Wednesday, 16 October 2024

Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment Bill 2024

Second reading

Debate resumed on motion of Lily D’Ambrosio:

That this bill be now read a second time.

James NEWBURY (Brighton) (10:59): I rise to speak on the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment Bill 2024, and I start my contribution by saying that the coalition supports the measures in this bill. It is not a big bill. The bill itself does not do a lot, but the coalition supports the bill because we have now reached a point in time where we know how dire energy policy and therefore energy reliability, security and affordability are in this state. So when a bill comes to this place, a small piece of work in what should be a far bigger policy agenda in relation to ensuring adequate energy security and supply, the coalition supports that approach. We have looked at the bill in detail and understand the need, because we know the energy market operator has forecast and warned of gas supply shortages from as soon as two years time, and we know we will need very shortly the capacity in this state to store gas to ensure that supply is available to Victorians as it should be.

What this house is considering today is a bill that deals with measures that, frankly, could and should have been implemented years ago. We know the government was aware of not only gas shortages but also the need for a gas storage measure such as this, and that is what this bill does. This bill effectively will allow a larger storage space, in the simplest terms, for gas to be stored and made available to Victorian households. Victoria is very reliant on gas. We know that over 2 million homes are reliant on gas. Some 18 per cent of gas usage is from homes. Obviously businesses are an enormous part of that gas demand or need, so we should have known as a state that we needed a robust and strong energy and specifically gas policy to ensure that Victorians have the energy supply they need.

Sadly, when you look at the measures in this bill – and we will go through industry’s and the broader community’s response – what we are seeing is an acknowledgement that gas has been so demonised by this government, so ideologically demonised by this Minister for Energy and Resources, that it has affected the broader government’s capacity to properly plan for Victorians in terms of their energy supply. Not only is that recognised by the community but it is recognised by the government, and government members themselves have spoken out against the minister and the minister’s approach. The federal government has spoken out against the minister and the minister’s approach. We have seen in recent times not only a calling out from the federal Labor government of the minister but a slight change in the government’s approach in overruling the minister for energy. And we have seen the minister approve a project for the first time in 10 years. I cannot imagine that that was signed by the minister with any joy; in fact I am sure the minister’s arm had to be moved with a pen in it to have her agree to that brief. I cannot imagine that she has framed that brief in approving that project. I think she would have done so almost under duress.

As I say, as a state we are reliant on gas, and there is nothing wrong with gas. I think what we are seeing both in this state and now federally is Australian people standing up and saying to their governments, ‘Stop demonising gas because of ideology.’ That is what the government here has done for years and the federal government has done, and you saw the federal coalition’s announcement yesterday to extend the capacity investment scheme eligibility to gas projects and the commitment from the coalition that if they were to win the next federal election gas would form part of the investment scheme so that no longer would that scheme only underwrite renewable projects but it could also underwrite gas projects.

The federal coalition understands the need, as we do in Victoria as the alternate government, that Victorians should have and deserve to have reliable, secure and affordable energy. It is something that I know the member for Bulleen is very strong on. As leader he announced a commitment to a domestic reservation policy in 2022, and that was something that showed our commitment at that time as a coalition to ensuring that gas was part of the energy mix for the future. Victorian households would have been guaranteed access to Victorian gas, and that is something that this government has never done. Not only has it not provided any local guarantee but it has demonised and tried to ban gas, and we will deal with a bill tomorrow where the government is seeking to take a significant step towards banning gas in the measures in that bill. In fact in that bill there are very, very sneaky measures that have been pushed into an omnibus building bill, which is effectively the head of power for banning gas to households – sneaky, sneaky measures that were hardly highlighted, of course, by the minister in any of their public contributions. In the last parliamentary sitting week, coincidentally, the Premier talked about Victorians being able to cook with gas two days before announcing and introducing a bill into this place that would ban gas in homes. Talk about talking out both sides of the mouth on gas.

As I said, gas is an important part of our energy mix in Victoria, and the government’s 10-year ideological war on gas has just undermined for Victorians the reliability, security and affordability of gas. And you can see the community’s response to it. Recent polling – not that we should ever look to polling most directly, though I am sure that many on this side have been looking at it this week – in relation to Victoria’s gas phase-out showed strong support from Victorians for gas. Perhaps that is why the Premier has tried to draw a line between herself and the minister for energy – the great gas-banning minister for energy – who is notorious across this country for being the most ideologically opposed in this country and in the Labor Party, which in itself is an achievement. To be thought of as the most ideologically opposed in the Labor Party is quite some achievement.

As soon as this bill was announced there was public discussion about the importance of a local enhanced gas storage supply, and you can look at what people like David Close, the director of the University of Queensland’s Gas and Energy Transition Research Centre, said:

There seems to be a growing acceptance that gas supply will need to be imported given the lack of investment in exploration and development for many years in Victoria …

And further:

Imports are no easy option – existing pipeline expansions, new pipelines and LNG imports all face financing, approval, social acceptance and commercial hurdles. Possibly insurmountable hurdles without a capacity mechanism that includes gas.

Increasing gas storage can decrease the reliance on gas imports during peak demand periods …

This is just one example, shortly after this policy was belatedly announced, where you could see the sector saying, ‘We see a glimmer of hope. We see a small, small glimmer of hope that perhaps the minister’s ideology has finally been overruled.’

Further, if you look at other people, Tim O’Brien, the COO of Lakes Blue Energy, said only recently:

We’re very bullish about the exploration and have been for some time. It’s been a frustrating road, but it looks like reality is finally dawning on the government – we need reliable, locally sourced energy …

And further:

People are realising we are desperate for gas because renewables are a long way from being able to provide reliable energy.

These are not words of political attack; they are words from an industry who are saying, ‘Finally we might see that the government has recognised that security of energy is almost in crisis in this state.’ We know that. The experts are saying we have a problem and we need to solve it shortly.

Recent correspondence from the minister to the federal minister on this very bill confirms that the state government was talking to the Commonwealth about the possible project in 2020, some four years ago. How can it be that it has taken four years for the minister to actually do something? Released documents show that the minister was consulting over the policy approach in 2020. One wonders if the community had not spoken up strongly and if the security and reliability and affordability issues were not so strongly felt by the community, would the minister have ever acted? I think we all know the answer to that. There are reports in fact that informal conversations were happening, it has been reported by the media, from 2019. In those reports you can see people like the senior adviser of Royal Vopak Gary Constantine saying how much we need a policy like this. He said:

The conflict in Ukraine has caused nearly all the available floating storage regasification units to be contracted into Europe for security of their gas supply …

What he is saying is that we need to do more and we have almost missed the boat, as it were. This bill is belated, and as I said earlier, we know of the threats of a lack of supply. The Australian Energy Market Operator, if I can read in a quote, said:

Reduced storage facility delivery capacity may pose a risk to gas supply adequacy in southern jurisdictions on peak demand days during the winter peak demand period …

You could not be clearer on how much industry and the experts were calling for policy action. We know that the minister for years has been talking – not doing, talking – and the sector has been saying, ‘We need action.’ If you look at industry and business more broadly, they have been calling out the government’s policy failures. Rick Wilkinson, the chief executive of EnergyQuest, has said that the situation is ‘very serious’ and that we ‘need a backup’. Recent Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action departmental briefing notes have been reported as saying that shortfalls in 2026–‍27 could not be met with supplies from other states as it was:

… projected that all southern states will be in deficit and there is limited pipeline capacity to import into Victoria.

A supply gap will remain even if all currently committed and anticipated southern state projects are developed ‍…

You could not get a more dire warning in a brief by the department. And what was done? Nothing. We are here today dealing with a bill, which we support, but it almost feels like we are close to the end of the road when it comes to energy policy. And we know why. It is because, as the Australian Industry Group’s chief executive Innes Willox said, the Victorian government has spent much of the past decade ‘demonising gas as a legitimate energy source’, and that is true. He said:

The reality is that six-sevenths of our gas use nationally is by industry, not households, and without it big parts of our industrial base face a very difficult future.

It may be that having been warned by energy regulators that it faces a strong risk of blackouts in the years ahead as well as seeing significant parts of its industrial base at risk, the Victorian government has realised that misguided ideological intransigence has real-world consequences.

Well, why did it take so long, especially when, as the Australian Energy Producers director Peter Kos has said:

The government’s own Victorian Gas Program found there is up to 830 petajoules of conventional gas onshore – but that’s just what we know.

A further quote:

The state has not been explored as much as it should have given the state’s long-running anti-gas policies and bans. The political will is missing.

And that has been called out. That has now been seen clearly. In fact not only has it been seen by Victorians but it has been seen clearly by some in this government and certainly in the federal government. There are a number of others who have called out that policy failure. Andrew Richards from the Energy Users Association of Australia has said previously that:

… if we go down this gas approach, if we’re using gas curtailment to manage supply–demand balances, that’s not the market working.

That’s policy failure. Sorry, you can’t spin it any other way.

