Wednesday, 19 February 2025

Energy and Land Legislation Amendment (Energy Safety) Bill 2025

Second reading

Debate resumed on motion of Lily D’Ambrosio:

That this bill be now read a second time.

James NEWBURY (Brighton) (10:42): I rise to speak on the Energy and Land Legislation Amendment (Energy Safety) Bill 2025. This bill, like a number of bills that we have spoken about in this place, seemingly does some good things. It seemingly does some good things, and it would seem to be fixing issues that exist. The guise, if you listen to the minister and the government, is that this bill is about fixing problems that exist in the energy system, but it does not. What this bill actually does is sneakily try to bring through amendments, under the guise of a more generic bill, which do not fix the problems we have in the energy system and which remove proper accountability measures for the government. What is worse, and this is an issue that we have seen for the life of this government and frankly is a cornerstone of this minister, the Minister for Energy and Resources, is the removal of the private sector, the pushing away of the private sector, from the energy system. I heard one of the government members say ‘Thank God’ when it was said, which just confirms the type of attitude this government has to –

Steve McGhie interjected.

James NEWBURY: The member continues to attack energy providers who get energy into people’s homes. I started, when speaking about this bill, by saying that this bill tries to sneakily bring through changes that frankly do not fix issues that exist but attack the private sector in the work that they do.

It turns out it was not just sneaky, because members of this chamber have confirmed it and the sector knows it. So it is important to put on the record at the start that this is a furtherance of the government’s ideological agenda to ban gas in this state. This is another step in that process of banning gas in people’s homes and in access for businesses to gas. We know the absolutely diabolical effect that Labor’s gas ban, which we as a coalition do not support and will never support, will have on this state.

I will briefly mention what this bill supposedly does, and then we will get into more detail. It makes a number of amendments to the Electricity Safety Act 1998, the Gas Safety Act 1997, the Pipelines Act 2005 and the Energy Safe Victoria Act 2005 under the guise of the government saying that these changes are required because of the shift in the way our energy system operates in this state – a move from a centralised system, which we have talked about in this chamber around a number of legislative reforms over recent years, to a, for want of a better term, grid-like model. We have gone from a centralised system towards a grid-like model. So it does make sense that there are changes needed in the way that we operate the oversight of that because of those changes. Some of the changes the coalition does not oppose. We talk about a deterrence needing to be put in place in the way that energy is provided and operators perform. That makes sense, because if you are changing how energy is generated and the type of provider that generates it, you need to make sure that there is a safeguard and a framework around that. We have seen a small number of examples where things have gone wrong and people have done the wrong thing, so having a framework is important. That is why it is important to note that the coalition does not oppose certain frameworks of safety.

But the bill also does things like remove the Electric Line Clearance Consultative Committee and the Victorian Electrolysis Committee from the system, which is a practical example of what we were talking about earlier – the government removing expert advice because of course this government thinks it knows best. Why would you remove an independent set of experts from providing advice on where things could be done differently or better? The coalition strongly opposes the government’s attempt to remove the committees from the process, because I think it underlines exactly where this government goes wrong – this government, which thinks that the bureaucrats or the department or the minister know better than the independent experts. On that particular measure the coalition does not support what the government is proposing.

There are a number of other issues, including, for example, Energy Safe’s corporate plan being moved from one year to three years. Clearly it is concerning to see any measure –and the coalition again has concerns with this one – in which accountability is reduced.

Why would you propose a system whereby there is less transparent reporting? Transparent reporting should be the cornerstone of a good democratic government. The amendment to remove accountability in the way that it currently exists is another element about which the coalition has concerns.

I note the importance of and the need for ongoing accountability in the energy space, because if you just look at the Victorian Greenhouse Gas Emissions Report, which was tabled in November last year, at the end of the year, we saw a 5.4 per cent increase in total state emissions. If we let the government do what they want to do – that is, reduce accountability in this space – we would see less truth being told in terms of their performance, because we know that there are performance issues. We know that the government’s management of this transition is flawed. We have heard very little about the government’s emissions increase, which was released in November last year. The government has spent 10 years talking about their emissions reduction, and yet this report, which was tabled in November – for the record, the Victorian Greenhouse Gas Emissions Report – shows a 5.4 per cent increase in emissions. If you overlay that type of reporting on this bill and the requirement to delay reporting from one year to three years, what won’t we know as a community? It is important to recognise that this, frankly, removes accountability other than potentially private side conversations with the minister rather than full public transparency which all Victorians deserve.

The bill does a number of other things too, including allowing the minister to enter into lease agreements. It changes arrangements for and clarifies lease agreements. Again, it is an issue that is not fully transparent, so the coalition will be proposing a number of amendments that deal with issues that have been raised and to deal with that matter. The lease arrangements of the minister power is another concern that the coalition has with this bill. Having noted the three concerns thus far, which I will speak to in more detail, under standing orders I wish to advise the house of amendments to this bill and request they be circulated.

Amendments circulated under standing orders.

James NEWBURY: If I may reiterate the concerns that are framed in those amendments, firstly, the bill’s removal and cutting of the Electric Line Clearance Consultative Committee and the Victorian Electrolysis Committee – we will seek to amend the legislation to ensure that the committees are not disbanded and that their advice remains ongoing, because those committees provide independent expert advice. One of the hallmarks of the Minister for Energy and Resource’s management of the energy system is centralisation and being a minister who knows better than everybody else. Given what we have seen in terms of outcomes, clearly that is not the case. We certainly do not support the disbanding of those committees, and we will be seeking to amend the bill to ensure that they continue.

You cannot scrap a committee because you do not like the advice they deliver, and that is actually what this comes down to on one of these particular committees. The minister does not like the advice the committee provided. That is not a reason to stop the advice being given, because experts do know better, I would submit, than the minister. Simply not liking the advice is not a reason to disband a committee. That is the first amendment.

The energy safe requirement for annual corporate plans, which I touched on before, the tabling of those and the annual nature of that reporting, is being sought to be amended by the government. We do not support that. We support ongoing transparency. We see no reason as a coalition for it not to be published and published annually. We see absolutely no reason to go around proper measures of transparency, so our second amendment goes to that particular issue.

And finally, our third issue raised in the amendments goes to the new lease arrangements on unreserved Crown land. We would seek to add a transparency measure in relation to that power which would require the publishing of the agreements that are entered into. That is not unreasonable. Again it is a transparency measure.

If you look at all three of the amendments that the coalition is seeking to move, all of them go to the heart of ongoing transparency, all of them go to stopping the government from being transparent and in the strongest case in relation to the committee, stopping the government from cutting a committee where the minister does not like the advice from independent experts that she does not like. Across all three measures there is a strong theme. Though this house will not have a process to deal with each amendment separately, because the government, as I understand it, has refused to take this bill into consideration in detail, we do hope that the other place may consider these amendments too.

It is disappointing, I should note, that the government has refused to take this bill into consideration in detail. Frankly, it is not overly surprising given that in this term of Parliament only one bill has been taken by the government into consideration in detail. The government would have the option of providing a fixed time on consideration in detail, so you certainly could not argue that it is too time onerous. There could be a small allotment of time which would allow the house to consider each of the amendments on their merits, and you could do that in a time-reasonable way. But in this term we have seen one instance. I believe in the last term there was one instance as well, which is an extremely, extremely small proportion in terms of the presumably couple of hundred bills that we would deal with over a term for less than 1 per cent of them, half of 1 per cent, to be taken into consideration. The coalition had hoped that on this bill that there would be an opportunity to take it into consideration, but that was not the case.

I spoke earlier not only about transparency but this bill being a furtherance to the government’s ideological gas ban. We know this government wants to ban gas, and we know that it is coming at the expense of security of gas supply and security of energy supply for current Victorians, for future Victorians and for future generations.

Steve Dimopoulos: Have you paid a gas bill recently? Do you know how expensive it is?

James NEWBURY: The minister is saying energy bills are too high. I completely agree, Minister.

Steve Dimopoulos: Have you paid a gas bill?

James NEWBURY: No-one else pays my energy bills, Minister. I pay my energy bills, Minister.

Members interjecting.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Members on my right.

James NEWBURY: Can you believe that the minister has admitted that energy bills are too high? Of course they are too high.

Steve Dimopoulos: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, the member for Brighton, as always, has misrepresented me.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is not a point of order, Minister, it is a matter for debate.

James NEWBURY: The tape will show what the minister said, Deputy Speaker.

Earlier we had one member confirm that energy providers should somehow not be in the energy system – in fact the quote was ‘Thank God the government is pushing them out’ – and another minister complained about energy bills being too high. Well, I tell you what –

Steve Dimopoulos interjected.

James NEWBURY: Who else pays the energy bills in my house? Me. Of course I pay them.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Through the Chair, member for Brighton.

James NEWBURY: We have the minister confirming the problem that we are talking about over and over on this side of the place, what Victorians are talking about over and over. Mismanagement, Minister, of the energy system leads to higher bills. That is what has happened, Minister. Deputy Speaker, I am trying to educate the minister as to why energy bills are higher. I think the minister does not understand that mismanagement of the energy system has caused bills to increase in the way he is complaining about. I mean, it is as if he has come into this place and suddenly energy bills have got higher by magic. They just somehow got more expensive by magic. No, they got more expensive because this government for 10 years has mismanaged the system. You hear the same thing when it comes to the management of our economy. We have got too much debt and we are paying too much interest on it, and somehow the government have not worked out it is their financial vandalism that has caused it. It is extraordinary that we had the minister himself come into this place and complain about the cost of energy without accepting any responsibility as a government for causing it. How completely extraordinary.

We know that this government, when they see there is a political problem, pretend to do something about it. We heard before Christmas the Premier talk about gas – only once. Only once have we heard the Premier talk about gas: ‘Gas isn’t so bad.’ The Premier dipped her toe into the water. ‘Gas isn’t too bad. I don’t hate gas,’ the Premier said, just the once, at the same time as introducing a bill into this place to ban gas in homes. Can you believe it? The Premier came out, realised there was a political problem and said, ‘I don’t hate gas. Don’t go after me.’ She recognised, because the polling was telling her – not because it actually is needed, only because the polls tell her – that she cannot hate gas. So the Premier said she does not hate gas and then introduced a bill into this Parliament to ban gas in homes. Victorians have seen through it. Victorians know this government is banning gas, and Victorians know that the alternate government, the opposition, do not want to ban gas. We do not want to ban gas, and we will not. We will not ban gas. We will reverse Labor’s gas ban, and Victorians know that. Victorians know that we will reverse Labor’s gas ban.

