the hole that they have created in the budget through taxing hardworking families who really cannot take much more. Next week let us see this budget. I cringe for the families of Victoria who are very much struggling under the cost of living, created, once again, I say by the mismanagement of this government and the policies that they have brought forward, such as their energy policy, which has increased the price of gas and electricity.

Jordan CRUGNALE (Bass) (18:55): I rise to speak on the bill, which is the National Energy Retail Law (Victoria) Bill 2024. It is a vital piece of legislation aimed at better protecting Victorians in the energy retail market – and that is what this government is all about: protecting our constituents ‍– and giving them a smooth experience when it comes to their electricity supply. This bill is really important because, as we have all experienced in recent years, the energy market can be a bit volatile. This bill contributes to alleviating that uncertainty and pain for consumers. As the minister has noted, the legislation will also strengthen the resilience of the energy retail market in alignment with the national energy retail rules administered by the Australian Energy Market Commission. It applies part of the National Energy Retail Law in Victoria with some slight tweaks to keep it consistent with Victoria’s energy retail laws. It might sound a little dry and it probably is, but that is what is in the details to better protect Victorians.

It is worth recapping what our energy market actually looks like. Victoria is currently leading one of the fastest energy transitions in the world, and the Allan Labor government is clearly focused on moving to a more sustainable energy ecosystem that will provide for the energy needs of Victorians for years to come. This has included things like giving Victorians control over their home energy through our Solar Homes program and giving over 100,000 rebates to Victorian households as they take part in that program. We have installed the Victorian Big Battery – the largest in the Southern Hemisphere – and made Victoria the home of batteries.

In the electorate of Bass we have a $10 million Phillip Island community energy storage system. In addition our Allan Labor government committed millions to installing 100 community batteries around the state as part of our 2022 election commitment. And just last month our Minister for Climate Action and Minister for Energy and Resources was on Phillip Island – Millowl – where we celebrated the announcement of the first 25 in the first round. Of the 25, seven are for the island at locations including Berninneit in Cowes, Rhyll, Ventnor, the YMCA, the senior citizens club, Wimbledon Heights and pole-top power at Smiths Beach. All 25 will bring over 4.2 megawatts of new capacity to the 20 towns across Victoria, soaking up clean renewable energy when it is plentiful and dispatching it when it is needed most, improving energy security, improving our local network resilience, increasing the uptake of rooftop solar, delivering community dividend payments for locals and driving down energy bills.

I was delighted to join with the Parliamentary Secretary for Climate Action Sheena Watt in the other place, Cowes Primary School captains Matilda and Jasper, Mondo and AusNet and a solar array of community catalysts and organisations all focused on the transition to renewables, including Totally Renewable Phillip Island, Westernport Water, Energy Innovation Cooperative Ltd, Destination Phillip Island, Bass Coast Shire Council and nature parks. Targets are set for energy storage and renewable energy, and we are on track for 95 per cent by 2035.

Energy is an essential service. Our homes, workplaces and in fact our whole lives cannot run without guaranteed power flowing in, so it is vital that we protect citizens from adverse consequences in the private market. Victoria has what is known as a retailer of last resort scheme, which has been in place since 2007. This scheme means that if an energy retailer should fail, its customers will be quickly moved to another retailer to avoid any disruption to their energy supply. Although our state-based scheme has been successful, we have seen lots of ups and downs in the energy market recently with four retailers collapsing in Victoria over the past 12 months, so we are looking to unify our system with that of the rest of the country, adopting the national retailer of last resort scheme through this bill. The national scheme ensures consistency across the country when it comes to dealing with retailer failures. It ensures that customers –

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I am required by sessional orders to interrupt business. The member will have the call when the bill returns to the house.

Business interrupted under sessional orders.