That is plain talking, and we are now dealing with a very small piece of the puzzle in terms of energy policy that has taken far too long to materialise. And it is not just consumers, obviously, that are concerned about the security, reliability and affordability of energy. Of course it is also business. Because as a state we should be ensuring that businesses can operate, can keep providing jobs for Victorians and can keep producing the things we need as a state to operate. We know that there have been many, many instances of business saying there is a problem. If you look at the tomato manufacturer Kagome, CEO Jason Fritsch said:

We are deeply concerned about where energy is going, not only the price, but also the supply ability going forward for us to manufacture …

Paul Guerra from the Victorian Chamber of Commerce and Industry said:

The supply issues around gas need to be solved before we lose the ability to drive the manufacturing sector, and ongoing electricity generation and transmission needs a clear solution before the lights go out …

These are dire warnings, not just from the experts but also from industry, who keep the state going, who keep people employed and who provide the things that we need. I mentioned before Peter Kos from the Australian Energy Producers, who talked about the political will, and he has further said that:

… the political will is missing and new developments that can put downward pressure on prices and avoid blackouts will not proceed unless the government provides a stable regulatory environment to allow investment …

We know that every time these issues are raised with the minister, the minister says. ‘Well, no-one’s popped anything on my desk.’ When you are an ideological warrior who demonises gas, is there any wonder that no-one knocks on your door? Why would you knock on that minister’s door? In fact you would knock on every other cabinet minister’s door and say there is a problem with this minister. And they are. That is why ministers have been speaking out and why the federal government is speaking out against this minister. We have seen, sadly, that over recent times the minister’s attitude towards energy policy has clearly put our state at risk. There is no other way to say it – it has put our state at risk. We see the minister recently has clearly been overruled in terms of her position on energy with some extremely unedifying examples, where the federal resources minister went into a Twitter war with the minister. Federal minister King said:

… gas will remain an important source of energy through to 2050 and beyond …

And what did the minister for energy in Victoria say? ‘She is wrong, she is wrong, she is wrong.’ Not an ideological warrior with the minister for energy, I do not imagine – not a socialist left warrior. She said:

I’m happy to say that Madeleine King is wrong …

How unedifying.

Danny O’Brien interjected.

James NEWBURY: Yes, happy to say it. How unedifying. We are talking about people having secure energy supply. That is what we are talking about. We are talking about people having secure energy supply, and our minister, the minister for all of us, sadly, is saying to the federal minister, ‘We don’t want you to stand up for secure energy supply.’ How could you want to do that in a late-night tweet? Bizarre. Minister King called it out further, saying:

… no doubt Queensland is doing the heavy lifting in terms of gas supply for the whole of the east coast.

And the Victorian minister for energy did not stop there with the Twitter rant. She accused the federal minister of behaving ‘like a coalition minister’ – high praise indeed. There is no higher praise.

Danny O’Brien: There’s hope for them yet.

James NEWBURY: That is right. There is no higher praise than accusing the federal minister of acting like a coalition minister, because it is the coalition who will always ensure that people of this country and people of this state have secure, affordable and reliable energy. There is no doubt about that. We saw from the federal coalition yesterday the announcement that gas would form part of the eligibility for the current scheme, which will ensure that gas has a very strong role to play in the future. And why shouldn’t future gas projects have eligibility through that scheme? Why should the government be trying to only pick certain projects? I was speaking about the capacity investment scheme. Why should the federal government only pick particular projects? So the coalition announced yesterday, as I mentioned earlier, that gas projects would be able to apply through that scheme.

After the Twitter war between the state and federal Labor ministers, Minister D’Ambrosio simply claimed that there is no gas, which is just factually wrong – ‘There’s just no gas anymore.’ No, the minister does not want to find gas. There is no question when you listen to the experts. Not only do they say there is gas, they do not even know how much gas there is in terms of significant capacity, because frankly the industry and investment have dried up in this state. If you are in the gas business, why would you knock on this minister’s door?

We have a bill before us today which we support. We support what it does, and what it does is it says that we will build a storage supply capacity to help us when we have shortfalls. But it does not solve the underlying problem, because you have got to put something in it. This bill says we will have a storage capacity, but we will need to put something in it, and until the government recognises the need to do something about that, we will continue to have issues with our energy security and supply.

It is little wonder that after the ‘coalition minister’ comment you saw coalition ministers – National Party shadow ministers – call out the poor behaviour of the state minister, with multiple speaking out. But one federal Labor member reportedly said about the minister for energy, ‘On gas, it’s always someone else’s fault’. You could not say it better: on gas, it is always someone else’s fault. That is the story of this minister. It is little wonder that we saw the new Premier trying a little bit of gas talk on radio a couple of weeks ago. The Premier spoke about allowing Victorians to continue to access gas in a very, very limited way, but then was, as I mentioned earlier, caught out two days later after introducing a bill to ban gas in homes. I mean, how can you possibly as Premier say one thing and then allow your government to introduce a bill which does exactly the opposite only two days later?

It is little wonder that you see the Deputy Premier enter the debate. Is it any wonder the Deputy Premier entered that debate and said we have got gas in our homes and for a number of reasons we are keeping it. We knew what he was saying. What he was saying was the minister for energy is wrong. The minister for energy is ideologically wrong. He was saying, ‘I’m different.’ Now, I do not think he was just saying that to Victorians, I think he was saying that to his colleagues. I think he was saying, ‘We need a different approach.’ It is interesting that after he said that the Premier decided to speak about gas. Obviously he had his finger on the pulse with his colleagues and the Premier thought, ‘Well, I can’t be completely outflanked by the Deputy Premier’, so the Premier has made some recent comments too.

When it comes to energy policy, it is not words, it is actions, and we have seen inaction. There is proof positive in the number of instances I have raised that the government has not acted to secure energy supply. This bill is a very small step towards ensuring there is a storage capacity, but it will not do what this state needs. This state needs secure, reliable and affordable energy, including gas, and that will only happen when we have a minister who does not demonise gas and who does not spend their time ideologically waging war against the gas that she ideologically is opposed to. Industry knows it, Victorians know it and we know it.

Nina TAYLOR (Albert Park) (11:29): We have just heard the opposition spend a lot of time slagging off the Minister for Energy and Resources, but I did not hear many solutions – zero solutions at all – so that was not terribly inspiring. I think we have to be careful when we are looking at the question of ideology versus geology, because it is actually geology that matters in this context. Specifically, the facts are that our once cheap and plentiful sources of fossil gas are now fast declining and increasingly expensive. I note they did refer to the expensive nature of gas. New gas production in Victoria will not happen at sufficient scale or speed to change the overall trajectory of the sector. Why? It is a matter of geology, not ideology, unless they are talking about fracking, and we have course enshrined the banning of fracking into the constitution because we know that it is not good for the agricultural sector and it is certainly not good for our environment. I do not know if that is the trajectory they are going on when they are talking about all these mythical, mystical and magical quantities of gas that they can tap into, because they talk it up. They talk a lot about the mythical and magical quantities of gas that are all there, abundantly waiting to be tapped, but we are not seeing any detail in that aspect.

I do want to contrast some of the discussions that were raised with regard to commentary – and I should say objective commentary – on this industry and energy as a whole. I am going to quote the Grattan Institute’s Tony Wood and the former chief scientist. We know the opposition are not terribly fond of scientists, but in any case, I am going to persist:

If there was a lot of gas, these companies would be taking it seriously …

And secondly, I am quoting the chief scientist of 2021:

There are currently no proven and probable … onshore conventional gas reserves in Victoria.

So this does present a challenge. Nevertheless I should say, if we are referring to the context of this particular bill that we are discussing, the Australian Energy Market Operator, AEMO, noted the critical role that deep storage will have to play across the east coast through the renewable energy transition. It was also interesting that not at any point did we hear any discussion from the opposition about the need for transition, the imperative for transition on so many fronts. Hence in fact we enshrined the SEC into the constitution, because we know that they would blast it away in a nanosecond if they were to be given the opportunity, because they have absolutely no faith or genuine conviction when it comes to the transition to a cleaner energy future for Victorians.

When we are looking at the gas supply situation, what are two key elements that are fundamental in the discussion here? The two key elements are: we must do whatever we can to support Victorian families and businesses that are able to, to get off gas, slashing their power bills in the process – that is one; and two, we must bring on a new transitional gas supply. I want to emphasise the transitional nature of that. The bill deals with the latter, while there is another bill before this place that deals with the former.

This is the clearest evidence yet that the Victorian government is the only political party in this state with a pragmatic gas policy. On the one hand we have the opposition, who are living in the past and talk about mythical gas supplies. Who knows – I do not know where they are, but they have this magical, mystical little reference point that they talk up all the time, with no detail. In any case, that is fanciful. On the other hand we have the Greens political party, which simply says, ‘If you hold up a banner and say “no gas”, the transition is done.’ Magic – just like that, it is all done. Wouldn’t we love that? We absolutely would, but we are dealing with human beings and real-life situations, and of course we have to actually transition Victoria, which is exactly what we are doing. But at the same time pretending there is some plentiful source of conventional gas that has been locked up by the government, as the opposition does with reckless abandon, is just a myth. It is not good enough to keep peddling out those tired old tropes. It is not helping anyone in Victoria, and it is also not assisting with the transition to a cleaner energy future. It is a delicate balance to straddle, no question, and it is not only Victoria. It is nationally, it is globally an issue for all communities far and wide, because energy is obviously critical to our human existence and for industry as well.