This government now, for a second time, in the second sitting week of the year, has a bill that has been brought into this place that furthers Labor’s ideological gas ban.

Since the Premier came out and pretended that she cared about gas, which Victorians need and rely on, the government has since introduced two bills into this chamber – two bills in the two sitting weeks thereafter – the first one banning gas in homes and this one increasing the penalties around gas. Anything this government says to you, Victorians, about gas is fake. It is totally and utterly fake. In the last sitting week they banned gas in your homes, and in this they are increasing penalties around gas. That is what they are doing.

At the start of this contribution I talked about the government introducing a bill which would seemingly do some good things, but they have tried to sneak a number of measures into this bill which we fundamentally disagree with. So not only have we circulated amendments to the bill, but we certainly cannot support it in its current form, and we will not support it in its current form. It does not mean that every single thing in this bill we disagree with. For example, the bushfire mitigation we think is a reasonable measure. The changes in plan arrangements on that measure we support. We think they are eminently reasonable. But as I said, the government has tried to put through a few things that make sense but sneak through a raft of others which we cannot support, and so we have circulated amendments to the bill.

It is worth pointing out as we talk about energy supply and security around energy supply, which is in many ways a core component of the bill, the energy supply issues that have been raised over recent days, which we still have not heard a statement from the government on in relation to the fundamental issues of supply when they talk about the proposed renewable project at the Port of Hastings. On the weekend we saw reports of documents, minutes and other paperwork surrounding the extraordinary events last year where this government had proposed, in partnership obviously with industry, a project at the Port of Hastings, and the federal government – the federal Labor government – said no for environmental reasons. She said no, the federal minister for the environment. For the recollection of the house, we remember the Minister for Environment at the time not coming out and speaking to the Victorian community about why that failure occurred, going missing for several days and another minister not knowing basic details around the proposal. The Premier, embarrassingly – to be fair to the Premier I do not think it was her fault; I think she was badly briefed and was getting basic details wrong – stated at the time that the government had provided the federal government with everything they needed, and instead we found out that there were issues in relation to work the Minister for Planning had done, which was a discrepancy with the Premier. But also then the Minister for Environment, when he finally found his way out, said that he would need to review the decision by the federal environment minister because it had not yet been released. That would have been on a public website for a week. A public website for a week? That is very, very embarrassing. So you had two ministers and the Premier not understanding the project.

What has happened over recent days is a series of documents have been released, which is very, very concerning, because they suggest that the behaviour of the state government was ‘not appropriate’.

That is a direct quote from the secretary of the federal environment department that it would not be appropriate to push for or co-design a project with the state government that somehow seemed to bypass federal law – to somehow work around federal law. That is why the opposition spokesperson for energy David Davis in the other place referred those matters to the independent anti-corruption agency, IBAC, because when you have the secretary of a federal department saying that a state government’s behaviour is ‘not appropriate’ that should ring alarm bells.

I can understand, though they should not have done it, why the government was so incredibly embarrassed that they tried to strongarm the federal government. I can understand the motive, but good sense should have said, ‘We are a good government and therefore we would not seek to somehow bypass federal law. Of course we won’t do that.’ But they have been caught behaving inappropriately, and that is why this issue has been referred to IBAC. There are serious questions that need to be answered, not only about the behaviour but also this goes to the core of energy supply. If we cannot get projects like these off the ground because the government has not worked out how to work through with industry ways to get things right, how do we have secure energy supply? We do not. We know that when it comes to wind energy there is a legislative target, but there are ain’t no way this state is going to reach it. I think we all know that to be true.

When it comes to this bill, the coalition has circulated amendments. They go to issues around transparency. Frankly, they go to issues around ministerial behaviour. Those amendments, I would hope, not only in this place but in the other place, can be considered very seriously because we cannot support the bill while it is in the form that it currently is. We hope that the Parliament looks closely at those amendments, which are very reasonable and would add to a more robust system.

Nina TAYLOR (Albert Park) (11:12): I am very pleased to speak on the Energy and Land Legislation Amendment (Energy Safety) Bill 2025. We know that there has been a considerable focus, a proactive focus, on working symbiotically with Energy Safe Victoria to ensure that the protections we have in place for workers and for consumers – consumers can be workers, you know – for industry and consumers alike is keeping pace with the transition. That is why we have been steadily and consistently bringing through these important reforms to keep workers and the community safe.

I did want to address a couple of the issues flagged by the opposition just now and then I will get to more of the central tenets of this bill – really, really important reforms. Firstly, concerns were raised by the opposition about abolishing the Electric Line Clearance Consultative Committee. I did want to say that the rationale behind it is that it is best practice across the globe to keep making regulations with the policymaker, which is the Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action, separate from the regulator. The statutory obligation is burdensome on Energy Safe Victoria’s resources when they are not the ones, we think matter-of-factly, who are holding the pen literally. DEECA and the minister are still obligated – this is important when looking at the issue of transparency, because that was a repeated comment from the opposition – to conduct a regulatory impact statement to remake regulations, which means independent advice is still sought. We obviously take the issue of transparency very seriously, so we are reducing red tape where we can, not as a compromise but rather for pragmatic reasons that are substantiated when we look at best practice. but also the fact that there is still a cemented element in process for getting independent advice. Independent advice is still sought.

That was a slightly longwinded way of explaining that, but certainly we are talking about some fairly serious matters, so we do want to make sure that the record is correct as it stands.

Further to the objection raised by the opposition regarding the removal of the Victorian Electrolysis Committee – I hope I said that correctly – it was Energy Safe Victoria, who are independent, who were the ones who requested it. It is not like this was just plucked from, I do not know, outer space. ‘We’ll just dump that in there, and we’ll just sort of capriciously remove a committee’ – no. There was actually a specific suggestion coming from an independent body. I do want to also validate that decision and the rationale for that being included as part of these reforms. I hope that goes some way to providing some comfort for the opposition with regard to that issue.

There were some concerns – I actually nearly fell over – raised by the opposition about emissions reduction. I did not think that they cared about that whatsoever because they use every opportunity they can to rebut the purpose or the rationale for having renewable energy or making any kind of transition. It is no wonder that there was so much discussion on gas, because it is anything to avoid talking about the transition to a cleaner energy future. I just think that needs to be on the record.

The most recent report in 2024 reports on 2021–22 financial year emissions. That is the most recent year for which data is available, just to be really clear about that. Emissions went up by 5.4 per cent from the year previous. This was due to wetter climatic conditions, which caused the land and forest sector to release more emissions, a short-term element that will even out over time in dry years, and, two, transport emissions rising a bit as the COVID lockdowns ended. We do have to factor in the actual behaviours and habits of human beings. I think when you look at that from a scientific and an evidentiary element, then you can see and draw the conclusion rather than saying, ‘This happened. It must be that things aren’t working.’ That is not correct. We know that we were in a different position during that period when the pandemic was here.

I should say Victoria’s emissions are already within the range of our 2025 emissions reduction target. Isn’t that fundamentally what counts? We set a target, and we are already within the range of that target. Victoria continues to decarbonise rapidly, much to the chagrin of those opposite, because they certainly are not pursuing a cleaner energy future, but we know on this side that that is of the highest priority. It is also about saving money for consumers and businesses alike. It is emissions reduction but also a cheaper energy future.

I did just want to get back to the core elements of the bill. I should say fundamentally it is, as I was saying from the outset, about making sure we keep up with our transitioning energy system. We committed over $7 million to deliver this in the 2023 budget. It is fundamentally to help us keep up with new energy safety risks that are being introduced by changes in industrial and residential technology, business models and consumer behaviour. The bill is going to amend a number of acts, including the Electricity Safety Act 1998, the Gas Safety Act 1997 and the Pipelines Act 2005 to introduce a new entry power – really important – for Energy Safe officers, who will be able to enter premises with a magistrate-issued warrant. This will allow officers to investigate safety risks, monitor compliance and take enforcement actions, with safeguards ensuring proper oversight. I do not believe that there was a contrary argument from the opposition to this particular element – I would certainly hope not – so I am very glad that at least that element is being supported by those opposite. Current powers do not allow inspectors to enter residential premises without the occupier’s consent, even in situations where the circumstances may pose a risk to public safety.

So we can see there is a clear imperative to bring forward this particular power, expanding the tools available to Energy Safe Victoria and the courts to enforce compliance. These include powers to stop unsafe work and to suspend an electrical contractor registration or an electrical worker licence where it is in the public interest to do so. I am absolutely certain that community will see why these particular reforms are really, really important if we are to keep everybody safe.

The bill will also increase a range of maximum penalties to better reflect the gravity of relevant safety risks and to increase deterrence given the potential consequences of noncompliance. I think it goes without saying when we are talking anything electrical that there are inherent gifts with electricity – of course the lights that we have in front of us; that is a fundamental – but also there are safety elements that go with that.

Another thing I do want to just speak to quickly: when we are talking about the penalty, another key element of the penalties includes introducing new section 148B(2) to the Electricity Safety Act 1998, which provides that the court may make an adverse publicity order and require windfarms to publicly disclose their offences, penalties and corrective actions. You can see that is a pretty stringent requirement, but it also exemplifies the seriousness with which we take compliance with safety in Victoria. The bill also triples penalties for noncompliance with an improvement notice from a maximum of 80 to 240 penalty units for a natural person and from 400 to 1200 penalty units for a body corporate. I am just giving some examples of how this is increasing powers for Energy Safe Victoria but also compliance, because we know obviously we are leading an energy revolution, a cleaner energy revolution, in this state. It is fundamental, it is really important, but the corollary of that is making sure that we keep pace with that in terms of our safety requirements, and that is exactly what we are doing.

