Wednesday, 19 February 2025

Bills

Energy and Land Legislation Amendment (Energy Safety) Bill 2025

Second reading

Debate resumed.

Richard RIORDAN (Polwarth) (14:56): I rise to contribute on the Energy and Land Legislation Amendment (Energy Safety) Bill 2025. This is one of numerous energy-related bills that have come to this chamber and again does not really solve many of the issues that particularly regional Victorians and people in the electorate of Polwarth are facing with this government’s approach to the renewable energy rollout. In the minister’s second-reading speech she said:

Safety must be a priority in the delivery of essential services like energy. Most importantly, energy safety brings invaluable benefits by protecting life and property.

That is absolutely something that all sides of the house would agree with, particularly with the well-known statistic in regional Victoria that some 80 per cent of all lives and property lost through bushfire is as a result of electrical failure. That traditionally comes in the form of collapsed powerlines, faulty transformers and conductors that are past their use-by date. There is much that needs to continue to improve to keep energy transmission safe in Victoria. For those of us old enough to remember in this place – not that you have to be that old of course – I think it was in 1997 when we had the Longford explosion and the gas transmission system here in Victoria was put under a lot of stress and shut down. We were forced into creating some new infrastructure, which came through the seat of Polwarth – the extra gas lines from Port Campbell into the main grid. It is a very complex and necessary piece of civic infrastructure that needs to be maintained.

Unfortunately this bill, like so many others that this government brings to the chamber, fails to actually really get to the nub of keeping Victorians safe through good management of energy infrastructure but instead pushes its political agenda. Clearly in this bill the energy agenda that this government has is banning gas. I think in there it refers to going out chasing the electricians and the plumbers. We have got fines here of up to $48,000 if they dare to install into someone’s house a gas appliance. That is quite insane. It is a bit reminiscent of the attack on fishermen in a bill late last year. We have had the bizarre situation in the last few months where the government gave a company the licence to organise bail and look after some of the state’s worst offenders – and they have no police checks, no background checks – but if you want to be a commercial fisherman you have to have a police check and a background check and you have to have your partner and other related entities police checked. Now we are going for the plumbers and the electricians. We are going after the tradesmen to enforce government policy. So often there are gaping holes left in the system for what the average reasonable person on the street would have expected a government would be hounding for.

There are a couple of issues that really affect Polwarth when it comes to energy transmission. Across south-west Victoria just in the last 12 months we have had an out-of-control wind turbine fire, and it was admitted by the government that you cannot put the fires out. We have asked Energy Safe Victoria for immediate review of the many thousands of wind turbines in Victoria: how many of them have fire suppression, how many do not? That is a state secret. I would have thought the very least a responsible government could do is ensure that every single CFA volunteer in their community on any given day, if they have got to rock up to an enormous 200-metre high burning, towering inferno, has a right to know whether that site is equipped to help fight the fire, and they do not know that. That is something that ESV is responsible for.

We had the situation just in the last month where a whole brand new, less than 18 months old wind tower, 250 metres tall, collapsed onto the ground. Every single Victorian has a right to know why that collapsed. The analogy, quite simply, is if the Rialto tower here in the heart of Melbourne CBD, which is approximately the same height, fell over tomorrow, Victorians would rightly want to know why it fell over. It is the same thing.

Country Victorians have a right to know who is managing the safety of this, who is reporting back and how we know it is not going to happen again tomorrow. We are getting towers now in western Victoria closing in on 300 metres tall, and they fall a long way when they collapse. We now know we have got wind turbines within close proximity to many busy roads and highways in country Victoria. We heard earlier today in question time that unless you have a Hollywood movie star driving down your road you are not likely to get it repaired anytime soon. However, the last thing you need is a towering inferno falling across your main road, and we need to make sure that that is not going to happen. These are some of the real issues in electrical and renewable energy safety that people in western Victoria want to know.

I touched earlier on 80 per cent of all life and property lost in fires being through a power pole collapsing. The simple facts on that: in western Victoria alone there are some 480,000 wooden power poles. We replace around about 3000 a year. Three thousand to 480,000 – we are simply not replacing and managing our existing infrastructure well, and we are not doing it in a way that is ensuring people are safe. Many people in western Victoria, because the date stamps are on the power poles, will know that some nearly 25 per cent of the power pole infrastructure in Victoria predates the Melbourne Olympic Games. They are pre-1956. Anyone who knows anything about a piece of hardwood stuck in the ground will also testify quite openly here: a piece of hardwood stuck in the ground does not last much longer than 50 years. And we are expecting our power infrastructure to keep going that long.