If we are looking at what Victoria has been doing actively to assist when it comes to helping them to make the transition, it is not coercion – Victorians actually want it. I talk to Victorians every day who want a cleaner energy future and who want to transition, hence they voted for the SEC. I do not want to dwell too much on that particular matter, because we did discuss it yesterday in the bill quite openly and we transacted it in a very forthright way in the community. No-one resiled from that position on any front. We were proud and we are still proud to lead on that front. So let us not get buried in arguments that do not make sense in this regard. Nevertheless, if we are looking at the Victorian energy upgrades scheme, it reflects the will of Victorians themselves to be part of this transition. In 2023 more than 506,000 homes and 24,000 businesses received upgrades through the program. More than 2.4 ‍million households and businesses have taken advantage of the program since 2009. On average households and businesses that undertake efficiency upgrades under the program save $110 and $3700 respectively on their annual energy bills. Victorians can see this. They are actually seeing the savings but also feeling good about the fact that they are contributing to lower emissions and to a cleaner energy economy. Even those who do not participate will save on their bills, with households saving $150 and businesses saving $870 due to lower network costs. Lo and behold, there are benefits for wholesale electricity prices when you do invest in the renewables sector.

I can go further. Solar Victoria has supported over 360,000 installations in Victoria. Solar Victoria has supported over 280,000 installations of solar PV in Victoria, and 7500 solar PV systems have been installed at rental properties. The program has surpassed an energy-generating capacity of 2 ‍gigawatts ‍– bigger than the Yallourn power station. Isn’t that interesting?

This shows real action on the part of the government. On the one hand we have this very pragmatic legislative element which is dealing with storage capacity, but on the other hand we also have fellow Victorians who are actively participating in the transition and becoming more energy-efficient. They can see the value in it. I do not know why the opposition do not and why they are not on board with it and why they do not want a cleaner energy future. They spend all their time bagging out the minister. If only they would put more energy into some vision and into some real energy policy, that would make for a much more interesting discussion. But nevertheless we are happy to lead the way on this, as we have been for many years.

Solar Vic supported the installation of over 30,000 hot-water systems. The Solar Homes program will create over 5500 new jobs, and 30 per cent of rebates are going to regional Victorians – what, regional Victorians getting on board with cleaner energy? Who knew? Actually, they are. And 57 per cent have gone to those with an income lower than $100,000. I am not surprised at all. I just think that the opposition undervalue some of their regional constituents. I think that is what it is. The program is helping Victorians slash their bills each and every day. Solar Homes will help Victorians save more than an estimated $500 million a year on their electricity bills once the program is complete. These are meaningful savings back in your pocket. In 2022–23 over 38 per cent of electricity generated in Victoria came from renewables, more than three times the 10 per cent we inherited in 2014. You can see real and significant advancement in that regard. Since 2014, 59 projects providing 4471 megawatts of new capacity have come on line. That is not ideology, okay? That is reality. There are nine projects currently under construction which will provide 1314 megawatts of capacity. I commend this bill to the house.

Danny O’BRIEN (Gippsland South) (11:39): I am very pleased to rise to support the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment Bill 2024. As is often the case when it comes to energy legislation in this place, it directly affects my electorate. In fact whilst this is a generic piece of legislation for the Victorian offshore area, the 3-mile zone between the beach and offshore in the Commonwealth waters could effectively support any gas projects anywhere in that area. As I understand it, the only one currently proposed is the Golden Beach energy project in my electorate, so certainly I am pleased to support it.

But in rising to speak on this I do want to respond to the member for Albert Park, who wanted to throw a whole lot of bombs at us about gas onshore. She asked, if I am not mistaken, ‘Where is this mythical gas that we talk about being available onshore, and why don’t we listen to scientists?’ It does not take too much to do a quick search online, and I found a letter to then Minister for Resources Jaclyn Symes. The author of this letter says:

• Victoria is prospective for onshore conventional gas, with amounts estimated to be in the range 128–‍830 ‍petajoules.

• Development of onshore conventional gas would create jobs and benefit regional communities and economies. Up to 242 jobs, $312 million in gross regional product …

Whom would this letter have been from, member for Albert Park? You told us that we should listen to scientists. That letter was written by Dr Amanda Caples, Victoria’s lead scientist in March 2020 and addressed to then minister Jaclyn Symes, as I said. Indeed you could go to the Premier’s website and look at a media release dated 16 June 2020 from the then Minister for Resources Jaclyn Symes, headline ‘Onshore conventional gas restart a green light for jobs’. It states:

Production of the estimated resources could generate as much as $310 million annually for regional economies and create up to 6,400 jobs over the lifespan of these projects.

We keep hearing this from the current minister, and we have now heard it from the member for Albert Park: there is no gas. I can only assume –

James Newbury interjected.

Danny O’BRIEN: I am not a geologist, member for Brighton, or a scientist in any way, but I can only assume what has happened is the gas that was there four years ago must have evaporated. Is that what happens? No, gas does not evaporate, so perhaps the gas is still there and there has just been a political change of view on this. Four years ago the government was spruiking the gas that was available. The lead scientist was spruiking the gas that was available. I would not reflect on the Chair, but Acting Speaker Marchant was on the panel at the time. The government knows full well that there is in fact gas onshore. I think the lead scientist’s comments in the letter to the minister make the point that this is not a panacea to our gas woes, but it certainly will contribute, which will bring me back to the bill at hand.

As I said, this project is Golden Beach energy in my electorate of Gippsland South, specifically off the shoreline at Golden Beach. There is an existing basin with gas in it that GB Energy intends to develop. They will pull the gas that is in there out. I think it is about 14 months of supply that they will be able to produce, that gas, and they will be left with what is I understand an exceptional reservoir that will be perfect for storing gas. This is not new. It is not new technology. It has been done around the world for in fact a long, long time. We already do it at Iona in the Otways where there is a gas storage area – an existing storage onshore I believe Iona is. It has a capacity of about 24.4 petajoules, or 570 terajoules, a day. GB Energy would expect to have about 18.8 petajoules, or 375 terajoules, a day, so it will be an important addition to the capacity of gas storage and therefore supply in our region.

GB Energy has been around for a number of years now. I must commend them in terms of engagement certainly with me as the local member, and I know with Golden Beach and the community around there as well they have done a lot of work. They have certainly been involved in talking to me. I think it is at least five years that I have been hearing from GB Energy, possibly longer, and it is a shame that it does take that long to get these projects up. I think they have done the bulk of their environmental approvals.

They have got an offtake agreement, if you like, with Origin Energy. Origin Energy is contracted to buy the gas from them and store it. This legislation was necessary because, as I said, we have got legislation regulating onshore and we have obviously got Commonwealth regulating offshore waters. It is that narrow stretch of state waters in the 3-mile zone there, and as it happens the Golden Beach reservoir is in that zone. In terms of the local impact there will be very little physical impact because there will be a pipeline underground at the crossing of Ninety Mile Beach, as there is already for I think at least seven oil and gas pipelines coming in from Bass Strait to Longford, where the gas and oil is processed and sent on. This will be one additional one, underground and to a subsea wellhead on the seabed floor, so in this case, unlike the existing oil and gas production by Esso, there will not be rigs or platforms that you will see from above the water.

Basically, once the gas that is in that reservoir is expended there will be the opportunity for GB Energy to purchase gas at different times of the year, put it back down the well and then use it at the times it is needed. Obviously, that will be at times in the middle of summer when there is excess gas and the price is perhaps a bit cheaper. They will be able to put it into the reservoir and then bring it out again when it is required in the depths of winter, when it is cold and Victorians need that gas for heat. Again, this is not new technology. In fact Esso has done it in Bass Strait in the past. I cannot recall which field it was, but at one of their fields I know they previously have done that. They would produce gas and put it back down at various times until they needed it.

That actually brings me to another point. I think the member for Brighton made the point that it must have hurt the minister to actually introduce this piece of legislation. It must have really hurt. But I also find it ironic that the minister is introducing this legislation and is quite happy to support us taking gas, putting it back in a natural undersea reservoir in Bass Strait and then taking it out again when we need it, because it will be safely stored. What is the difference, in principle at least, of doing that with carbon ‍– of doing carbon capture and storage? Yes, it is technically a bit different and there are differences in the composition, whether it is gas, methane or CO₂, but what is the difference in principle of doing that? The minister seems to be strongly opposed to the Hydrogen Energy Supply Chain project in the Latrobe Valley, which would take brown coal and produce hydrogen. As part of that hydrogen process the CO₂ is actually taken off, and the CO₂ would then go to CarbonNet or to Esso’s proposed CCS project. I say: why is there a problem with doing that?