I am very pleased that with these incremental but symbiotic reforms in terms of making sure that we are ahead of the situation we are anticipating the kinds of risks that are likely to occur and therefore making sure that the community and business sector alike can be reassured we are on the right track.

Emma KEALY (Lowan) (11:22): I rise today to speak on the Energy and Land Legislation Amendment (Energy Safety) Bill 2025. Just 10 minutes to cover all of the issues that this bill presents to my electorate certainly is not nearly long enough. The issues that my electorate is facing in relation to energy supply, access to energy and hosting a large amount of infrastructure are significant. It is something that is impacting on our ability to have confidence in our businesses, including our agricultural sector going into the future. There are question marks over our manufacturing and production industries in being able to access cheap and reliable energy to support their businesses to be maintained in rural and regional Victoria. We also have concerns around increasing energy bills. Whether they are gas bills or electricity bills, those costs keep going up and up and up, and they are costing Victorian households more and more money. They are paying the price for Labor’s inability to deliver cheap and reliable energy to every household and every business in Victoria.

As we have heard from previous speakers, this is around Labor’s intention to have a transition to renewables, and I would like to make it clear that no-one is fighting the transition to renewables. It is the pace at which Labor is forcing this along that is pushing up prices, because so many energy sources are immediately banned as not being within the ideology and not being acceptable, and therefore supply is reduced, which pushes up the cost. It is the very simple supply-and-demand formula that we all learned in school; however, it is not being applied at the moment.

In relation to gas, we have got a gas monopoly in my part of the state where there is only one supplier of gas to the area, which is related to one retailer.

We cannot get a pay-on-time discount, we cannot get an e-bill discount, we cannot even negotiate for lower prices. I refer to Krause Bricks in Stawell and other businesses that are heavy energy users that cannot go in and negotiate cheaper prices and speak to different retailers, because there is only one. It is something that I have raised with the Minister for Energy and Resources on numerous occasions, and nothing has been done to unlock this monopoly. We always hear from Labor that one side of politics is supporting big business – well, in my experience there is only one side politics that does so, and that is Labor. Labor are not fighting to decrease energy bills for Victorians, and it is absolutely their being in bed with some of these big energy retailers that is causing bills to go up by saying we cannot use coal, we cannot use gas, we cannot use nuclear, we can only use renewables. They will not do anything to unlock the monopoly and unlock the limited supply in the interim before they have sufficient renewables to meet the demands of every single Victorian and keep our energy bills down.

I would like to briefly touch on an aspect of this legislation, which is to abolish the Electric Line Clearance Consultative Committee. This committee has put in a number of recommendations to the government in relation to how electrical line clearances should be managed. This abolition is something that somehow is being pitched by the government as being a good thing, but this group has been doing an incredible amount of advocacy and have not been heard in relation to clearances around electrical lines, which help to maintain tree canopies in our communities.

We know most Victorians, whether they live in the city or they live in the country, appreciate a tree-lined street. However, Victoria has gone down the pathway of cutting down significant trees or cutting down half of a tree in order to have massive electrical line clearances. This is not in line with the recommendations of the Electric Line Clearance Consultative Committee. It is not in line with other jurisdictions; for example, South Australia actually accepts that the soft, leafy foliage – not the hard branches but the soft foliage – can actually go up against powerlines and this has no risk of creating bushfires. Bushfires do not start on powerlines in towns. In fact there is evidence that backs up that the number of bushfires which have been started by electrical lines in built-up areas is actually zero. This is not a bushfire mitigation strategy; this is actually an attempt by Labor to abolish the Electric Line Clearance Consultative Committee and to get rid of a voice which is fighting hard to make sure we have evidence-based decision-making in the Victorian government, that actually is looking at that balance of making sure that we are not starting fires but also that we are maintaining our important tree canopies in the communities, because that is what they want.

In my electorate of Lowan I have had so many complaints about tree-lopping companies that come in to manage electrical line clearances. Frequently they are Queensland companies; they are not even Victorian businesses. They come in and hack down half a tree. The trees actually look terrible, and they also make the trees unstable, because often there is not an arborist involved in how these trees are cut – they are not trimmed; they are cut. We need to do better when we manage our trees. We can have a balance, but for Labor to come out and say, ‘No, we don’t want to listen to this committee anymore because they’re telling us we’re doing a bad job,’ when they are actually fighting for safe powerlines and to make sure we have got beautiful tree canopies in our communities I think is wrong of the government. Rather than listening to whoever is telling them they should be abolishing this committee, they should sit down with this committee and listen to them. They are sensible people who know there is a line in there where we can do better in managing our powerlines but also managing our tree canopies in our communities.

Other aspects of the bill relate to many energy issues in my region. We talk about the government’s fast-tracking of large-scale battery projects where communities do not have their say, and this includes our vital CFA volunteers, who have had no say, no education, no input around what will happen if a fire breaks out around either high-voltage powerlines, like VNI West, or batteries. I will particularly point out Joel Joel battery. Joel Joel is in an agricultural area; it is aligned to the VNI West footprint and Bulgana terminal station.

This land has been purchased by a power company, and it was within a matter of weeks that approval of a battery was processed by this government without any consultation with the community, without even talking to the local council about this, and there is nothing back in return for this. It is exactly the same with VNI West. We have heard just this week that Transmission Company Victoria have now been approved to go forward on the next step of compulsory access to properties, and my people are frustrated because their voice has not been heard by the government. They are raising legitimate concerns. All they want to know is that the agricultural sector in Victoria is protected, and at no stage have they ever felt like their voice has been heard by the Victorian Labor government. This has created enormous divides within our communities. It is harmful – it has harmed the concept of how we can actually get to a point where we have the infrastructure we need in regional Victoria.

I will pitch in again: the most sensible and logical outcome is plan B by Bruce Mountain, which is to upgrade the existing lines in the first instance, because we have the easements; we have got an established line through that region. The lines are aged, they are brittle, and they travel in the wrong direction. Upgrade what we have got, because it is going to fail in the future in any case.

I urge the government to do better. If we are going to host all of these renewable projects with large-scale powerlines to supply energy to Melbourne – and let us face it, if you are a farmer along VNI West, you cannot have a Tesla because you cannot have the power to support a battery system on your property to charge a Tesla – we want something back. We are sick of being taken advantage of and hosting the worst roads in the state, of having health systems which are being gradually shut down by Labor and of having schools which have had no investment for 10 years. When we look at any system around what we get for hosting this large-scale energy infrastructure, we get nothing, and that is not even a conversation that Labor are willing to have. We just want a fair deal. You want to make sure you have energy supply for Melbourne? Give us our roads, give us our public transport access, give us access to good-quality health care close to home, support our kids to have a great education and support more childcare workers so that all parents can make sure their children have the best possible start to life. Whatever it is, Labor cannot manage access to clean, reliable and cost-efficient energy in Victoria, and at every single stage Victorians are paying the price.

Dylan WIGHT (Tarneit) (11:32): It gives me great pleasure to rise this morning and make a contribution in support of our legislation, the Energy and Land Legislation Amendment (Energy Safety) Bill 2025. This bill is designed to fortify Victoria’s already robust framework, ensuring it can adapt to and safely manage the rapid advancements in energy production and technology. It is incredibly important as we see those advancements in production and technology that our framework and our regulatory framework adapts to just to have that in its purview.

On the topic of changing energy production, it is incredibly important that we do this in this state, because in the state of Victoria we have the most ambitious renewable energy targets anywhere in Australia and indeed some of the most ambitious anywhere in the world – 95 per cent renewable energy by 2035. That is a mixture of several different energy sources. Solar, whether that be large solar projects or indeed whether that be rooftop solar, is of course an incredibly popular source of energy production in my electorate of Tarneit. In fact my electorate of Tarneit, I believe – the member for Cranbourne here might argue with me – has the largest uptake of those solar rebates to be able to put those solar panels on the roof of your home and indeed reduce your energy costs. So as we move to these renewable energy targets and as we undertake this transition fundamentally from coal-fired power and gas in Victoria, then we need to adapt our framework and our regulatory framework in line with that.

Fundamentally we are doing this – we have these renewable energy targets and we are moving to a renewable energy future – to support Victorian families with the rising cost of energy. We know coal-fired power, for instance, has become inefficient. The coal-fired power stations in Morwell have become inefficient, and it is becoming incredibly expensive to produce energy. They are becoming incredibly expensive, and what we know is that solar power, solar energy, is by far and away the cheapest way to produce energy, followed by other renewable sources.

As I came in here I listened to the member for Brighton’s contribution, half of which he spent talking about gas. Frankly, it was trash, like utter dross. For the benefit of all Victorians watching this, there is no ban on gas in Victoria. There is no piece of legislation banning offshore exploration for gas in Victoria; there is not. There are restrictions now around appliances in new homes, and there are also incredibly generous rebates that can be sourced for all Victorians to change their appliances from gas to electric, whether that be your hot-water service, whether that be your heating or cooling. Those rebates make it the same price to change over your gas appliances as it would be to change an electric appliance. Once again, the reason we do that is to support Victorians with the cost of living.

As I said, there is no ban on offshore exploration for gas in Victoria, but what we fundamentally have to recognise is that there are diminishing gas reserves in Victoria. The Otway Basin has provided not just Victoria but southern Australia with a really steady gas supply for eons. If you are firing up a gas heater in Geelong or the west of Victoria, chances are that gas has come from the Otway Basin. Just as an example of diminishing gas supplies, recently Beach Energy, who are the operators of the gas plant down there in Port Campbell, had to go to shareholders about their most recent exploration, their most recent project, and explain the diminishing gas reserves that were in that well. I think there was about 50 per cent of the gas in there of what they expected. We sit here and we talk about supply and demand, and I think energy is a pretty solid example of supply and demand. Gas has gone up because we have diminishing reserves, not because of this fake ban that the Labor government has put on gas. There is no ban on offshore exploration for gas – none, right.

Richard Riordan interjected.

Dylan WIGHT: Frankly, to the member for Polwarth sitting there sort of talking to himself, as he does from time to time, if the Liberals plan is to increase gas supply significantly in Victoria, fundamentally – and you would know something about this, Acting Speaker Marchant – they are going to have to start fracking again. That is what they will have to do. I say to the member for Polwarth – and I know how popular it will be in his electorate –

Richard Riordan interjected.