Those types of real issues are not touched on in this bill. Instead we are going after plumbers to make sure that they implement the government’s ideological approach to energy use here in Victoria, not on a sustainable and safe measure. That is of great concern not only to me but to the profession and to households, because quite simply, Acting Speaker O’Keeffe – and I note that you are from a regional area as well – many, many people in regional Victoria do not have access to full power supply. With the current demand, if I was to go and build a standard three- or four-bedroom, new-format, all-electric house, as this government wants, even in my own home town of Colac, which is by no means a small country town, many of the new house blocks that have been released in my community today on the outskirts of town would not be able to power that single home if it was all-electric. There are simply not enough kilowatts going into those homes to provide them with all-electric heating, all-electric cooking. There are simply some households that need the choice. They need the options; they need to be able to choose what is best for them.

This government’s continual approach through legislation to start mandating energy choices and the ways that people heat their hot water and keep their houses warm, without full knowledge of the frail network and system that we have here in Victoria, just points to how out of touch this government now is and how citycentric it is. I take the case example of an existing home in my electorate where the gas hot water has blown up, and we are going to have a situation where this government can penalise a plumber $48,000 for hooking up a similar hot-water system just to get that customer going again and make sure that family has got hot water, when there clearly would not be an electrical option. To me it makes no sense at all, and to think that we are spending time in this Parliament legislating for that is a real concern.

I touched earlier on, with the minute or so I have left, ESV and their responsibility. The other disappointing part about this legislation is it does not in fact impose more openness and transparency on ESV, it actually allows them to get away with less. I think it is moving from publishing plans once a year to plans every three years.

When we have a known crisis in the wooden pole electrical transmission system in Victoria, which is solely their responsibility, they need to be reporting not only to the government but to the community on a far more regular basis. We also know that this dilutes a responsibility around the management of vegetation around powerlines and power and transmission easements. This is another crucial factor in regional Victoria. Far too often fires and adverse events occur because of the mismanagement of that, and that is something on which at all times maximum vigilance needs to be maintained.

All in all, the opposition will be presenting clear amendments to this bill – there will be quite a few – to be dealt with through the course of the bill, but as it stands now, this is yet another bill put forward by this government that is more focused on its very political objectives and not on the best interests and safety of all Victorians, both country and city, for the long-term betterment and growth of the state.

Michaela SETTLE (Eureka) (15:06): I rise today in support of the Energy and Land Legislation Amendment (Energy Safety) Bill 2025. I have listened to the debate in this place, particularly from those on the other side, and I am fairly stunned that they can stand to object to a bill that is really about safety both for people working in the energy sector and for families and domestic services. It was extraordinary to hear the member for Polwarth suggest that this bill is ideologically driven. In his contribution I could hear nothing but the other side’s perverse ideology, which is to hold on to those old forms of energy and to reject renewable energy at every turn, which is a crying shame for all of us, for our planet and for our children.

I am incredibly proud of what this government has done to work towards a renewable future for Victoria. I would like to take a moment to acknowledge the Minister for Energy and Resources and Minister for the State Electricity Commission, who has worked really tirelessly to try and make sure that Victoria has a hopeful future, a future which is supplied with renewable energy so that we can continue to have the wonderful life that we have had. To continue to block this bill seems to me to be fairly ideological and really rooted in the opposition’s obsession with coal or, God forbid, nuclear energy.

I too live in the south-west of the state, in the regions. It was interesting that the member for Polwarth suggested that we are a city-centric government when only weeks ago the member for Brighton liked to say that out-of-towners were in charge.

A member interjected.

Michaela SETTLE: Yes. It is pretty extraordinary. I am very proud to be the convener of the regional caucus for this side of the house, and we are a big caucus. There are lots of regional people out there, lots of hardworking Labor members in regional areas, and we are very proud that our leaders are out-of-towners – we are very, very proud. It is odd that the member for Polwarth likes to call us city centric, but I suppose that is just indicative of the relentless splits in those on the other side. Half of them think we are city centric, half of them think we are too regional. It is just more and more of the splits.