I know Labor’s friends up the back here in the Greens are vehemently opposed to this. They call it a coal project. I just do not understand the logic. If the problem with coal is the emissions, then if you are taking the emissions from out of the ground and then putting them back in the ground through CCS, what is the issue? The issue is just, as the member for Brighton has said, ideological. I know there are people on the other side in the government who do support the HESC process and the HESC project. That would be a great project for the Latrobe Valley and for Gippsland because – and this might be pie in the sky – potentially in future at a time when we have offshore wind farms there is the prospect that during the day, when the sun is shining and the wind is blowing, we actually could turn some of that excess power from the offshore wind farms into hydrogen via electrolysis. If we get the HESC project up and going, it gives us the skills, the technology and the infrastructure for a green hydrogen economy in future.

This GB Energy project is very important for our gas future. It will be good for Gippsland in the main. There are some issues my colleague the member for Gippsland East will talk about with the fishing industry that we do need to be cognisant of and that need to be addressed, but I am very happy to support this legislation.

Nick STAIKOS (Bentleigh) (11:49): I rise to make a contribution on the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment Bill 2024, a bill which amends the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2010. The amendment clarifies that holders of petroleum production licences are authorised to carry out underground petroleum storage operations. Essentially this bill is a proactive measure to address the declining amount of gas and gas supply shortfalls in Victoria. Victoria is facing gas supply shortfalls, which are forecast by AEMO to occur potentially as early as in 2026 and grow in 2027 if we do not take action. Enabling the transfer of existing onshore gas supply to a natural offshore reservoir helps the retention of supply when needed to meet high demand, especially during the winter. This means that when required Victoria will have access to stored offshore underground gas, stabilising any shortages that may occur.

Victoria has had a similar process for many years onshore. By introducing this amendment bill, offshore gas storage can be done in an efficient and stable manner. Just to clarify, this bill does not allow for new production of gas or impact the current bans in Victoria on fracking or other non-conventional types of gas. Additionally, the bill will ensure that underground petroleum storage operations include the highest standards of compliance monitoring, record keeping and enforcement of these requirements to those who have or are permitted to have a petroleum production licence.

We need this bill as the supply of onshore gas is declining. Addressing imminent risk of gas shortfalls is critical in Victoria to prevent gas price rises and the impact that they will have on households. The bill enables the critical Golden Beach energy storage project to go ahead. The project will create the key storage infrastructure to transfer onshore gas, which will be injected into a reservoir in the offshore gas field. It is anticipated that the Golden Beach project will produce an equivalent amount of gas in a year to around a quarter of the Victorian household and small business gas consumption from the winter of 2027. The Golden Beach project is vital to securing Victoria’s future gas supply.

We have heard the energy market operator reiterate the point that deep storage of gas is a very important part of the transition to renewable energy. If we do not act now, the future demand will outweigh supply and put significant upward pressure on wholesale energy prices in the gas and electricity markets. The bill is a key step forward in securing Victoria’s energy future while at the same time enforcing safeguards to protect Victorians and the environment.

Our government recognises that our continued reliance on expensive fossil gas is not sustainable for our future, and that is why we are committed to supporting families and businesses to transition away from gas appliances. This will free up supply for those who need to keep using gas. Due to the unavoidable supply decrease I have spoken of, gas just simply is not as cheap as it once was. The typical Victorian residential customer is now paying over $500 more for gas than they did less than two years ago, an increase of 35 per cent.

We just need to look at our own gas and electricity bills and compare them to see this problem in real time. The Gas Substitution Roadmap that this government released late last year mandates that all new homes be fully electric and simplifies the process of transitioning away from gas appliances. The government has made a number of incentives and discounts available to support Victorians to upgrade to electric appliances. It is simply cheaper to be gas free. Existing households can save $1700 a year or up to $2700 a year with solar installed. That is a 60 per cent reduction in bills, and as I said, we just need to compare our own household bills to see that this is the case.

I am in the process of transitioning my own home from gas to electricity. I have just gotten rid of my gas ducted heating and I have put in an electric heating and cooling system. I have got rid of the gas appliances in the kitchen – I am going induction – and I have got solar panels. The only remaining gas appliance I have in my home is the hot water service, and very soon I will get rid of that one as well. The reality is that while I am doing that now and while I am paying for those new appliances now and making that capital outlay, I know the savings from not having a gas connection are going to pay off what I have invested in making my home a fully electric home, and I have done that proudly.

I also just want to talk about some of the opposition attacks that we have heard from the last two opposition speakers, particularly the member for Brighton. The member for Brighton spoke for about 30 minutes as the opposition’s lead speaker, and he probably spent 25 of the 30 minutes slagging off the Minister for Energy and Resources, which I found quite objectionable, to be honest, because I have a great deal of respect for our minister for energy. In fact our minister for energy is Australia’s longest serving minister for energy. It is because of our minister for energy that – I mean, picture this –

Matthew Guy interjected.

Nick STAIKOS: I hear from someone who quite possibly might come back for a third go as the Leader of the Opposition – his name has been mentioned in dispatches – that that is an indictment. Well, let me tell –

Matthew Guy interjected.

Nick STAIKOS: That is all right, I will not stay for your speech, member for Bulleen. As much as I like you, I will not be staying for your contribution. Maybe I will stay for a minute or so, member for Bulleen. We will see. It depends on how good it is in the first minute; I will make my decision then. I will just say that when the minister for energy became the minister for energy the proportion of renewable electricity in Victoria was 10 per cent. Today it is over 38 per cent. Frankly, member for Brighton, you are not worthy of carrying her bags.

The last opposition speaker was talking about a letter from the lead scientist. Well, it was not hard to find the letter from the lead scientist, because we are not trying to hide it. Onshore conventional gas exploration is permitted. It is allowed. That means if industry thinks there is money to be made, they are free to knock on the minister’s door. The lead scientist was clear that there are no proven or probable onshore resources. There might be gas dotted around the state, but it is not there in commercial volumes – no-one will go near it. I think that puts to bed the claims from the previous member.

Danny O’Brien interjected.

Nick STAIKOS: Well, member for Gippsland South, the chief scientist said in 2021:

There are currently no proven and probable … onshore conventional gas reserves in Victoria.

Here in Victoria we have the lowest wholesale gas prices on the east coast, and we intend to keep it that way. Indeed from the start of this year, residential gas bills were 60 per cent lower than Queensland and 21 per cent lower than New South Wales. However, our commitment to ensuring a stable, low-cost gas supply for those who need it will not get in the way of our ambitious target of 95 per cent renewable energy by 2035. I have got to say, as Parliamentary Secretary to the Premier I do get to meet a lot of visiting dignitaries, ambassadors, high commissioners and consuls general, and one thing that I am always asked about is our transition to renewable energy, because it is a strong transition. It is one enshrined in law. It is something that this state leads Australia on, and there is interest in it globally. Our minister for energy, who brought this bill to the house, has proven it can be done, because she is doing it. We can see it in real time. I commend this bill to the house. I wish it a speedy passage. I am looking forward to hearing from the member for Bulleen.

Matthew GUY (Bulleen) (11:59): I too rise to make a contribution on the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment Bill 2024. I note some of the excellent points raised by the member for Brighton and the member for Gippsland South. I think our point of view on this side of the house is we support the concept contained in this bill. We are saying, as the member for Gippsland South did, the concept behind this is one that should have been given clarity and investment some time ago. There is no doublespeak from this side of the house when it comes to gas and gas policy. In fact we have been very clear in support of the gas industry in Victoria, and we believe that gas as a commodity is something that our state has in abundance and should be used into the future. The politics of fear have crept into this debate. We have had it in spades, accentuated by the Minister for Energy and Resources, who has done a huge disservice to her own portfolio by providing uncertainty for those who want to invest in gas and gas exploration in Victoria. It is really quite disgraceful.

Victoria does have major gas reserves, and this is not being said by politicians – this is being said by people with decades of experience in the industry. It is not just a point on political cheat sheet notes to come in here and say there is no gas or there is gas. It is a point of fact. I note that the Minister for Energy and Resources recently and the member for Bentleigh and the member for Albert Park before have come in with the same political points about Victoria having no gas, this line that Labor runs for the simple fact of trying to secure Greens’ preferences. They are just running that line in here with no facts. Again, as I have said before, and the members for Gippsland South and Brighton have both said, the energy minister has said plenty of times there are no new gas reserves, there is nothing in the system, there is nothing that can be found, but yet Cooper Energy chief executive Jane Norman says Victoria does not have a gas shortage. She says Victoria ‘has enough gas resources to meet current demand for at least 25 years’. Who should we believe: the minister who comes in here and demonises gas for the sake of Greens’ preferences or the CEO of Cooper Energy or the CEO of 3D Energi, both of whom are putting money into it, not government or taxpayers money but company money because they know this is fact?