Dylan WIGHT: You go to those communities, member for Polwarth, and you explain to them that your plan for an energy future in Victoria is to go and frack their communities. Fundamentally that is what you will have to do, because we are running out of gas in the Otway Basin. Recent projects show that.

Richard Riordan interjected.

Dylan WIGHT: Recent projects show that, member for Polwarth. If your plan is to go and frack Victoria again, how about you just be up-front about it? Go and talk to your communities out there in western Victoria and tell them that that is what you are going to do.

I spoke about a fundamental reason for getting homes off gas: to help with the cost of living. There are rebates available to make it incredibly cost-effective to shift your gas appliances to electric appliances, and we know at the moment that electricity is cheaper than gas. But fundamentally another reason for it is because of diminishing gas supplies. We need to be able to shore those supplies up for the manufacturing sector, for industry, to make sure that our manufacturing sector and Victorian industry have competitive power prices. When you look at the balance sheet of one of those businesses, what they are paying for energy is incredibly important – far more important than what they are paying for wages in fact. That is another really important reason to get homes off gas – to make sure we have got a steady supply there.

This amendment acquits a commitment that we made at the 2022 Victorian election, and that was to deliver reforms to Victoria’s electricity and gas network safety regulations to make sure that they keep up with our transitioning energy sector, which I have already gone through and I will not go to again. That commitment was acquitted in the 2023 budget and was $7 million. The bill follows on from our commitment, builds on reform initiated in the Energy Legislation Amendment (Energy Safety) Bill 2023 and also responds to the latest developments in the sector.

We are transitioning in Victoria to a clean energy future. We are doing so because it is good for the hip pocket of Victorians and of working Victorians. What it also does is shore up a diminishing gas supply for Victoria’s manufacturing sector and for Victorian industry to make sure that they have the power prices that they need to be competitive with interstate and indeed international rivals. I commend it to the house.

Matthew GUY (Bulleen) (11:42): I rise to speak on the Energy and Land Legislation Amendment (Energy Safety) Bill 2025 and to make some comments around that bill. I have listened to a number of the other speakers, which has been fascinating, and a number of the comments particularly in relation to gas, which is what I want to centre my remarks on on this piece of legislation.

There is no doubt that certainly since World War II Victoria has had a great reliance on gas for a reason, because we have had a lot of it and we still do, but when you do not issue exploration licences for a decade you are going to run out. I noticed that someone who has been very vocal on this, my colleague the member for Polwarth, has said this a number of times: when you do not fill your car up with petrol, you are going to run out. If you do not visit a service station, of course you are going to run out, and it is the same circumstance with gas in Victoria today. We are blessed with that as an abundant resource which is obviously a lot cleaner than lignite brown coal, which is what we powered our economy off for the best part of the 20th century and then into the 21st in terms of the majority of bulk supply, through the Latrobe Valley. We have great supplies of natural gas, and that has been used quite profoundly by all governments and used at a very cheap rate, which has powered and built the Victorian economy since World War II. There is no doubt about that. And it is, as I said before, a lot cleaner than brown or black coal, even pure black coal, which we have lots of in places like Moranbah in Queensland and the Hunter Valley in New South Wales. Burning gas is certainly a lot cleaner than burning black coal.

But what we have had in the last decade is a government that has really played politics with energy. When you play politics with energy, you do not just play politics for the short term; you play politics for the long term. Now what we are seeing are the long-term effects of a government that has played politics with energy, because we are running out of electricity supplies and we are going to be importing gas in the next four to five years. We will run out because the exploration licences have not been issued by this government.

I know there are probably a lot of people in this chamber with arts degrees who are telling us what the reality is about gas supply in Victoria. I might add I am one of them. So do not take my point of view; go and take the point of view of the CEO of Cooper Energy Jane Norman. This is someone who has a bachelor of science in chemistry and pure mathematics, a bachelor of engineering with honours in chemical engineering and a postgraduate diploma in management and economics of natural gas. So I think if you want to take someone’s advice on whether or not we have got gas, we should probably listen to someone who knows. I hear all the time those opposite saying we have got to listen to experts. Well, there is one. Okay, so what does this expert say? She says straight out Victoria does not have a gas shortage; Victoria has:

… enough gas resources to meet current demand for at least 25 years.

So I just say: who do you take the advice of? Do you take the advice, with great respect, of a government minister who is obviously trying to either garner preferences or hang on to her own seat and a government that is 10 years old – look, you can argue whatever you want on reality – or do you take advice from someone who has had a career in an industry around gas storage and supply, who comes out and says we have got enough supply for 25 years? She is no dummy – in fact quite the contrary: one of the most qualified people in this field. Why would we not be taking this person’s advice, the CEO of Cooper Energy? How about we take Noel Newell, the CEO of 3D Energi ConocoPhillips, who has had 30 years in oil and gas at Petrofina and BHP Billiton. He has said:

[QUOTE AWAITING VERIFICATION]

Victoria has enough supply for at least 40 years. There is no issue with gas supply in Victoria. The issue is the issuing of licences.

These people are experts in their field. These people have got a career and a lifetime of experience that we should be listening to. These people are saying that Victoria is going to run out of gas unless we issue licences and that the biggest hindrance to gas supply in Victoria is not supply but the government playing politics with energy. It is straightforward.

These people are experts, and they are not alone. Many people in these fields have been saying for some time: use the resource Victoria has, stop making excuses, stop playing politics, stop coming out with government cheat sheet one liners and sounding witty. Get on with the job of what a government should be doing, and that is providing a much cleaner energy source for Victorians, of which we have a lot, into our homes, and do it straightaway, because you are going to run out and we are going to have to import it, and the cost of importing it is going to be a hell of a lot more.

I will go back to what a lot of people have talked about in this debate, or no doubt will – I can see the speaking list is very great. They talk about cost of living. Well, when you constrict supply in a growing market, you are going to force that price through the roof. Our population grows by 180,000 every year. We have got a growing market, we are going to constrict supply on both industry and residential demand on gas and we are going to have to import it because the government has played politics for a decade. So what we are facing is an existential crisis around the cost of gas because the government has played politics with it for the best part of a decade.

We get these mixed messages from the government, which the member for Brighton pointed out before. Is the government in Victoria for gas or against gas? With respect, it was not too long ago that we saw on our TVs the Premier coming out, and I do not know why, because they have had literally eight years of saying ‘Gas is evil, gas is evil.’ Labor hit 22 per cent primary in the polls and the Premier was out there saying ‘Oh, actually, we’re not going to ban it,’ mainly because the Deputy Premier had said they were not going to ban it two weeks before, and we know the Deputy Premier and the Premier are at loggerheads on everything because one wants the other’s job, and that will probably resolve itself in July. But what we are seeing is a completely different point of view from the Premier today to what we had for the last eight years. So industry is getting completely mixed messages from a government that appears to be at war with itself and the energy sector. If you have got a gas road map that says gas is evil but then the Premier runs out and says, ‘Actually, it is not,’ but then you run into Parliament and, like this bill does, provide huge penalties on tradies for doing their job if they were to repair a gas appliance, well, what message are you sending to Victorians?

Let us come back to that. This is supposedly the party of workers.

Why would the government seek to penalise tradesmen who go into homes and replace gas appliances because, pardon the pun, they are cooked? The appliance might need to be replaced after 20 or 30 years in a home and an old couple might say they need to replace their gas appliance. They cannot do it. The government has banned it. You need to transition to electricity. What if the home was built in 1945 and is part of the middle suburbs of Melbourne, let us say in a suburb like Niddrie? A couple in Niddrie want to change their gas appliance because it is in an older home, but they cannot do that because the government’s gas policy does not allow the tradie to fix it. In fact it penalises the tradie if they do fix it. The tradie will lose their licence. The tradie will incur fines. What kind of insanity have we got to in the state of Victoria where the government is going to penalise tradespeople simply for doing their job and replacing gas appliances? Gas should be part of our future. Victoria has enough gas. We should be using our gas supplies, not demonising gas. It is the government that is at fault here for not issuing exploration licences. Use our gas resources. Stop playing politics with energy.

But again the government is obsessed, for the sake of votes, with saying ‘We must transition off gas – gas is evil’ because they want to win Greens seats or they do not want to do anything before the federal election because it might upset Albanese’s ability to form a minority government should that be necessary. It all comes down to one thing: the government is playing politics first and putting Victoria’s future second. I think Victorians are now waking up to that, whether it is on gas, whether it is on transport, whether it is on finances. We know the Premier, according to her own colleagues around this building in the last week, told cabinet, ‘I’d rather be in debt and in government than go into surplus and lose office.’ That tells you everything about the attitude, doesn’t it? Number one, that people from cabinet would run around telling everyone in this building that comment, and number two, that that is the comment of the government of the day. We would rather destroy the state’s finances and hang on than actually do the right thing by the state of Victoria. Joan Kirner did not have that attitude. In fact going into 1992 Joan Kirner, to her great credit, was trying her hardest to fix the place up. But that is not where we are today.

I look at this bill with great shock. I know that my colleague has circulated some amendments, which I absolutely support and I hope the government will. I know they will not, but I wish they would. At the end of the day, gas is important to the state of Victoria, bringing down energy prices is even more important to the state of Victoria and the two things are not exclusive; they can work together. If we use one, we can help the other. Victorians would support anything that can help with cost-of-living relief which is not just empty words of politics.

Meng Heang TAK (Clarinda) (11:52): I am delighted to rise today to speak in support of the Energy and Land Legislation Amendment (Energy Safety) Bill 2025. There has been so much happening in the energy portfolio, and I commend the minister for the work in bringing this bill forward here today. It is an important bill focusing on energy safety – safety for workers and safety for others in the community during the energy transition. We have spoken many times before on this transition and just how important it is for Victoria.