Emma Kealy: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, this is a very limited bill. It is about energy and land legislation. It is not a time to attack the opposition for totally unrelated matters. I ask you to bring the member back to the bill.

Nick Staikos: On the point of order, Acting Speaker, I have been listening to members opposite on this bill and it has been a fairly wideranging debate, so I would ask you to rule the member’s point of order out of order.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Kim O’Keeffe): I do ask the member to come back to the bill.

Michaela SETTLE: I would like to point out that I was responding to a comment made by the member for Polwarth about this government being city centric in his debate not 2 minutes ago.

Emma Kealy: On a point of order, Acting Speaker – and it is wonderful to see you in the chair; I have not had you in the chair since you have been in that position, and you are doing an excellent job – the member is defying your ruling to return back to debating the bill in front of us, and I ask you to redirect her to come back to the bill or otherwise sit her down.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Kim O’Keeffe): Member for Eureka, can I please ask you not to reflect on prior reflections to the debate.

Michaela SETTLE: Can I ask you, am I able to respond to other debaters in this place, like the member for Polwarth?

Emma Kealy: You are disrespecting the Chair.

Michaela SETTLE: No, I am asking for clarity. Can I respond to the member for Polwarth’s contribution?

The ACTING SPEAKER (Kim O’Keeffe): If you are responding in a respectful manner. I ask you to come back to the bill.

Michaela SETTLE: Absolutely. Then I would like to respond to the member for Polwarth’s comment that this government is city-centric, which he made just a moment ago in his contribution to this debate, and I would like to point out in my contribution to this debate –

Emma Kealy: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, this is the third time that the member has defied your ruling. I ask you to direct her to either return to the bill or to sit her down because she is not applying your rulings, which is inappropriate and disrespectful. You should be respected; anybody in that chair should be respected.

Nick Staikos: Acting Speaker, the member is entitled to respond to commentary made by the previous speaker on this bill. I ask that you rule the point of order out of order.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Kim O’Keeffe): I ask the member to come back to the bill and please not reflect on the former member that was on their feet in a disrespectful manner. Thank you. Could you please come back to the bill.

Michaela SETTLE: May I seek some guidance from the Speaker? I do not believe I was speaking disrespectfully at all; I was responding to a comment made. Could I have some guidance on this, because I do not believe it is a point of order.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Kim O’Keeffe): Okay. Could you please just continue on with your contribution.

Michaela SETTLE: Thank you. I am really delighted to speak on this bill, because this bill is all about ensuring safety for working people. On this side of the house our very core is to protect working people, and this bill is about making sure that as we transition to this incredibly important renewable future ahead of us people are safe within that.

I have a particular interest in this bill. I am delighted that my electorate is home to several wind farms and several other proposed wind farms. I am delighted that my electorate will really contribute to this wonderful new renewable future that we have ahead of us, but of course what is important to me is the safety of people in my community. We have had some incidents on wind farms locally, and that just highlights how incredibly important this bill is. What is extraordinary is that the bill that we put through in 2023 was able to be enacted to come in support of the people involved in those incidents. Those on the other side seem to wish to deny the very success of the Energy Legislation Amendment (Energy Safety) Bill 2023, which really did introduce strong penalties for noncompliance, and I am delighted that those new penalties were brought to bear as incidents have occurred.

This bill will increase the oversight and enforcement powers of Energy Safe Victoria, and I think what is really important is that, in reducing the regulatory red tape, what it really means is that they can focus on the thing that is most important, which is of course getting out there and ensuring that our operators are taking a proactive approach to safety.

We are absolutely unapologetic on this side of the house about putting the safety of Victorians first. Worker and community safety is non-negotiable. We recognise that Victoria’s energy landscape is evolving rapidly, and this bill ensures that our regulatory framework can keep pace as we develop into this bold new future. We committed over $7 million in the 2023 budget to ensure that Energy Safe Victoria has the tools it needs to adapt and enforce the highest safety standards. Victoria is leading Australia in renewable energy, and we are doing it the right way. We are creating jobs, reducing emissions and keeping our workers and communities safe, and this bill is another step forward in that journey. It can only be said that those on the other side have an ideological problem with renewable energy. They want us to pursue costly and risky nuclear.