Let us go back a step. Who is the CEO of Cooper Energy? She has a bachelor of science in chemistry and pure mathematics, she has a bachelor of engineering with honours in chemical engineering and a postgraduate diploma in management and economics of natural gas. This is no dummy. This is someone with serious experience in this industry who is saying the state has plenty of gas. The minister is playing politics. Who would you believe, a woman with that experience who is clearly exceedingly well educated and knowledgeable and has decades of experience in her own field or Lily D’Ambrosio? I know who I would believe. Let us go further. Noel Newell, the CEO of 3D Energi-ConocoPhillips, who are seeking to develop production fields, says clearly:

The regulatory side of things, both state and federal, is a nightmare. It can take up to six times longer than it should …

This is the reason that Victoria does not have the gas supplies that it needs in the immediate period, because the gas supplies that are there cannot be extracted because the state, in particular, regulatory burden is hindering this industry.

Who is Noel Newell? Again, let us go back. We have seen the CV of the previous CEO. Well, this fellow has been the CEO since 2003. Most Labor speakers on this were probably in high school at that stage. He has had 30 years experience in oil and gas, both at Petrofina and BHP Billiton. He was the head of geotechnical at Instinct Energy. Geotechnical search for the gas; he has been the head of it for the last 12 years. This is a guy who has been head of geotechnical for 12 years saying Victoria has plenty of gas. Again I ask: who would you believe, that man with all his experience or a Labor minister seeking Greens’ preferences at a state election?

It is not a point of contention to those in the industry. Two incredibly well educated, incredibly experienced CEOs in this industry, Jane Norman, the CEO of Cooper Energy, and Noel Newell, the CEO of ConocoPhillips, both say the biggest hindrance to gas supply in Victoria is the government. Why wouldn’t it be? Because after what we have seen from the minister who runs political lines – that is all she knows what to do, how to run a political line. She cannot run a line on fact or on genuine reality, it has always got to be politics.

Right now there are nine licences. Nothing is stopping any of those finding gas. Well, actually two CEOs are saying, ‘Yes, there is – you. You’re the one stopping it.’ And the reason for this is geology: ‘We’re running out of gas. That’s the reality.’ Two CEOs – and I could read a whole bunch more – are saying, ‘No, we’re not. The issue is the government. The issue is regulatory slowness, and if you want us to find it, we can.’ So we do not oppose this bill; we actually say this bill has got some very good points to it. Proper consultation with the fishing industry through Lakes Entrance is very important, because it is one of our biggest fishing industries and they deserve to have their voice heard.

I heard the member for Albert Park say, ‘But you’ve got no solutions.’ Actually, we have had three elections now in a row offering them: using gas, not denying gas, getting regulatory approvals sped up, using it in exploration, using it in general supply and a gas reserve policy like in Western Australia for domestic supply. Western Australian Labor can provide a domestic reserve policy. Why can’t Victoria? Labor in Western Australia brought in a domestic reserve policy which keeps prices for domestic supply down. The 15 per cent reserve was a Labor idea in Western Australia. If they can do it in Western Australia and it worked successfully, why can’t Labor in Victoria do that? Rather than demonising this industry, why doesn’t Labor allow those licences to proceed and bring that gas to market? Two CEOs are saying, ‘You’ve got more than 50 years on current supply of gas reserves that can be used.’ Bring that to market. Put in a reserve for domestic supply, which will have a cap on it, and keep domestic prices low for Victorians, who are facing huge cost-of-living pressures, and you actually have a reasonable solution. When those speakers get up and ask what you are going to do and what your solution is, there it is.

We have been very consistent on this. The Liberals and Nationals believe gas is part of our future. The Labor Party and the Greens play politics. CEOs of gas companies, multiple of them, say we have enough supply for decades. For God’s sake, stop playing politics. Just use it for the sake of cost of living, for jobs and for getting us off coal and using gas in electricity supply. We have enough gas in this state. It is mad that we are not using it. It is simply politics from a useless minister. My point is very clear –

Members interjecting.

Matthew GUY: ‘Oh, goodness, it’s derogatory!’ Have you heard what you say to people over here? Grow up.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Juliana Addison): When you say ‘you’, you are reflecting on the Chair and that is not appropriate, so please do not refer to ‘you’, because you are reflecting on me.

Matthew GUY: No, I am certainly not reflecting on you, Acting Chair. Some members of the Labor Party need to grow up. If you want to come in here and throw insults at people, be prepared to take it back. If you come in here and sling off jibes at everyone, be prepared to take it back. I did not interject on anyone. If you come in here and interject on me, you are going to get it in return.

The simple point on this matter is we have provided on this side of the house solutions – real solutions, sensible solutions – to gas policy and gas development in Victoria. The Labor Party plays politics with a hopeless minister, an out-of-touch minister, a minister that is contributing to cost-of-living pressures in Victoria, a minister that is allowing our gas supplies to go unused when Victoria could be powering itself and the east coast off its gas supplies. So say CEOs of gas companies, who are putting their own money into investment in Victoria and exploration in Victoria, not taxpayers money. They are not seeking Greens preferences like the Labor government is. They are putting their money where their mouth is to get gas to market to make life cheaper and more affordable for Victorians. That should be our aim. But it is not the aim of a government obsessed with politics, and Victorians have finally woken up. They have finally realised cost of living ain’t getting better. Ten years on, life ain’t easier. In fact it is a hell of a lot worse, and that is why Labor is at but 30 per cent in the polls and will need those Greens preferences to win.

Lauren KATHAGE (Yan Yean) (12:09): I am so pleased to rise and speak after the member for Bulleen. The member for Bulleen asked us, ‘Who would you believe?’ I tell you what, I would not trust any of them on that side of the house, not a single one. They have offered up two CEOs of companies. We have heard about the ConocoPhillips CEO, who tells us, through the member for Bulleen, that it is regulations that are hindering the industry. One way to hinder an industry through regulations, I would have thought, is to put a moratorium on it, which is exactly what those opposite did. It was those opposite who hindered the most by putting a moratorium on onshore conventional gas exploration in 2013. That was those opposite.

The member for Bulleen offered up another CEO who tells us that we have got enough gas for 25 ‍years. All right, so let us just not do anything. Let us just pack up and go home. Apparently it is all going to be okay. But we will not rest just on the words of two CEOs. We trust in AEMO. We have bodies in place, experts who tell us about gas supply in Victoria. They tell us that there will be a reduction in gas available in coming years, and this government is acting.

To set a bit of further context, a bit of reality after we have been hearing from particularly the member for Brighton – I do not know where he has been living for the last while, but in all of his going back through history he did not mention the moratorium that those opposite put on onshore conventional gas in 2012 and 2013. There were people who were really against it at the time. I am quoting from an article at the time about gas:

Former Howard era union-buster Peter Reith and union leader Paul Howes have joined forces to accuse the Victorian government –

it was an LNP Victorian government back then –

of putting jobs and living standards at risk because of a reluctance to … lift a ban on the industry.

What industry is that? Onshore gas. When we talk about issues around gas supply, when we talk about regulation hindering, there is no greater than this, and the frustration of Mr Reith towards then Premier Denis Napthine was so strong that he released statements with Paul Howes. Premier Napthine’s response about the urgency of acting to avert a looming gas crisis, according to the paper, was:

I think I have a different approach to Peter Reith on that.

What did we see the approach being? To do nothing, and then not 10 years later to stand up in this place and say that it is our government that has impacted gas supply in Victoria when it is very clearly those opposite that have impacted it the most.

What is the gas supply issue in Victoria? We have heard from AEMO that the fact is that there is less gas and it is more expensive to extract and to use, and that means that there are less production fields and there are less companies that are producing gas for our market. The reason why that is so important is because we do not want a single family in Victoria to face any gas shortages in their lives. Everyone deserves to be able to put on the heater in winter and be warm and to cook their meals. We are taking action. It is this government that is supporting families and supporting the industry, and one of the ways that we are doing it is by bringing forward this bill.

This bill is providing investment certainty for GB Energy, who are working to develop and store gas offshore in Victoria. The GB Energy gas project will provide a lot of gas for Victoria, and having a storage facility, which would be enabled by this bill, will further strengthen certainty around supply of gas, which is what we are working on and what is important to this government. Without this proposed legislation projects like the Golden Beach energy and storage project would not have legislative certainty that the storage component of their project would be able to go ahead. What this government does not want to do is impact investment decisions that are made on projects in Victoria for energy supply, because we know that causing uncertainty for investors can disrupt things into the long term.