It is true that the transition is an important initiative for my community. The cost of living and cheaper power are extremely important for our community in Clarinda. They are issues that my constituents raise with me on a consistent basis. The cost of living, from utility bills and everyday bills to balancing the family budget, is consistently front of mind for families in Clarinda and across the state. This is particularly so in the City of Greater Dandenong, which is right up there in terms of being Victoria’s most socially disadvantaged local government area. Given this pressure in my community, across our state and across the country, it makes absolute sense that that is where our focus is: cheap, clean and reliable power.

Renewable energy is the cheapest form of the new build energy generation available. Thanks to our record investment in it, Victoria consistently has the lowest wholesale electricity price in the market, which means lower bills for Victorian families and businesses.

So it was really welcome news last week that the Australian Energy Market Commission in its November 2024 price trends report forecast that the Victorian retail price will fall by 9 per cent over the next decade and remain lower than all other states.

This is great news for my constituents in Clarinda and for all our constituents in the state of Victoria. Victorian households on the default offer pay on average $311 less for their electricity than a household in New South Wales, South Australia or South-East Queensland, while small businesses pay $1331 less. Victorians can continue to make sure they are on the best deal by using the free and independent Victorian Energy Compare website to shop around for a lower priced offer. Those who use the website typically save around $220 by switching. We will continue to make that a priority – cost of living and utilising our renewables to reduce bills and cost-of-living pressures – because that 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. We know that, so this focus is really important.

The Allan Labor government has been delivering real and meaningful help: free kinder and free TAFE. There are so many more initiatives, such as the $400 school savings bonus, taking bold action on housing and announcing a plan to cap fuel price rises. We will always stand by Victorians and provide real support where it is needed most – in big ways and small ways, because every bit adds up – particularly on our energy bills.

While the transition continues, it is important that we have the appropriate energy safety framework in place, including a strong and flexible regulator, namely Energy Safe Victoria, and that this framework supports regulation and enforcement activities to maintain safety for the Victorian community during the energy transition, and that is what this bill will achieve.

Just in terms of the current framework, we have the Electricity Safety Act 1998, the Gas Safety Act 1997, the Pipelines Act 2005 and the Energy Safe Victoria Act 2005 and regulations made under these acts. This framework supports safety in the energy sector and protects people and property from risks associated with electricity and gas incidents, including bushfires. Energy Safe Victoria monitors and enforces compliance with the energy safety framework.

However, as we have noted, Victoria’s energy sector is transforming, with significant growth in renewable energy and storage, and the transition from a few large-scale facilities towards distributed energy resources. These changes, along with the rising number and variety of electrical appliances such as electric space and water heating and induction cooktops, along with rooftop solar, household batteries and electric scooters and other vehicles within our community, have exposed gaps in the energy safety framework. So legislative reform is needed to respond to these contemporary energy safety risks and provide Energy Safe with a range of strong and flexible powers to enable it to promote and enforce compliance with the regulatory framework, and that is what we have before us today.

I would just like to point out a few key changes here in this bill. The first is an amendment to the Electricity Safety Act 1998 to introduce a new entry power for Energy Safe to investigate safety issues; to improve provisions relating to entries, bushfire mitigation plans and regulation making; to expand the enforcement powers of Energy Safe and the court, including by increasing penalties for a range of offences; and to abolish the Electric Line Clearance Consultative Committee and, most importantly, the Victorian Electrolysis Committee. These are important changes to make sure that we have a strong and flexible regulator that is equipped with the necessary powers to support regulation and enforcement activities to make sure that we have the utmost safety for all Victorians and the Victorian community.

There are similar powers in the amendments to the Gas Safety Act 1997 – a new entry power and improved provisions relating to entries and regulation making and expanding the enforcement powers of Energy Safe and the court, including by increasing penalties for a range of offences as well as a new entry power under the Pipelines Act 2005 and the provisions permitting the court to issue an adverse publicity order. Already there are strong new entry powers under several acts.

As I have mentioned, the energy transition is an important initiative for Victoria and an important initiative for my community. Cheap, clean, reliable and safe power – that is good news for household bills and good news for families and businesses in Clarinda and most importantly across Victoria. That is something that this government is focused on delivering. We can see that with this bill here today – it is another step in that transition journey. I commend the minister for her work and for bringing this bill forward, and I commend the bill to the house.

Cindy McLEISH (Eildon) (12:01): I am rising to make a contribution on the Energy and Land Legislation Amendment (Energy Safety) Bill 2025. It is a little bit hard to work out the real purposes, although they are outlined in the explanatory memorandum and the bill itself, and to work out exactly why we are here to do this. I think it is under the guise of energy safety.

We do know that if there are energy failures, it does put people’s lives and properties at risk – any failure in the system, whether that is a failure of supply or a breakdown in supply or a risk that something bad happens, like powerlines and bushfires. From what I understand, the minister is looking for some longer term protections. I think we all know, because it has been said in here, particularly by the relevant minister, that the government has really got a goal of banning gas, regardless of what people say. The government has gone very hard on this, probably a little bit too soon, and gas supply is indeed very short. I want to just highlight to the house an article that was produced by Tony Wood of the Grattan Institute in December last year. It states:

The simple fact that Victoria is running out of gas and there is currently no solution must rank as one of Australia’s worst energy policy failures.

This policy failure sits fairly and squarely with the state Labor government. This is not me and this is not the coalition saying this; this is the respected Grattan Institute. I will go on further from this release. It states:

For several years, the Australian Energy Market Operator has been calling for urgent investment. Yet, the silence from governments and industry has been deafening. This is not good enough.

He does go on to talk about the failing supply of gas being a root cause. I think that is something that the government really has to look at with opening exploration licences. People are not going to explore unless there is a benefit in there, so why go and do all of this work, all this investment if you are not going to get anything as part of the end game?

We do know that there is gas out there. We are constantly hearing that that is the case. But the government has been very remiss. We can see the problem now that they have gotten into by not having this exploration take place. We do need to mitigate safety concerns in this space. When we are looking at what is being amended here, we have the key areas: the Electricity Safety Act 1998, the Gas Safety Act 1997, the Pipelines Act 2005 and the Energy Safe Victoria Act 2005. They are all key components of energy in Victoria, and the acts are all relevant at different times. Also there are some consequential amendments and an amendment to the Land Act 1958 as well.

The coalition has had a bit of trouble obtaining clear answers from the government. We asked questions and they were unable to explain some of the areas. I can talk about this in a little bit more detail later. Why are increased powers necessary beyond pointing to the need for harmonisation – I mean, really? – and new rules to deal with the distributed nature of electricity generation?

Before I go into some of the detail of the bill and areas that we have issues with – as has been said, we are putting forward a number of textual amendments and have expressed our opposition to the bill – the government has this anti-gas bent, banning gas in new homes. We see gas as an important part of the transition to lower emission energy. It is so important at the moment in manufacturing and agriculture. If you think of a glass manufacturer, for example, they have to have gas furnaces operating 24 hours of the day to keep the glass molten, and if it hardens, it is a huge risk to their business and to the continuity of being able to make the glass. We know that when there are buildings that need to be built they need glass, so we desperately need to have a gas supply in Victoria so we are not importing it and paying through the roof.

I heard the member for Tarneit before, and there is a real scare campaign here. He was going on about fracking. I just want to give him some of the facts, because when they were in government prior to the Libs in 2010, 73 licences for unconventional gas exploration were issued by Labor, and 23 for hydraulic fracturing, which is the fracking operations, were issued without public consultation. The Labor Party members in this chamber need to understand that fracking has only ever been approved and undertaken by Labor governments. I always dislike it immensely when they try and rewrite history, but I think that is important.

An issue that I do want to focus on is the abolition of the consultative committees. The Victorian Electrolysis Committee and the Electric Line Clearance Consultative Committee have experts on them, industry experts and their statutory committees. I think disbanding and removing industry expertise from decision-making is fraught with danger, and this shift to centralised control is really unacceptable because we need proper transparency and we need an evidence base for our decision-making, that expert advice, and we support having expert advice.

With regard to bushfire mitigation and thinking about bushfires and where they start, too often they start from lightning strikes, but we have had failures around electrical wires in the past. As a result we have had class actions, certainly through Black Saturday, and an enormous amount of change has happened with electrical safety, the brunt of that being borne by the major power providers. We have areas in and around the city that are subject to the same tree-clearing as some parts of rural Victoria. I do note that sometimes when they are clearing around powerlines there are enormous hack jobs of the trees, and people get really upset about such hack jobs. But in and around the city tree canopy is exceptionally important, because while the planet is heating, we need to cool. There is a big issue in these areas where they are subject to the same level of clearing as some of the more rural areas. I think that this is a problem because we need tree canopy. They are being cleared at a rate of knots because of high-density housing – people putting up a number of apartments on a block that may have had two or three large trees on it. That has changed very much. I think putting in one-size-fits-all is not always the right thing to do. And it is the same in towns. Bushfires do not start in the main street of a town. Bushfires will start on Crown land or on farmland, not where it is really quite built up. I am really quite disappointed with some of the work that the government are doing there.

The bill would move tabling the annual corporate plan to every three years. This is something that is quite clearly outlined in the textual amendments. I think that if you have got a corporate plan, you will have measures that need to be implemented on an annual basis. You will have targets and milestones that you want to achieve as part of that three years.

Any good government and governance arrangements would see that they are doing this and being transparent. If they are doing this, they should be publishing annual updates, because we would like to see greater transparency.

I also have some concerns about the increased burden on contractors and small businesses. This bill proposes significant penalty increases for electrical and plumbing contractors – the tradies – with fines rising to $48,000 for individuals and $240,000 for corporations. These excessive penalties could disproportionately harm small businesses and tradies because of inadvertent mistakes. Tradies do not go out there with the intent to make mistakes and errors. Sometimes people may not be competent, but at other times they may in fact make a small mistake. This is quite a remarkable penalty.

There will be expanded enforcement powers with the potential for abuse as well. This bill will grant enforcement officers the power to suspend contractors and workers on the spot. The way to appeal that is through VCAT. Goodness me, what do we know about VCAT? How long a piece of string is is how long you can wait to get there. It could be a prolonged period of time, which could put these small business owners under extreme financial hardship. VCAT does have big problems, big backlogs, and having this as the only available option for these small business owners, for these tradies, I do not think is the right idea.