Jade BENHAM (Mildura) (15:16): You will be happy to know that – or as you well know – the Nationals’ debates on these bills come from a place of community and reflect what the community are thinking on particular topics.

How do you get community members, landholders and food producers to go from zero to 100 in 0.98 seconds? You mention energy and land in one sentence – one sentence – because this is such a contentious issue. With this bill, as with a lot of bills that come through this place in some sort of strategy, I am guessing, or it might be oversight – who knows, really – there are certain parts of the bill that we might agree with, but we have to oppose things like this Energy and Land Legislation Amendment (Energy Safety) Bill 2025, because there are large parts of it that are just not practical on the ground, particularly for communities out in the regions. So it leaves us no choice. But of course then we get demonised for standing up for our communities, which is another reason that the Nationals in particular will keep standing up, particularly on that energy and land topic that is so important, literally from the top of the state to the bottom of the state. The member for Lowan spoke about it earlier, and I will get to that.

The obvious kinds of things that we are not okay with, and it has been illustrated by members on this side, include the penalties. Let us focus on the penalties. No one disagrees with safe workplaces – no-one. What we do disagree with is how hard the Labor government is making it to operate a business, much less be a tradie or a food producer in this state. The added powers and the increased penalties applied to tradies – like the member for Polwarth said – mean that if a gas hot water system needs to be replaced and you can get a plumber, let us say, to fix that gas hot water service, that is now a crime. That just makes it impossible and impractical. Tradies are hard enough to find as it is, much less making their job – something that they were trained to do during apprenticeships and training, and they have done their entire career – now a crime. And then we are told this is not ideological, it is practical, and it is a road to renewable energy. No. It is a ridiculous result of this government’s ridiculous ban on gas and their failure to explore for gas. Parts of this bill are just completely devoid of common sense. Surprised? Are you not? I would not have thought so.

Even that 20-point difference, going from 40 to 60, given that those points are worth around about $200 each – I think they are about $198 – makes it bad enough. But then if that tradie gets suspended – it is an immediate suspension – the appeal to have the suspension lifted has to go through VCAT. I do not know whether you have had or heard of any cases going through VCAT recently. At a glacial pace does it move.

You have got tradies who are finding it so tough to do business in this state. There are not enough of them. We have got families who may need plumbers, gas fitters, electricians. They are already hard enough to find, and we are literally suspending them while we wait for the VCAT process. Again, have a little bit of common sense and practicality here, please, I beg of you. We have been begging this government for some common sense for a long time, and it certainly has not come in this bill.

Then there is the confusion over the overlapping powers of WorkSafe and Energy Safe. I would like to be a fly on the wall when that happens and they turn up at the same site, because if someone is working with something to do with energy, as illustrated in this bill – that is bound by this bill – then that is automatically a worksite, is it not? I would have thought every site is a worksite. So then it is also governed by WorkSafe, would it not be? I would have thought so. Who then has jurisdiction? Is it WorkSafe, is it Energy Safe? No-one knows, and we will just wait for them to turn up and they can sort it out themselves. Is that the solution here? Again, that is no solution. If you have someone that has had their licence suspended while that bunfight is going on and you have got VCAT on top of that, again it makes no sense.

Then there is the removal of the Electric Line Clearance Consultative Committee and the Victorian Electrolysis Committee, the dissolution of these committees. It should come as no surprise that these committees are being abolished, silencing the voice of actual stakeholders, people on the ground and experts in their field. If you were part of an advisory committee to many of the water boards around the state, you would know that those advisory committees were dissolved a little while ago. It leaves the local boards on the ground to wear it from people that were on those advisory committees. I know in our part of the world, where we have a huge population of irrigators who sit on those advisory committees to offer advice to the board, the boards are the ones that wear it, and their anger is directed in the wrong spot. Again, it makes no sense, but it comes as no surprise.