We heard from the member for Bulleen that their policy is to use gas and to have a reserves policy, but really we know their overall energy policy is absolutely lacking. All that they are doing – because of their lack of policy, because of their lack of vision for how Victorian families will keep warm and feed themselves, because it does not seem they have turned their minds to it – is just following the tide and the winds of the federal Liberal Party, marching us towards nuclear power. In the statements and in the policy grab bag that we are hearing from Canberra Liberals, they are creating uncertainty for investors in renewable energy and in the energy sector more generally in Australia. They are refusing to say what percentage of renewable energy will be in the mix under a Liberal government. That, I am afraid to say, means that investors in renewable energy have pause for thought because they are seeing a possible future, God forbid, under a Liberal government where renewables are no longer important and where the idea of nuclear is somehow the most important.

There is nothing more uncertain than the cost of nuclear. We know that for sure. For Hinckley C in the UK, it seems that every month there is a new article about the increased costs of that project. That project has gone from £18 billion to £50 billion, and they are seeking funding from sovereign wealth funds to help cover the gap. The China General Nuclear Power Group, a state-run company, which was already investing in the nuclear power plant in the UK, has said it does not want to invest any more because it does not get to lead or operate it. They are not given permission to lead a nuclear project in the UK. I wonder what the rules will be for the nuclear power projects that those opposite are planning with their federal colleagues for Victoria? What will the rules be for the multiple power plants in Morwell? Who will be the owners of those? If those opposite cannot get the money together to pay for the construction, which takes over a decade, which countries are they going to go to to ask for funding to run nuclear power in Australia?

At the end of the day, for our government it really comes back to families and cost of living for families. Under our fantastic minister we have the cheapest energy in Australia. That is not by accident. It is because we have been focusing on real solutions – real renewable energy – and those opposite might like to consider that the useless ones here are not on this side.

Cindy McLEISH (Eildon) (12:19): I am actually delighted to speak on the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment Bill 2024. It is a bill on a sector that I have quite a bit of interest in, and it is a bill that the coalition supports. Having said that, we do seek assurances from the government that that there will be no impact from this bill on fishing grounds. It has been very interesting listening to the debate, because half of the members of the government who have got up to speak sounded as though they were arguing against their bill, which is really quite extraordinary, whereas we are the ones arguing for it. But I will go into that a little bit later.

This bill that we have before us is driven by the industry. The industry get it, and they are actually putting a practical solution to us to go forward. There is a project in the pipeline, the GB project at Ninety Mile Beach. It is quite a substantial project of possibly around $500 million. To get this project off the ground the government need to change the regulations, because at the moment this part off the coast, the 3 miles, is in the Victorian jurisdiction. If it was beyond that, it would be Commonwealth; if it was onshore, it would be Victorian. So we have got the facility that is proposed by GB, that gas storage facility, but one thing about having it there is that we have also got to get gas to it. They have a project which is initially to harvest about 30 petajoules of gas in 2027 and then use that site as storage, and that site would have a lesser capacity of about 19 petajoules.

The bill is designed to bring the regulation of underground natural gas storage in Victorian waters in line with the Commonwealth regulation for the offshore storage of gas and the Victorian regulation for onshore underground natural gas storage and, as I explained, there are differences in jurisdiction. I have mentioned that the coalition will be supporting this bill and note that AEMO, the Australian Energy Market Operator, forecast a peak gas supply shortage from as early as 2026 and which will grow in 2027. With the tightening of supply and demand, there is this balance here, and the supply inadequacy would place upward pressure on wholesale energy prices in both the gas and electricity markets.

I want to go back to how the underground storage would work. The proponents of any project would need to establish essential storage infrastructure that can transfer onshore gas to be injected into a reservoir in the offshore gas field to be made available later for coverage. It is like you have got storage there, you put something in and later on you will extract that for peak demand. The project that we are talking about specifically will use gas that is extracted from a cavern. I mentioned how much they were looking at getting by 2027 – 30 petajoules – and I want to just put that into a little bit of perspective. A petajoule is equivalent to 1000 million metajoules – this is not megajoules, it is metajoules – and in 2020 the average household gas usage in Victoria was almost 50,000 megajoules. So we are talking quite large quantities of gas here, gas that we certainly need.

It bothers me trying to listen to and understand the government’s position on gas, because the minister would refer to gas as fossil gas. The word ‘fossil’, which was used to demonise gas, has dropped off a little bit. I think the government have realised that there are shortages, that they are going to run out and that they do need to do something a little bit different and think outside the box. It is lucky that the private sector have come with an opportunity and a solution that will help in this way.

I have listened to many of the government contributions here so far. The member for Albert Park referred to mythical and magical supplies of gas – where is it going to come from? I was convinced she was speaking against the bill, and I thought certainly that they had been drinking the Kool Aid over there. The member for Bentleigh actually talked about demand outstripping supply, and this is important. The government members are led to believe that we do not have gas storage, despite evidence that it does exist from the chief scientist Amanda Caples. You can easily find the letter that she addressed to the Honourable Jaclyn Symes when she was Minister for Resources in March 2020, and it talks about the enormous quantities of gas that could be available should government regulation allow.

The member for Bulleen talked in detail about a number of companies that have done research and made statements about the quantities of gas that are there now. The minister really does not like this. I understand that there was a nine-month exchange of letters between her and the Commonwealth ministers. The minister in Victoria just did not want to do this and wanted to kick it over to the Commonwealth but finally realised that it is in her jurisdiction. Whilst we have a transition – and I heard the government talk about this transition – to renewables, you cannot just bolt ahead. You have to have this transition. The Leader of the Opposition, the member for Hawthorn, talks often about the need for transition.

One of the things that is also neglected by the government is that no-one is out there looking for gas. They are not out there looking for gas for a reason, because the government is saying ‘Gas is demonised. Don’t come and look for it in Victoria. Go elsewhere.’ As if they are going to apply to put all of this money and investment into exploration to identify it – ‘Great, we’ve got it’ – if they are not allowed to use it. There is no point in them doing that. This is a barrier to exploration. It is a barrier to people applying for licences. It makes perfect sense that that is why they are not doing it. Gas is vital, and we do have that undersupply, and it is difficult to try and follow the government’s position.

I want to talk just briefly on manufacturing and the need for gas, and it is not small quantities of gas that you might use in a home. Manufacturing and gas-fired furnaces need consistent and extreme heat ‍– heat into the thousands of degrees. I know that the big gas producer out at Dandenong, for example, is a 24-hour operation, and if they need to service the equipment, it takes a day to cool down so that they can do that when the gas is turned off, and then it takes another few days to gently heat that back up when it is turned on. It interrupts that gas supply, and the chopping and changing is damaging for the glass and can really impact on the supply there. Gas is used extensively in making bricks as well. It is so important to understand that they need consistent extreme temperatures to transform all of the raw materials into durable building products. We need houses, we need bricks, we need windows and we need glass. It does not matter what we are building, we need gas to be a very important part of it. When you are growing horticulture – tomatoes or flowers, for example – gas is an important component there.

With homes and hospitality it is actually quite interesting, the government’s position there. The government wants everybody to transition to electric and away from gas. I rely on gas bottles. We do not have gas mains, and I live off grid. If I had electric heaters, I would not be able to have the fridge on or turn the lights on. There are some places where you definitely do need this. In the hospitality industry they rely heavily on gas for cooking. You get a much better product when you are using that quick, fast heat rather than induction heating. I do have an apartment in Melbourne with an induction cooktop, and I absolutely hate it compared to the gas.

Members interjecting.

Cindy McLEISH: I am not a fan. Absolutely, it is terrible. It is so slow. You have got to allow an extra 20 minutes when cooking. I do not have an extra 20 minutes. At the same time, this is one of the things that the government has said here. They are forcing households to replace gas heaters and hot water systems when they reach end of life, but it is not the same for cooktops. You are still allowed to have cooktops that rely on gas. So you are allowed to have gas come into your home for the cooktops, but you are not allowed to have it for hot water or gas heaters. I do not think the government has really thought about this. They are a bit all over the place, but they have finally realised that there is a shortage of gas and that they need to do something.

Members interjecting.

Cindy McLEISH: I would expect greater protection from you, Acting Speaker, from the appalling behaviour of those opposite, but I know those opposite do behave appallingly.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Juliana Addison): Order! I remind the chamber to just pause, please.

Cindy McLEISH: As I have mentioned, this is something that we support. I am not sure that the government support their own bill.

Meng Heang TAK (Clarinda) (12:29): I would like to come back to the contribution by the honourable member for Eildon maybe a bit later in my contribution. But I am delighted to rise today to speak on the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment Bill 2024. This is another very important bill before us here today, one that is critical to addressing the imminent risk of gas shortfalls in southern jurisdictions, including Victoria, and will be critical to avoiding significant adverse economic and social outcomes. As we understand, transitional gas supply, including deep storage, is needed to support the energy transition to renewables, including to support gas-powered generation of electricity. This is consistent with the strategic direction outlined in the Victorian Gas Substitution Roadmap, which sets out a pathway and actions to decarbonise the gas sector through electrical appliances, energy efficiency and increased uptake of renewable gas. However, this will take time and cannot occur fast enough to address the imminent shortfall risk. So this is an important bill for my community and for Victorians, along with the Gas Substitution Roadmap, which is a particularly important initiative for my community.