There is some confusion over the regulatory overlap between Energy Safe Victoria, WorkSafe Victoria and the Environment Protection Authority Victoria that I think could be sorted out as well.

Alison MARCHANT (Bellarine) (12:11): It is a pleasure to rise to speak on the Energy and Land Legislation Amendment (Energy Safety) Bill 2025. I always take the opportunity, if possible, to speak on energy in this place. It was a big part of the journey for me to come to this place and be the member for Bellarine, considering that I, alongside hundreds of thousands of people across Victoria, many years ago stood together to speak about protecting our agriculture, protecting our land, protecting our waterways and protecting our community’s health against fracking. I will always take the opportunity to talk about that process. There was an inquiry into unconventional gas, which I was very heavily involved in, and then I sat on an advisory panel about conventional gas, which was established to understand what resources were part of Victoria’s future. We had the lead scientist chair that advisory group, and it was an excellent process to be involved in for me to better understand energy and particularly gas for this state, so I come with a bit of background knowledge in this space.

Sometimes I get a bit itchy sitting in this chair listening to debate when I hear things that are simply not true or simply are rewriting history in this space. I will always take the opportunity to talk to that and to call that out. Talking about that point, a few years ago when we were fighting for a ban on fracking in this state, which was a nation first in this country to have a ban, to have a Labor government put in a ban on fracking to protect our agriculture and our environment from that process, there was debate and talk about if it is not gas, then what does our future look like. Communities – and I know from doing this role and representing the Bellarine community – wanted to see a clean energy future. It meant having cleaner energy and cheaper energy. We all know that means renewables – that is, our wind and solar. The minister just this week talked about the record amount of solar that people have installed on their homes. I am just going to check my notes, but solar homes have had another record year, with more than 78,000 solar panels, hot-water systems and batteries installed in 2024. That is the largest year on record. This is about having people have control over their energy and their energy bills but also being part of the solution going forward, being part of the solution of a clean energy future. Now 30 per cent of Victorian homes have installed solar.

That is what is making a real difference. That is what makes a difference to our state and to those who are really concerned about our future. I am really proud of all the ambitious targets that this government has set over its decade of being in government, and smashing them as well. We do not just talk about them; we actually deliver on these on these projects, and we have a clear vision for this state to transition to a clean and green energy sector, and I am really proud to be to be supporting this bill today, which ultimately talks about the safety of our energy system.

As we embrace new technologies and as new technologies roll out, as we address them we need to make sure our legislation keeps pace with that technology, and a top priority for us is to have a workforce that is safe, and for our wider community as well. This bill is about having that robust energy safety framework to make sure that we are updating our legislation and keeping workers and community safe. At the last election we said we would do this work. We said that we would make a commitment to doing an energy safety review to deliver these reforms, and we are doing that. So that was about making sure we were keeping up with that transition that I have talked about.

In speaking on this bill, I remember before, in 2023, I also spoke about an energy safety bill, and like I said, I will always take the opportunity to talk about energy in this place. We made some amendments, just some really commonsense amendments, to the Victorian energy safety legislation, and that was in line with advice that we had got, working in consultation with our renewable energy companies and modernising our legislation.

I will just talk a little bit about the Bellarine, and the Bellarine community often come to me and talk about their priorities going forward, but interestingly – I am sure it was last year – we had a guest speaker come to the Bellarine organised by several community groups. They asked Tim Forcey to come along and speak about the transition to electrifying their homes. Nearly a hundred people turned up to that forum on the night to understand more with a thirst for information and a thirst for understanding what steps they could take to (1) reduce their bills but (2) have a cleaner energy home. Some of those constituents that came along to that forum had done a whole lot to their homes; they had transitioned their homes to electric and wanted to know what next. A lot of them were talking about batteries, and they had a thirst to have knowledge around batteries. Others were just starting the process; they were just starting to gather that information about what they could do and what actions they could take to electrify their homes. And of course we talked about the offerings that we have – the very generous offerings of rebates to do that work. This government has been very clear and very ambitious in letting our communities know that there is help available if they would like to do that transition.

I have listened very carefully to the debate today, and I just want to raise a few a few issues that I have heard and just go to some of those. Firstly, the member for Brighton did talk a little bit about offshore wind in his speech, and I just want to clarify a few things. Minister Horne and the Minister for Energy and Resources have been working with the Commonwealth on the environment protection and biodiversity conservation determination and what those next steps look like. The Port of Hastings have recommenced their environment effects statement process, and the technical reference group has been established. Since the Commonwealth decision on that referral Minister Horne’s department has made modifications to the project design and directly addressed the issues flagged by the Commonwealth government. This means that we will resubmit the referral in due course. This is a standard practice, and it outlines what is in and out of the scope for formal discussions between government departments.

This is clearly demonstrated, let us be clear, in the letters between the Commonwealth government and the department. This is part of government process. This is the way major projects unfold. And it is not surprising to hear that the other side and other members in the other place, Liberal members of the opposition, do not understand these government processes. They have not delivered projects in the last 30 years. The ministers are working hand in hand with each other, both state and federal, to ensure processes are followed and that projects continue to be on track.

This bill is not just about legislation. This is about safeguarding our future energy in our state, the future of our state, and this is about ensuring that we can continue that transition and accelerate to a cleaner, more sustainable energy system and that safety, as always, remains our top priority. It is about having energy safety laws that are modern and strengthened, and it is about having an affordable energy system as well. These are not just ambitious targets that we set. It is our responsibility as a government. With this bill we are delivering the things and agendas that we have set for this state. I know that that has a lot of support in my electorate of the Bellarine, hence why people are so thirsty to electrify their homes and to have that support. I commend this bill to the house.

Martin CAMERON (Morwell) (12:21): I rise today to talk on the Energy and Land Legislation Amendment (Energy Safety) Bill 2025, and it does give me great pleasure to be able to stand up and talk about our energy make-up into the future. I think as we talk to constituents right around the place, we are all in agreeance that renewables are going to play a major role moving forward. What we are being sold at the moment from the Labor government is the fact that these renewables, straightaway and then again in time, are going to be able to bring the price of our electricity and gas bills down. That is failing at the moment, so we need to ascertain when that will happen. Talking to people that are actually putting renewable infrastructure into production and getting it up and going off the ground, to get to about 32 to 35 per cent of renewables, which I think we are probably at now in Victoria, is the low-hanging fruit. It is the easiest way to get there and the cheapest way to get there – to get to that number around 35 per cent. Then it gets harder and more expensive as we roll on. So collectively in here we need to make sure that we can move through that and bring on some of these cost-saving effects for mums and dads that are in their homes for their cost of living and to bring their power prices down.

This particular part of the legislation I was very interested to see also brings in a bit of an attack on the poor old tradie and the poor old plumber that are going around trying to fix and create longevity in gas appliances at the moment. Into the future, they could be fined for doing this. And they are not small fines, they are large fines. It just does not seem right that as they are going about their daily business to help people in their homes to be able to cook and clean and shower they are going to be fined for actually fixing some gas appliances. It is as simple as that. That is what is going to be happening.

As we transition out, we are starting to close our coal-fired power stations. I just did a little number before. We are about 1200 days away from Yallourn power station closing. That is going to pull out about 22 per cent of Victoria’s energy content that goes into the grid. It is going to pull that out. So we need to be making sure that we have a diverse energy grid made up of renewables, and we seem to be getting further and further away from bringing on our wind turbines out at sea and also onshore and connecting them to our power grid.

This timeline for shutting the coal-fired power stations down and relying on whatever our mix is going to be into the future gets shorter and shorter daily. We need to make sure that the people of Victoria are informed and we need to make sure that they know exactly what is going on. I have heard in the chamber today about the take-up of rooftop solar and batteries and so forth and how there are subsidies from government, both federal and state, that can get these panels onto our roofs. But I want to know what happens in 20 years time at the end of life of these solar panels and the end of life of these batteries – who pays for them to be replaced? Is it then thrown on the home owner, who has to work out how we recycle these panels and how we recycle batteries? At the moment there is not a great industry, and that is something that really needs to be looked at moving forward – where we are going to recycle them – because for the mums and dads that have done the right thing and put the solar panels on the roof, why should it be left up to them to pay to get rid of them? And are they going to be subsidised to put better and newer panels onto the roof? Are they going to be able to afford that? These are questions that I get asked all the time. Take out what we are doing now, where are we going to be in those 15 to 20 years when that needs to happen? Who is going to pay for it, and how much of an impost is it going to be onto the mums and dads in their homes at the moment?

We need jobs. We need jobs in the Latrobe Valley because our bread and butter is obviously creating power in coal-fired power stations which are shutting. We have just had issues with our Opal manufacturers, who have gone back to work now. But that is an unintended consequence of shutting the timber industry, which was relied on heavily through the Latrobe Valley and East Gippsland. It made it harder for Opal to sustain what they want to do and obviously puts pressure on the people that live and breathe in the Latrobe Valley. We are finishing up all these jobs, and I ask the minister all the time, Minister D Ambrosio, ‘Where are the new jobs coming to the Latrobe Valley for the people that I represent who do a great job at the moment, and have for the last 100 years, making sure that Victoria’s power supply is strong and always there?’ Where are the jobs for these people to transition into now and also for the next generation into the future and the generation after that? For 100 years we have generated power – the power stations are there – and we will continue to do it for the next 100 years whatever that make-up is going to be.

I am not sure if people in here have driven past some of these solar farms and battery farms that are starting to litter the countryside around regional Victoria. People that live near them or drive past them are just shocked by the sheer size of them. We do need them to be this size, because the one thing that is not going to diminish is our appetite for a power supply into the future. It is not going to diminish at all; it is going to get more and more. At night-time when I drive around I look at sports, whether it be football or basketball, soccer or theatre. Are these people all going to need batteries at all of these locations through country Victoria to be able to train at night if they are playing football or to put on their shows if we are moving into renewables and relying on everything being electric and batteries powering us through the night? At the moment with our coal-fired power stations we have sustainable base load power 24/7. If you go and turn a light switch on, it is going to be there. And by the sound of it, hopefully with what the government is proposing here, it is still going to be there. But are these community batteries at, for argument’s sake, the Morwell football club going to be available for our community groups to access and use? How long are they going to last for? As I say, we are looking for a 20-year timeframe to replace all of this stuff.