My biggest issue with this bill is the greater powers to enter land without landholders’ consent and without the presence of the owner but requiring a warrant from a magistrate. I did ask some questions during the bill briefing. It does not matter what you are talking about, if you mention energy and land to constituents, community members, landholders and people in my electorate, they go from zero to a hundred very, very quickly. Then they hear that there are greater powers to enter land without landholders’ consent after Transmission Company Victoria were awarded their transmission licence on Monday. People in the Southern Mallee are now very, very nervous that their land is going to be compulsorily acquired. This is a problem. There are perceptions around that they are anti renewables or they are being NIMBYs – not in my backyard. No, they are worried about the generational farms that have been farmed since the land was cleared. They are worried about not having any power to appeal if someone comes knocking on the door or comes to the farm gate to say, ‘Hey, we’re going to put a tower on your farm,’ which then has all the flow-on effects of not being able to work underneath it and all of these things that are also not clear at the moment. You can understand why landholders would be triggered by this bill, and I do not blame them.

Last Sunday I was in Wycheproof to meet with a large section of the community at the Terminus Hotel. Honestly, I have never seen anything like it, but for the first time you have these small communities who are usually so tight-knit at war with one another. They are at war with their neighbours, they are at war with their brothers, sisters, mums and dads because one has an opinion about powerlines, wind turbines or a mineral sands mine and the other has a different opinion.

There is no clarity, there is no transparency. With all the overheads that go into producing food at the moment and then the added pressure of the government coming in to just acquire your land under the guise of a different brand like TCV or Energy Safe or whatever it might be, it is absolutely appalling that this government treats our food producers, landholders and grassroots community members in my electorate like they do not matter when they are the ones that are putting food on your plate every single day.

Essentially that is what it comes down to: if this government continues this reckless rollout to renewables, chewing up Victoria’s agricultural land, it then becomes a question of food security. You cannot eat wind. You can eat the food that we grow, and it is getting more and more diabolical out there every single day.

Steve McGHIE (Melton) (15:26): I rise today to contribute on the Energy and Land Legislation Amendment (Energy Safety) Bill 2025. Firstly, I would like to thank the Minister for Energy and Resources and Minister for the State Electricity Commission and her team for all the great work that they have done on this bill. It is a remarkable piece of legislation that reinforces that we are at the leading edge of this innovative technology and absolutely on the right track for not only Victoria and the economy but also our environment and of course our future. It is genuinely an honour to assist in and be part of a government that is bringing this to reality.

We spend a lot of time on this side talking about energy, energy transition and the future of Victoria because ensuring safety in the delivery of essential services like energy is a top priority for this government. It goes beyond protecting lives and property. Strong energy safety measures are crucial for building public trust and of course acceptance as we transition to renewable energy. That is one of the reasons why this bill is so important. It introduces reforms that will enhance long-term safety for Victorians and strengthen consumer confidence in Energy Safe Victoria, the state’s energy safety regulator.

The bill amends the Electricity Safety Act 1998, the Gas Safety Act 1997, the Pipelines Act 2005 and the Energy Safe Victoria Act 2005 to modernise Victoria’s energy safety framework. It also makes changes to the Land Act 1958 to provide greater investment certainty for complex projects and unreserved Crown land. The bill ensures that the framework keeps pace with these changes to manage emerging risk effectively, because Victoria’s current energy safety laws were designed for a centralised fossil fuel network, leaving some regulatory gaps that must be addressed.

Victoria’s energy landscape is rapidly evolving, and previous contributions have alluded to that. I know the member for Eureka was talking about the amount of wind farms that are in her electorate, and I see that because I do drive in from that area each week and there are wind farms popping up everywhere in the western district. Of course the rise of small-scale distributed energy sources such as rooftop solar, home batteries and electric vehicles has transformed how energy is generated and used, and that is something that I know Meltonians have absolutely welcomed into their neighbourhoods. Something that I am really impressed by and very proud of is that over 8280 households across Melton have received either solar home rebates or interest-free loans, which makes it one of the highest in the metropolitan area in regard to the take-up of these products. It saves something like $1 billion for families, this installation of solar panels, hot-water systems and batteries, and add to that the money they are saving each and every day on their bills, which is amazing for people in our electorate. I commend them for doing that and for taking up those particular products.

I hope everyone has seen the news lately – it was spoken about in Question Time – we had Liam Neeson out at Bacchus Marsh airport last week doing some filming of his new movie, The Mongoose.

A member interjected.