Given the cost of living, cheaper power is extremely important for my community in Clarinda, and it is something that my constituents raise with me on a consistent basis. Cost of living, as we all know, is front of mind across my electorate. Utility bills, everyday bills and balancing the family budget are constantly on the minds of families in Clarinda and across the state. This is particularly important in the City of Greater Dandenong, which is right up there in terms of Victoria’s most socially disadvantaged local government areas. Given this pressure in my community, across our state and across the country, it makes absolute sense that our focus is on cheap, clean and reliable energy.

We are extremely fortunate in Victoria with our world-class wind resources. Just recently here in this place we had before us the Energy and Public Land Legislation Amendment (Enabling Offshore Wind Energy) Bill 2024, which I was proud to make a contribution on along with many of my colleagues on this side. A large focus of that debate was on the cost of living, and how we are utilising our renewables is good news for bills and cost-of-living pressures. Again I will make the point that cost-of-living relief is so important for those doing it tough. For those on fixed income support, for pensioners and for those doing it tough, every little bit helps, so this debate is really important. The Allan Labor government is and has been delivering real and meaningful help: free kinder, free TAFE and also many more initiatives. We are helping Victorians and Victorian families in big ways and in small ways, because every bit adds up. We are making sure that we capitalise on and utilise our world-class renewable wind energy and abundant sunshine, which really make use of the global renewable energy powerhouse to deliver cheap, clean, reliable energy, and that is really important.

That work continues here today with this bill. The bill has three main objectives. Namely, the bill will amend the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2010 to allow holders of the petroleum production licence to conduct underground petroleum operations. These operations involve the injection and storage of the onshore petroleum in a natural offshore reservoir for later access. Secondly, the proposed amendments will clarify the underground petroleum storage system (UPSS) activity authorised under the petroleum production licence and appropriately regulate it. This will remove a legislative barrier and promote investor confidence to facilitate the establishment of the $750 million GB Energy gas production and storage project in Gippsland.

Thirdly, the GB Energy project could help mitigate peak day gas supply shortfalls forecast by the Australian Energy Market Operator to occur potentially as early as 2026 and going into 2027. The GB Energy project could potentially go live in winter 2027 and, together with the phase 3 project, could mitigate the gas shortfall risk for that year. There are only very limited new supply options that are available in that timeframe. The GB Energy project is one. Additional deep storage capacity is also forecast to be increasingly critical in energy reliability over the medium term. These are important and targeted objectives aimed at addressing the imminent risk of gas shortfalls in southern jurisdictions, including Victoria, and they will be critical to avoiding significant adverse economic and social outcomes and ensuring affordable and reliable energy for Victorian families and businesses.

These objectives will be delivered through several amendments. The first of those will enable the permitting of underground petroleum operations through the granting of a petroleum production licence consistent with the onshore UPSS framework. Further, the bill will ensure that the amendments apply to new and existing petroleum production licences. It will also maintain the existing consideration of significant risk of a significant adverse impact framework for impact on or from operations under a petroleum production licence, which is quite relevant. Finally, once again, it will ensure the entire offshore framework contemplates UPSS operations, including through record-keeping requirements, compliance monitoring and enforcement requirements. These are very important amendments, and the intended outcomes of these amendments are very important for my community and for reliable, affordable energy for all Victorians.

I would like to make a point on the importance of our transition and its consequences, particularly for cost of living and energy bills. As we know, the electrification of Victorian homes will provide cost-of-living relief and lower bills for all Victorians. As we have heard from others, all-electric homes cost less to live in and are better for the environment than dual-fuel homes. Efficient electric appliances are available now and can deliver immediate bill reductions for all households. In terms of money, residents of a new, all-electric detached home can save up to $1000 per year on energy bills compared to a dual-fuel home. These savings rise to more than $2200 a year with solar installed. Imagine all of these savings against the cost-of-living pressure that we are having. Every bit helps. I know this exactly, as in my community in the electorate of Clarinda we have single-income earners, pensioners and those who struggle with affordability.

I would like to come back to the contribution by the honourable member for Eildon. It is apparent to me that the only government that understands gas is the Allan Labor government. It is the political party in this state with a pragmatic gas policy. The opposition want to pretend that we are living in the past, flush with abundant fossil gas to power the next industrial revolution. They have got no idea. We have heard their contributions but, dare I say, do not take my word for it, just listen to these quotes from the Grattan Institute’s Tony Wood and the former chief scientist:

If there was a lot of gas, these companies would be taking it seriously …

That was Tony Wood.

Currently, there are no proven and probable … onshore conventional gas reserves in Victoria.

That was the chief scientist in 2021. On that note I would like to conclude my contribution.

Tim BULL (Gippsland East) (12:39): It is a pleasure to rise and talk on the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment Bill 2024. We understand the purpose of this bill is primarily to allow for offshore underground natural gas storage, and it will involve the transfer of existing natural gas to an offshore reservoir in Victorian waters, to be located off the coast of my neighbouring seat of Gippsland South in the Golden Beach area. Probably the only issue I want to focus on in my contribution today is one that has been touched on by speakers previously, but I want to provide a little bit more detail on it, and that is around the potential impacts on the commercial fishing fleet that operates in the south-eastern waters of this state, primarily out of Lakes Entrance fishing port, and put some concerns that those operators in that industry have on the record. As I said, some other speakers have touched on it, but I would like to provide a little bit more detail. I did ask some questions on these areas of concern that have been raised with me in the bill briefing, and I was to get some responses back in relation to those concerns, which I am sure I will. But they have not been forthcoming as yet. Hopefully we can get those between houses to get some better understanding of that.

I would like to go back over some of those concerns and put them on the record in Hansard, and if we do get the opportunity to go into committee in the upper house, hopefully we will have a chance to prosecute some of those responses and some of those answers. But this is what the Lakes Entrance commercial fishing fleet want to know: under the proposal, will there be any seabed infrastructure located off the coastline of Golden Beach? We assume that there possibly will be, so the follow-up question to that is: will it have any impact on the commercial fishing fleet, or can the infrastructure that goes there, whatever it is, be fished over the top of, considering that these trawl nets are very wide and fish very, very deeply on the sea floor? Will the area have exclusion zones put over it? Because if there are to be exclusions zones, that will impact on commercial catches and the ability for fishermen to catch their quota.

Of most particular concern is the lack of consultation that has occurred with both the Lakes Entrance fishing fleet operators and the South East Trawl Fishing Association. There has been some small amount of consultation taken and engaged in historically but certainly nothing of any recent times and nothing with any level of detail that is providing the answers that these people want, and we are talking about people’s livelihoods here. What we need is some in-depth consultation, hopefully to occur between houses, that can produce one of two outcomes. It can either say, ‘Yes, we do have an issue. There will be infrastructure on the seabed, there will be exclusion zones and that is going to impact on your commercial catch, so let’s have a discussion about it,’ or it will put their minds at ease that there will be no exclusion zones and net fishermen can fish over these areas without any risk of damage to their gear. We do not want that tangled up on the sea floor.

If there is to be an exclusion area and if there are to be issues around being able to fish in these locations, then discussions need to take place on what compensation will be paid for loss of fishing grounds because, and I will get onto this a little bit later, this commercial sector has over past decades had an enormous amount of grounds continually taken off it for a number of reasons. Why is it so important that we look after our commercial fishermen? There are a whole range of reasons. First of all, it is not only critical to the economy of my electorate – I think of a town like Lakes Entrance, which is primarily based on commercial fishing and tourism; it is a huge employer in the town and a huge part of our industry – but it is also very important to the Victorian economy. It is a sector that kicks the tin when it comes to generating income, wages and jobs in our community. Then of course we have got the overriding situation that we have to feed ourselves.

Fishermen are often referred to as farmers of the sea, and many will be surprised to know that, Victoria being a coastal state and Australia being an island nation, we are a net importer of seafood. It is incredible to think that we are a net importer of seafood. And it is not just a little bit. We import 60 per cent of the seafood we eat in Victoria. We only harvest 40 per cent of our own catches nationwide in Australia. Those figures are not exactly transferable to Victoria, but they are not dissimilar. So when we talk about the potential loss of more fishing grounds as something that we need to consider, it alarms me to some degree that we have not had consultation take place with Lakes Entrance Fishermen ‍– that is actually their official business name – but also in-depth discussions with the South East Trawl Fishing Association, who I have been in contact with this week. They have confirmed that there has been very, very little discussion going on, either to tell them of the ramifications of this proposal or to put their minds at ease that there will indeed be no issues.