There are ways and means that that can happen, which may not have been thought of yet, but we need to be able to recycle these batteries and we need to be able to recycle these solar panels. Where is that going to happen? The bigger question is: what cost is it going to be to the Victorian public? We have moved, as I said, along the track of going to renewables and we are all in agreeance that we need to have renewables in the mix, but it is time now for the government and Minister D’Ambrosio to give us a blueprint of when it is all going to be coming online. Give me a blueprint that I can take back to the people of the Latrobe Valley of what jobs are coming to the valley. We see solar farms and battery farms being let go and talked about in other parts of regional Victoria. We need to make sure that we get our fair share down in the Latrobe Valley – that we have the jobs and the security. There are a lot of questions that remain unanswered. We are ready to go, but what happens into the future? I think the government need to be able to talk to the people of Victoria about what costs they are going to incur. It is my job to stand in here and highlight that situation. I hope the member for Mordialloc may be able to answer some of my questions as he gets up.

Tim RICHARDSON (Mordialloc) (12:31): The ‘Mor’ seats – Mordialloc and Morwell – are a little bit different, but I think we will bring the same energy and passion on behalf of our constituents to this bill debate. It is great to follow the member for Morwell who passionately advocates for his patch and his residents and his community, and I acknowledge his interest in this area around an important transition in energy policy in our state and the constituency he represents, and it is something that all Victorians should focus on as well. As part of the Energy and Land Legislation Amendment (Energy Safety) Bill 2025, there is discussion around some of the safety improvements as technology changes exponentially from decades before and around how we have the worker safety regime in place to support that transition into the future.

I have been in and out listening to the bill, and I am really interested in some of the contributions from Liberal and Nationals members across there, and I know some people listen to it quite closely, but I have failed to hear the word ‘nuclear’. I have failed to hear that word in the energy transition, and I do not know if the member for Brighton in energy safety discussions – and I am sure he did 30 minutes of the best work we have seen – discuss the transition that Victoria is on and whether there is any reference to nuclear in this. The member for Morwell in his debate made some really important points around the transition to renewables, the impact on his community, the representation of working people and how they will make a crust into the future. The gaping hole in that narrative is the federal overlay that we find ourselves in right now. When we think of the energy safety framework, what does it mean for our constituents with a transition that suggests that that is about 20 years on the horizon and it will be done on the back of nuclear. I still have not heard one member on that side talk about their position on this, including the Leader of the Opposition. I had hoped that in the 30-minute bill speech, with the gravitas and the wide breadth that the member for Brighton and Shadow Treasurer had, that in some of his contribution there might have been some active commentary around what energy safety provisions and transition to renewables look like and what the nuclear mix looks like on the edge of a federal election. But we live in hope – one day. I do not think if I go through the Hansard search there might be a reference there.

This is an important conversation, though, on this bill around the safety and outcomes for working people, because we have seen – particularly some of the timeframe amendments for AusNet and Powercor – those who have followed impacts on community and the horrific outcomes of Black Saturday and the impacts on communities that were felt. Some of those reporting and mitigation plans and requirements now are always front and centre in the minds of Victorians, as are the safety outcomes more broadly when mitigating disasters that have huge-scale consequences for our constituencies and still have significant impacts, causing trauma to those communities at a visceral level to this day.

Some of those timeframe specifications and changes I am really glad to see, and making sure that the administrative outcomes are appropriate as well.

I am really glad to see in this bill that we build on some of the election commitments we made around a comprehensive review of energy safety legislation. It is worth reflecting on the journey that we have taken to this point. We have already been able to deliver on those legislative reforms that saw the passing of the previous bill in 2023. That modernisation, framework and contribution has been really significant. This bill builds again on that, and it helps to keep up with some of these innovations and changes as well.

Something I am really interested about are the environmental protection outcomes, and some of the changes to the Land Act 1958 are really important. Some of the dialogue from some on the opposition benches has been curious around environmental effects statements (EES) and outcomes. We do not erode away those processes, but it is practical and it is reasonable to have leasing arrangements or land obligation arrangements that run parallel to those processes. Environmental effects statements can be arduous and extensive – and so they should be – sometimes with important federal oversight from the Commonwealth. We do not want that to be a barrier to consideration of innovation and investment in large-scale output in wind, solar and a range of other types of transmission and transition of energy policy as well.

Some might narrate concerns around that, but I think that actually is a smokescreen for then trying to find every way to oppose the transition to renewables. You see such a breadth and diversity of views on that side. Federally you could not be more extreme. The member for Brighton puts himself up as a champion of renewables, and then you have got all the way on the spectrum the likes of Barnaby Joyce or the former Prime Minister Scott Morrison, who brought a lump of coal in. You try to be everything to everyone, and then you are nothing to no-one. We see some of that behaviour. I know he has pushed out the teals a bit, and the Goldstein contest is a bit of an interesting one.

We need more than just the politics of the day or the populist moment of the day. We need more embedded policy outcomes. We have seen such policy inertia federally, which has meant that some of the renewable energy targets that are part of some of the international targets of the Australian government have actually been largely on the back of state government innovation and action. It has not been widespread policy change that has led to great outcomes. Let us not forget the National Energy Guarantee and how that absolutely imploded the federal debate that saw the end of the legacy of the former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull. There are really contested and politicised debates right within that segment as well.

When we talk about transition and we talk about those outcomes, and when we have an argument around why you would not have an arrangement where an EES process is required but the leasing requirements or outcomes of the land are not dealt with, it is a bit unconscionable. It is a blocker then to innovation and investment in and outcomes of renewable energy in that transition.

We are on a significant journey. My worry for Victoria and for our nation is the huge gap, which has been played out by the CSIRO and by energy experts around our nation, between federal policy on nuclear and how that is narrated and the renewable energy transition policy that the federal Labor Albanese government has. That has not been answered in some of the policy discussions from those opposite, and it continues to be a nice, convenient 20-year abrogation of work into the future, rather than dealing with how this transition and how these outcomes happen.

Our legacy as a government speaks for itself. In investing in renewable energy, when we think about some of the massive investments that have been made, since 2014 59 projects providing 4471 megawatts of new capacity have come online. That is an extraordinary contribution when we think of the scale of what that means and what that means as a demonstration of Victoria’s ambition and Victoria’s transition into the future. We are seeing the SEC and the work that has come online and the ambitions to create an investment pipeline in the future and tens of thousands of jobs going forward – some 59,000 jobs is the aspiration around there. It has been absolutely amazing.

Of course that includes the SEC’s very own recent project in Plumpton, one of the world’s largest battery energy storage projects in the world, and that will provide enough power for 200,000 homes. There was a lot of talk about the SEC at that time, and there was a lot of talk about what the projects are. I am keen to know if those opposite would, in their opposition to the SEC, scrap projects like we see at Plumpton. Would they take away those innovations, the investment that has been made, the offsets and the response to these climate challenges and the lowering of our reliance on heavy fossil fuels into the future? Would they oppose those projects or scrap them? We know the Leader of the Opposition has said, ‘That’s it, do away with the SEC.’ It would be all done. They would take away that critical investment, that critical leadership, because he cannot just be a see-ball, hit-ball populist. You cannot do that. You cannot just front up and read a headline and then make your policy call on the run. Are you going to scrap these projects when you say that when you come in you will not support the SEC? This would be scrapping projects and innovations like we see at Plumpton.

It goes without saying that some of these investments need the best safety regulations and regimes we have seen in our state and our nation. As a party that supports working people – and I give a big shout-out to organisations like the Electrical Trades Union and the work they do on behalf of their members – safety is paramount, and supporting their workforce is absolutely paramount. We have got tens of thousands of tradies who did not have a job years ago coming on because they see in Victoria a pipeline of investment and jobs for the future. They will able to make a crust and also build their state. That is one of the best elements of our renewable energy transition, and this bill is a large part of that.

Roma BRITNELL (South-West Coast) (12:41): I rise to speak on the Energy and Land Legislation Amendment (Energy Safety) Bill 2025. This is a bill that is meant to be about energy safety, but it is not. When we had the bill briefing – and I thank the minister for the opportunity to be briefed on the bill – there was the question posed: what actually precipitated this bill coming into the Parliament? That question actually could not be answered. But this is a bill that has been made under the guise of safety, and that is an area of issue and concern in my part of the world, so I will be focusing on energy safety particularly. But it is quite a concerning bill, and that is why we have put forward some amendments. It is always concerning when you see a government that is not interested in democracy and wants to remove accountability, and with the removal of two committees, which is what this bill does among other things, you ask yourself: why would the government be reducing the amount of advice that they can get from community? I think the answer is, as we have seen right across the changes we have seen over the last 10 years of this very tired and depleted government, that they do not like advice – and if they do not like the advice, they get rid of the adviser – and they do not want to hear something that does not suit their narrative. So there are many safety concerns.

What we have seen across particularly South-West Coast is a community that has been ridden roughshod over, particularly when it comes to the journey through to renewables. Can I just make a statement at the outset that we are not against renewables, but in western Victoria over the last 30 years of this journey – particularly the last 10 under the now Allan Labor government and, prior to that, the Andrews Labor government – when wind turbines were proposed for our region, the community did not feel like and have never felt like they have actually had the voice they wanted to have to be sure that some of their concerns were allayed. Here we are 25 years on from the very first wind farm in Victoria, the Codrington wind farm, which began operating in 2001, located near Port Fairy in South-West Coast. We are seeing it come to the end of its life, and discussions are underway and the community are being informed that it will be decommissioned in 2027, removing the 14 wind farms. We have seen some of the issues that many, many community members, particularly farmers, have been raising for the last 25 years coming to fruition, and finally their voices are being heard. They were vilified and made out to be anti-renewable activists. But we have seen just in the last few weeks, on 4 February, a turbine blade at the Berrybank wind farm detach and fall to the ground. That happened in the night. Many of our wind farms are right next to the roads, so the concern of blades coming off has been raised for a very long time, and sure enough that is what we have seen, to the point that farmers are being warned that they should be wearing hard hats in their paddocks when they go out and move their stock and do their farming.