Steve McGhie: Yes, I will rub it in a little bit. I will not say he came out there just to meet up with me, the member for Eureka and the Minister for Creative Industries, but he did. We all popped out there and let me tell you about energy –there was a lot of energy out there at that aerodrome, let me tell you about that. The reason why they filmed out at the Bacchus Marsh Aerodrome is because they said the background scene of the mountains was similar to Afghanistan and that was the scene that they wanted to set. So to the Bacchus Marshans: you know your place is not Afghanistan, but that is why they filmed it out there, apparently, so it was fantastic. Of course, it is the third film that Liam has done in Victoria, and he has got more planned. He is coming back next year, and he was very appreciative of what is going on in Victoria in regard to the film industry. This is adding something like $19 million back into the Victorian economy, but the most important thing out there is the $2 million that has been injected into the local economy out at Bacchus Marsh, and that allows the people of Bacchus Marsh and Melton – the ones that are on the set, the ones that are working there – to be able to purchase these solar panels, batteries, heat pumps and things like that. So to Liam Neeson, his crew and the directors: thank you for choosing Bacchus Marsh and that area, and the injection of funds into the local community in regard to that film.

I have got to extend my appreciation to VicScreen, in particular Caroline Pitcher, for their great work. To everyone that is working on that movie, I thank them because I think it has created in excess of 600 jobs, Victorian jobs. Again, that is money that is going into Victoria’s pockets to be able to engage with renewable energy. I will go back to the figure that I quoted before and that was over 8000 Meltonians that have taken up solar panels, heat pumps and interest-free loans, which is fantastic. It was probably unexpected that that is what would happen. But yes, it is great that that has happened out that way.

The bill introduces a suite of substantial amendments that improve Energy Safe’s ability. It addresses the safety risk, enforces compliance and responds effectively to emerging challenges, and includes new powers of entry with a warrant. Energy Safe officers will have enhanced entry powers where there is a risk to health and safety and to all property that does not yet constitute an emergency. It is delivering faster action on safety risks. The requirement for written consent before exercising certain powers will be lifted, and I think that is important.

I want to talk about the strengthening of bushfire mitigation and that is what this bill does. I want to go to some information around – and I know it has been raised previously when we have had debates around the previous energy bill in 2023 – bushfire mitigation. It was suggested in the past that the CFA will not respond to fires and things like that around these transmission towers and transmission lines. But in the information that has come to me, we know that the CFA volunteers have enormous experience, in particular with the procedures that they put in place. They safely fight fires around this type of infrastructure. They clearly assess the risk before entering any site – it does not matter whether it is transmission towers, transmission lines or any other fire that they respond to. Last year we strengthened Energy Safe Victoria’s powers to ensure operators of wind farms comply with strict energy safety laws and regulations, and this includes submitting detailed safety management plans to the regulator for approval.

Owners and operators of wind farms have a general duty under the Electricity Safety Act to ensure the wind farm is designed, constructed, operated, maintained and decommissioned safely. The CFA are also part of a government-appointed technical reference group ensuring that bushfire risk is considered and assessed when deciding the location and routes of the proposed transmission and renewable energy projects. What I am saying is that they are involved all the way through in regard to the planning, design and the routes that they may have to travel if they have to respond to a fire around the transmission towers or transmission lines, and they have vast experience.

The CFA also developed the design guidelines and model requirements for renewable energy facilities back in 2022, and that provides standard consultation in relation to bushfire risk and safety measures of renewable energy facilities, including wind farms. The guidelines have received not only national but international recognition, and most other Australian fire services have adopted those guidelines, which is fantastic.

I know I have only got a short bit of time, but the other thing I wanted to refer to was a visit by the Melton Specialist School last year by the year 10 students to the big battery out at Plumpton. Let me tell you, I think there were about 30 students that came out, and I have got to extend my thanks to all the workers that were onsite for taking the students around the big battery site – 444 batteries is my understanding. The big battery will be operational as of this year. The students were so excited to see it, and it just explained to them all about renewable energies. They took up an interest. This is an important bill, and I commend the bill to the house.

Wayne FARNHAM (Narracan) (15:36): I am pleased today to rise on the Energy and Land Legislation Amendment (Energy Safety) Bill 2025. I will reference the member for Melton just to let him know that Liam Neeson actually came to my electorate first in Walhalla, and if it was not for Walhalla he would not have come back to Victoria. It is that good down there. Unfortunately our potholes did not get fixed while he was here. Anyway, let us get back to the bill. There has been a fair bit of debate on this today, and it does include a range of things being amended: the Electrical Safety Act 1998, the Gas Safety Act 1997, the Pipelines Act 2005, the Energy Safey Victoria Act 2005, the Land Act 1958, the Environment Protection Act 2017 and other consequential acts.