Why do we need to have a look at this? Let me go over some of the impediments that have been put in front of our commercial fishers over past decades. First of all, we had the oil and gas fields off that area of coast, which took away massive, massive areas of prime fishing ground. The industry learned to work around them, and the industry learned their exclusion zones there. The fishing industry reformed the areas that it targeted. But we are now talking about decommissioning some of those oil and gas fields, and that is going on right at the present time. One of the proposals is to leave some of that seabed infrastructure in place, whereas the intention was always going to be, when we had the decommissioning of the oil and gas fields, that that infrastructure would be removed and those areas would be returned to commercial fishing. That is possibly not going to be the case. They will not be returned, because those structures will be located on the seabeds. If you can picture nets that are 100 ‍metres wide fishing deep, with a tide change or tide movements or wind movements, they need a fairly big exclusion zone wherever there is an impediment on the sea floor.

On top of this, we have an increasing push for marine parks, which have taken away fishing areas around the country. There are not any recent ones off the coast in my area, but there is talk of that, which makes the commercial fishermen very nervous. Quite often the marine parks are prime fishing grounds, because that is where the fish are. When more marine parks are introduced, they lose more fishing grounds. In addition to that, you then have species closures. Where a species is under threat, they will be told, ‘You can’t fish this area for this period of time.’ Now, on top of all that, we have got wind farm proposals coming in. Fishermen are very, very nervous about where these windfarms will be located off the Gippsland coast, because invariably they will impact on their fishing grounds. Then, just to put the icing on the cake, we have got this going in, where we are storing gas under the seabed.

The most disappointing element about this is they have not been spoken to. I hope that that will certainly take place very, very shortly and they are spoken to, and hopefully they are given some comfort that there will be no impediment and they can fish over these areas. But if that is not the case and there are to be restriction zones, we need to sit down with the commercial fishing industry and ask them what species are impacted and what the compensation is going to be, because they are just getting squeezed out. They have pretty much had enough of being squeezed out, but especially without being spoken to. Hopefully we can get some answers to those questions. They were not forthcoming in the bill briefing. Maybe some speakers on this side of the house can stand up after my contribution and put some minds at ease if there are to be no impacts at all on the commercial fishing sector. They cannot be taken for granted, and they should be included in the key stakeholder meetings and briefings on any legislation that relates to offshore development. In this case clearly they have not.

Hopefully we can get those answers and continue our support for this bill in the upper house, but we really need speakers who are following to stand up and give them some reassurance or get some questions answered or be ready when we go into committee in the upper house, because it is not good enough that they have not been spoken to about the potential impacts on their sector.

Bronwyn HALFPENNY (Thomastown) (12:49): I am going to talk about the full issue around this amendment bill. I just want to say the Allan Labor government is a supporter of the fishing industry in Victoria. I have a number of ex-scallop fishermen in the Thomastown electorate, and from what they tell me, it was the Kennett government that actually got rid of scallop fishing in the bay. There was no compensation, and that was after dredging the sea floor. I think it is a bit rich to be trying to accuse the Labor government of not caring when in fact the evidence is the opposite.

Getting back to this bill and the main point of it, which is the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2010. This has come about because the Australian Energy Market Operator is forecasting a shortfall of gas supply in Australia as early as 2026. This and the skyrocketing price of gas are due to global factors – not the actions of the Victorian government – that we do not have any control over. But of course we as a government are responsible for doing what we can to ensure prices stay down and that there is energy as required for households and for industry. This legislation is being introduced to help address the issue of the shortfall, predominantly by facilitating the storage of gas for times of peak demand. These amendments do not authorise the production of new gas or affect bans on fracking. That is not the purpose of this bill; that would be separate legislation. This is about facilitating in the main the storage of gas.

On this side of the Parliament we are very proud of the work and achievements in transitioning to renewable energy, and we are very proud of the work from the Minister for Climate Action. We are leading the nation. We need to transition to renewable energy for the sake of our climate and future generations, and it is also critical in providing a cheaper supply of energy to both businesses and households. The opposition, who even now refuse to accept the need to move to renewables, have consistently spread mistruths of gloom and doom and the sky falling in as a way to oppose renewables, using their usual negative scare tactics. However, this legislation demonstrates that when problems arise, when there are legitimate and evidence-based concerns about energy supply, there are ways to address them. That is what the Allan Labor government is doing. We are looking to find solutions to problems rather than just trying to negatively say that there is nothing to be done and therefore do nothing and accept the status quo and the changing climate. This legislation is also a good example of using legislation to overcome obstacles and of the need to have the flexibility of legislation to be able to regulate and to provide a responsive and quick way forward when we come up against problems. As well as doing that of course we want to continue to push for more renewables.

The specifics of this bill, the amendments, allow petroleum production licence holders to conduct underground petroleum operations, and this allows the injection and storage of onshore petroleum in a natural offshore reservoir for later use. These amendments apply to new and existing petroleum production licences, and they also provide regulatory requirements and a framework, such as record-keeping requirements and compliance, monitoring and enforcement requirements.

While the legislation is general – it is about storage into the future – it has actually been prompted because of the need to cover the shortfall but also to facilitate the establishment of the Golden Beach energy gas production storage project in Gippsland. This again is another example of legislation that is required to cover a specific situation which existing legislation does not accommodate. It shows how the Allan Labor government are active in ensuring that they find solutions, take action and introduce legislation when needed in order to move forward and to ensure that Victoria continues to grow. The Golden Beach project could help mitigate peak day gas supply shortfalls, which are forecast to occur in winter 2027, as I have said. It is expected to deliver natural gas production of up to 30 ‍petajoules. That number does not mean a lot to me, but it is about a quarter of Victoria’s annual household and small business consumption. This means that onshore garden-to-ground gas storage is permitted in Australia and enables gas to be injected into the system during periods of high demand.

But of course our real focus and effort need to be on renewable energy. This is the only way that we are going to bring down energy prices and help address cost-of-living pressures. Residents in the electorate of Thomastown are doing their bit and also seeing reduced costs when using renewable energy. As at August this year we have received a total of 5290 Solar Victoria rebates, mostly for solar panels but also for hot water systems and batteries. In addition to this, residents have taken up subsidies and rebates to replace gas heating with electric and they have seen hundreds of dollars in savings. This is what renewable energy can do if people pick it up and we do not have all the negativity and doom and gloom from the opposition trying to stop people looking after their interests and actually looking for lower prices.

I am not going to get into the debate about whether we have got gas or we have not got gas or whether Labor wants to extract it or we are stopping the extraction, because in the end we need renewable energy and we need to meet our targets, and the only way that we are going to have cheaper prices is by using renewable energy. I do not think there is any expert in any area that does not say that renewable energy is cheaper than fossil fuels, and we need to get away from fossil fuels. But in saying that, I just want to add that the company Beach Energy has started producing only this year, and of course that has been done with the agreement and support of the Allan Labor government, which seems to fly in the face of what the opposition is saying around this total opposition and trying to stop and hinder gas production.

As I said, yes, we have renewable targets. We want to see renewables supplying Victorian households and businesses, and that is the only way to cheaper prices, so if you want to constantly go on about gas, you are talking about higher prices, as we have seen throughout the country and in fact throughout the world. Another side to that is the absolute commitment that Labor has made in terms of reducing energy prices and also reducing cost-of-living pressures with the popular Labor government subsidies and also the power saving bonus, which of course did have real effects in allowing people to have a little bit more money in their pocket to do things and not have to use all of that on their power.

We know that some industries are dependent on gas. There are the big freezers and fridges in the food industry, for example, that need a lot of gas, and there has not been a lot of transition from that to some of the renewable energies. Of course it is particularly difficult if you are renting a factory as opposed to owning a factory if you want to start putting solar panels on roofs. I know in Thomastown, again, some of the big food service companies we have helped and supported to move to solar panels, and they are saying that they have saved thousands of dollars a year in doing that and not having to rely on gas as much as in the past. When you look at what is going on in industry – we are talking a lot about households and the subsidies and support provided to households around cost of living and trying to reduce energy bills – in 2023 there were also more than 24,000 businesses across Victoria that received upgrades under the Victorian energy upgrades program. There have been savings of up to $3700 annually on their bills.

Recently the Minister for Energy and Resources and I visited Automatic Heating, which is a local business in my electorate, and again we are providing support for these businesses that are coming up with some really innovative and exciting ways in which to move to renewable energy. Their automated heating processes and units are all about providing energy sources for businesses transitioning out of gas and using electricity through heat pump systems. So there are many things that are coming up. I think we are finding solutions where there are shortfalls, but that can only be done when governments lead, provide support, provide encouragement and provide a market in which businesses can move to better energy sources.

Tim McCURDY (Ovens Valley) (12:59): I am delighted to rise to make a contribution on the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment Bill 2024. I do want to make a couple of comments about the member for Thomastown and her comments about renewable energy and what I would call this government’s bloody-minded approach to renewables. Of course we are pro renewables in regional Victoria. However, as people in Thomastown are a beneficiary of renewables, they need to understand what is actually happening in the regions. These solar factories that I talk about –

The ACTING SPEAKER (Juliana Addison): I will interrupt the member for Ovens Valley to break for lunch but look forward to him continuing the next time we are debating this.

Sitting suspended 1:00 pm until 2:02 pm.

Business interrupted under sessional orders.