As I keep saying, these farmers, these loud voices, particularly around the Hawkesdale area where we had many opposing windfarms, were made out to be vilified even in their own community. The Codrington farm is particularly worrying, because if you drive on the Princes Highway now between Warrnambool and Portland, what you see are wind turbines with oil absolutely stained all over the shafts. I have got many photos on my phone of the blackened shafts of these windmills, because oil is just pouring out. It is bad enough to think about what that will be doing to the soil if it can be degrading the soil when there is oil spilling, but imagine if the wind turbines in the offshore project that this government – the Labor federal government – is proposing are built and at the end-of-life stage we see oil spilling into the ocean. That would be completely unacceptable, and the people in Warrnambool and Port Fairy who express concern about the offshore windfarm should have a right to be listened to and not just ignored or vilified because they are seen as anti-environmentalist or against renewable energy.

We have a situation which has been talked about for many years which is actually playing out. ‘What happens when these catch fire?’ has been a question for the last 25 years. We have had two fires in the last two years, one in Yambuk in August 2023 and one in June last year at the Cape Nelson State Park. These ones were not as high as the new ones.; they were about 80 metres, because they were the first ones. So here we had a situation in winter, thank goodness, where the turbine caught fire because there had not been the maintenance on the nacelle that was needed, with oil spilling out – and that is a fire risk– and that played out in the middle of winter. But if it happens this weekend when we have the heat again of February, or into March, and then we have the north winds and these fires occur, all that the CFA volunteers can do is sit at the bottom and hope that when things fall down they can put them out. That is not going to be good enough when the blades are throwing flames perhaps 200 metres down the paddock and we have got CFA volunteers chasing fires because we have got the typical north winds that happen on a really hot day in south-west Victoria.

All the questions that people have been asking are playing out. At the end of last year we asked the question of the Minister for Emergency Services in the Parliament, so late 2024: tell us which turbines are fitted with suppression equipment, tell us what you issued government when you said these permits were issued years ago that were going to be the mitigation factors put in place to make sure that there was maintenance done at the end of life so that we do not have these fire risk situations. But unfortunately none of these questions have been answered by the minister, and they are reasonable and fair questions from the people of South-West Coast and right across western Victoria, who have got more than their fair share of the saturation of the landscape from these wind towers that they live amongst. People in Melbourne are not living amongst them. South-west Victorians are, and they have every right to have these questions answered. Now we have got fires, we have got oil spilling and we have got another windfarm proposed offshore, which many, many, many people have said they disagree with. I am on the record as saying I am very concerned about the whale migration pathway and the whale nursery that exists in this area, but no environmentalist and no scientist around the world can tell me what the effects will be. So the government are really remiss in their responsibility to listen to the community.

Then you look at the gas aspect of this bill – a safety aspect, they say, but again, they cannot purport to explain why. We in south-west Victoria have a lot of manufacturing, and the manufacturing, such as dairy processing and meat manufacturing, is quite energy intensive. Gas is vital, particularly for dairy processing. This is a government that wants to ban gas, yet it has not done its due diligence to make sure there is enough energy to be able to take its place to head towards the renewable transition of electrification. They want to tell people that they cannot cook with gas, they cannot replace their gas cooker with another gas cooker, and they say it will be cheaper. There is not a person who has gone through this exercise that has found it cheaper at this point that I have been able to find, and there is not a person who has found it more effective. So the Liberal–Nationals will repeal this in government, as we know people need choice and we know this government have not done their due diligence to transition responsibly. Consequently emissions have not gone down like this government have been crowing for the last 10 years will happen. In fact emissions have gone up, so how has this been an environmental benefit? It has been a disaster for the government, because not only have emissions gone up, prices have gone up.

Every time a person who is worried about the cost-of-living crisis goes to the supermarket and they buy their 2 litres of milk, they should think about the cost of that processing, which needed energy to be able to process it. That is why food is expensive. Energy sits at the base of everything we need in our daily lives, and that is why we are seeing such incredibly high prices. And of course we have got reliability of energy being available going down, because we are not going to have enough energy.

So how has this been a success for the government? It has not. It has been an abject fail. Whether it is a housing crisis, a health crisis or an education crisis, in every sector this government has had a hand in we are just seeing abject fails. But the energy crisis is probably the most concerning, because we need to be able to turn those lights on, we need to be able to produce food and we need to keep people safe. To do that we should be putting in place a reliable energy source that we can depend on, that we can afford, and unfortunately for Victoria what we are now seeing is every expert agreeing that this government has failed, because we will not have enough energy. It is more expensive than it needs to be in Victoria, where we should have the cheapest, most reliable energy of anywhere in the world. The Allan Labor government are in charge of the biggest failure yet, the energy system.

Gary MAAS (Narre Warren South) (12:51): It gives me great pleasure to rise to speak to the Energy and Land Legislation Amendment (Energy Safety) Bill 2025. I do not know what it must be like hopping up in this place and just speaking untruths as a part of your contribution. The absolute truth of the matter is that greenhouse gas emissions have reduced by some 31.3 per cent in this state since 2005.

James Newbury interjected.

Gary MAAS: You have had your turn, member for Brighton. It is my turn now.

This is a debate, and the truth is that greenhouse gas emissions in the state of Victoria have reduced by 31.3 per cent, and it has nothing to do with the four years that the opposition were in government – the only four years this century that they have been in government in this state. It has had a lot to do with the work of this government, of Labor governments, to ensure that we get the energy mix right as we transition to renewables, and this legislation is a key part of the energy legislative framework.

The bill does many things. It provides amendments to the Electricity Safety Act 1998, including entry powers for Energy Safe Victoria to investigate safety issues, bushfire mitigation plans, expanding the powers of Energy Safe in the courts and increasing penalties for a range of offences. It provides amendments to the Gas Safety Act 1997, which include adding new entry powers, improving provisions for entries and regulation making and expanding enforcement powers, including increased penalties. It makes amendments to the Pipelines Act 2005, including introducing new entry powers and empowering courts to issue adverse publicity orders. And it makes amendments to the Energy Safe Victoria Act 2005, including requirements for Energy Safe to submit a corporate plan every three years, with annual updates. The bill also provides increased certainty of public land tenure for proponents undertaking environment effects statement, or EES, processes, under the Environment Effects Act 1978. It is about aligning Victoria’s energy safety framework with contemporary standards, boosting public safety and investor confidence and progressing towards net zero emissions in the state by 2050.

Another inconvenient truth is that this country actually digs up and exports a lot of gas. There are some 82 million tonnes of the stuff actually produced and exported each year, and that makes us the second largest producer and exporter of LNG in the world. It suggests that as a country as a whole we are pretty good at it.

When it comes to Victoria, as I said before, we are working towards getting that energy transition right. I hope I get some time to provide some context with what I did over the weekend in speaking to a member of my electorate who has recently transitioned to solar energy. I thought I would provide some history in terms of what this government has done and rebut much of what the member for Bulleen said. The truth of the matter is that the legislation gives the Minister for Environment the power to lease Crown land prior to the environment effects statement’s conclusion, delivering critical site security for major projects in the gas, renewables and resources sectors.

Between 2017 and 2020 the government invested over $40 million in direct support to incentivise new gas supply through the Victorian gas program, and that involved surveying the potential for the development of gas storage fields in Port Campbell. Lochard Energy used that data and developed the Seamer reservoir in 2024. The Mylor reservoir will become an additional gas storage facility through the Heytesbury Underground Gas Storage project. The government conducted airborne gravity surveys to facilitate future gas discoveries in the Otway Basin, and that supported our 2018 Victorian offshore acreage release. This resulted in two exploration permits being granted in 2020 to Beach Energy and Bridgeport Energy. Beach Energy are planning on acquiring the Calico 3D seismic survey over the transitional zone between Port Campbell and Peterborough in early 2026. It also assessed the potential for new onshore gas discoveries and found that there were no proven or probable onshore resources ready for imminent development.

In 2018 the government legislated that any new gas produced in Victoria must be offered to the domestic market on reasonable grounds, ensuring that Victorians get first use of Victorian gas. In August 2024 the government approved production licences for Beach Energy’s Artisan and La Bella fields in the Otway Basin as part of the Commonwealth–state joint authority, and then in September 2024 the government approved production licences for Beach Energy’s Enterprise field. In November 2024 the Allan Labor government passed legislation to allow offshore underground gas storage, paving the way for the Golden Beach energy storage project as well as other offshore gas storage projects under consideration from other developers. In December 2024 Minister D’Ambrosio led the push among the nation’s energy ministers to expand AEMO’s powers to intervene in the gas market to avoid any projected shortfall that there might have been in the east coast gas market from 2028. I note on that final point that there are many commentators who are saying that claims of a shortfall in the east coast gas market are shrill, as has been put in those different papers and articles about the place, so to say that we are running out of gas as we are transitioning is quite the misnomer.

In the remaining minute or so that I have, it was really terrific to be with the Minister for Energy and Resources and the Parliamentary Secretary for Climate Action Ms Watt from the other place at a local home in my electorate of Narre Warren South on the weekend. Uteng, who lives with her husband and three kids and father-in-law, was able to explain to us the benefits of solar energy on her home where she had received $1400 in a Solar Victoria rebate. Since that installation she has seen a remarkable reduction in her family’s energy. She says that they use so much solar power during the day that they are using the energy to power the house, air conditioning and pool throughout the summer. I might leave it there. Thank you, and I commend the bill to the house.

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

Bridget Vallence: On a point of order, Speaker, yesterday in question time the Premier committed to updating the house in relation to bail data and the number of offenders that have received bail. I wonder if the Premier could update the house with that data.

The SPEAKER: Manager of Opposition Business, that is not a point of order. However, I am happy to speak to you in my office after question time in relation to that matter.

I did want to acknowledge that today we will have in the gallery the new Greek consul-general in Melbourne Dimitra Georgantzoglou. I am not sure if she is here with us yet, but she is coming in for question time.

Business interrupted under sessional orders.