The debate has been fairly broad ranging today, and there are certain aspects of this bill that concern me greatly. The member for Mildura touched on it earlier. Energy Safe Victoria will now have the power to prosecute people. I find this a bit of an overreach when we already have a body, which is called WorkSafe Victoria, that prosecutes workplace safety. I do not think Energy Safe Victoria should be given this power. I think it should stay firmly with WorkSafe. That is their job. No matter where you are in this state, no matter what action you take, no matter what you are doing, if you are working and an accident occurs, that is WorkSafe’s responsibility. I do think this is overreach, and I do not think Energy Safe Victoria should have this power. I think it very much and squarely should stay with WorkSafe.

When we are talking about this and we are talking about gas – and there has been a very big debate today on gas, and I will reference the member for Bulleen and some of his contribution today – we know that gas in this state is absolutely imperative to the energy supply of the state. It is not debatable. There is an expert that the member for Bulleen referenced earlier, Jane Norman.

John Pesutto interjected.

Wayne FARNHAM: Cooper Energy – thank you, member for Hawthorn. Twenty-five years of experience Jane Norman has, and basically she is saying that gas has at least 25 years supply in this state. Rightly so, I will listen to an expert in the industry. I am not going to listen to the minister responsible when she says, ‘I will take geology over ideology.’ We have got an expert here that says we have 25 years supply. I note the Gippsland Basin, for example, has 1.6 trillion cubic feet of gas.

Jade Benham: How many?

Wayne FARNHAM: 1.6 trillion – that is not billion, it is trillion – cubic feet of gas. That does not even include the Otway Basin. I am just talking about the Gippsland Basin. For the government to sit there and say to us that Victoria is out of gas is absolute rubbish. It is not true. Victoria has plenty of gas, and they need to get gas back in the system. But what they are doing now – and part of this bill reinforces this – is they are doing everything they possibly can in their power to stop gas occurring in this state.

The fines in this bill – the fines that have increased on trades from 40 penalty points to 240 penalty points – are absolutely criminal. To put that into perspective, that was a fine that used to be $880 but is now $48,000 for a tradie doing their job – 48 grand. That is absolutely ridiculous. When we talk about how we have got plumbers out there – they are gas-fitting plumbers – they are out there fixing the problems with people’s homes, and we have a lot of old homes in this state, and most of the homes built are on gas. If I look at the seats of Bass and Pakenham, for example, especially these two seats I will take in, most of those homes will be on gas.

It is interesting we have got the energy minister and the Premier sort of at odds about gas – the energy minister is saying, ‘No gas,’ and the Premier saying, ‘No, there’s nothing wrong with gas; it’s okay – if your gas hot plate dies, you can replace it with another gas hot plate.’ But a bill got passed in this Parliament just last year that banned plumbers from doing those works, and this bill reinforces it just with a big, massive fine. Now, that is not fair. So fancy these older people or even younger people that have bought a house that is a bit old – they have saved and scrimped and done everything else – in these seats of Pakenham and Bass, and all of a sudden they cannot get their gas fixed.

Now, if you are a retiree, a self-funded retiree, and you are just getting by – we know cost of living is tight – and your gas central heating unit dies, can you afford $15,000 to put split systems in every room in your house because you can no longer have a gas central heating unit? No, you cannot. Is there enough supply in the street to power that? No, there is not. The reason there isn’t is because most streets in this state only have two-phase supply; they do not have three-phase supply. They do not have three-phase supply, and that is the problem with the way this government has gone about energy and their energy policy – they have not done the homework, because if they had done the homework they would realise that most streets in this state only have two-phase supply.

I have said it before in this chamber: I had a friend in Kew; he lives in his street, he bought an electric vehicle – well, he is not a friend anymore because he bought an EV – but he got an EV point put in his house, and the guys there fitting the EV point said, ‘Only four more can be done in this street because there’s not enough supply coming into the street.’ So how are we going to de-gas the state when we do not have the supply? It is a very good question, and it is a question this government has not answered to this point in time; they have not answered this question, and they just keep coming out and making gas the enemy and saying gas is bad. I mean, this is the point where this state is at: last year a bill went through this house to approve offshore gas storage. Why do we need offshore gas storage? Because we have gone from being an exporter of energy to an importer of energy, and if people wonder why their energy bills are not coming down it is because we are now importing energy.

Yes, there is a space in this state for solar, and for those who can afford it that is great for them, but not everyone can afford it; it is as simple as that, and there are so many homes and so many residences in this state that are fuelled by gas. When we have got experts like Jane Norman from Cooper Energy, who is an absolute expert in her field, saying we have enough supply, why has the government in the last 10 years only issued one licence – one exploration licence in 10 years? The government was warned in 2014 that they had to do exploration for gas, but they ignored that warning – ignored it. So we have got experts saying, ‘Do exploration,’ and we have got the energy minister saying, ‘Gas is bad.’ It is not – it burns clean. If you want to transition into the renewable space, you need to have gas as part of this energy solution; it is really that simple. You cannot deny it, and the more you deny it the more pressure will come on our energy system.

The government should really get its head out of the sand and start looking for new gas in this state. We went to the 2022 election with a policy on gas. We went to the 2022 election with a policy to do exploration for gas but secure it for domestic supply. That is an important point: we should not be importing gas into this state. It was a good policy that we went for, and if the government was half-smart, maybe they would have picked it up. If they had picked it up a lot longer ago than 2022, this state would not be in the situation we are in today.

We are in an energy crisis, and the government cannot deny it. We have got a Premier and an energy minister at odds about it. They need to sort this out very quickly because the cost of energy in this state is out of control. Everyone can bang on about the cost of living all they want, but if you are not going to fix energy and you are not going to bring energy prices down, then you are in trouble. I have got one word of advice for the government: drill, baby, drill.

Kat THEOPHANOUS (Northcote) (15:46): I rise to speak in support of the Energy and Land Legislation Amendment (Energy Safety) Bill 2025, which is part of our ongoing efforts to forge a safe, reliable energy network, one that is fit for purpose and adaptive to our modern world. We are well into an era of transformative change in the way we power our homes, businesses and industries. Our Labor government has been at the forefront of this work, meeting every single emissions reduction and renewable energy target we have set and driving crucial investment into Victoria’s energy, resources and infrastructure sectors. The groundbreaking large-scale projects that we are progressing include massive battery, wind and solar projects but also at a household and community level things like rooftop solar, energy-efficient appliance upgrades and neighbourhood batteries. These will not only empower Victorians for decades to come but will safeguard our state and leave future generations a climate resistant energy network.

The stakes are high here. The transition to clean energy represents one of the most profound opportunities of our time but also demands that we build in the right regulations, the right governance, to protect our communities, anticipate risks and futureproof the system. The measures contained in these legislation amendments reflect that ongoing work to carefully calibrate the system and the structures which sit behind it to maintain safety, reliability and affordability.

There has been a lot of argy-bargy in the chamber about the fundamental direction Victoria should be headed in when it comes energy supply. I am not going to delve into that space because frankly the people I represent in Northcote have stood at the forefront of the energy transition for a very, very long time and we do not need to reprosecute debates about the value of renewable energy, protecting the environment and ending coal. My community understands that we must transition and that this transition must be not only safe and reliable but also just. That means bringing communities with us and delivering tangible support to households along the journey.

I am pleased to say that over the last six years as the member for Northcote I have worked hand in hand with local organisations, leaders and everyday residents to make tangible advancements in our collective efforts for a safer climate. That includes pushing for the Solar for Apartments initiative, for gas-free social housing, for stronger protection for our precious waterways, for a neighbourhood battery in Alphington and for more tree canopy down High Street in Northcote and Thornbury. Northcote is living proof that progressive, tangible and just energy policy is not only possible but popular and transformative. We recognise that every step towards cleaner energy is also a step towards healthier, more inclusive communities. We see the evidence in the real savings on power bills for people who were previously locked out of renewables schemes. We see it in improved air quality, in the pride people take in being part of our climate solution and in the knowledge that we are leaving a livable, sustainable city for our children.

One of the particularly splendid aspects of the inner north in which I live is its tree canopy. Many of our streets are lined with mature gums, plane trees, oak and wilga trees. These trees not only add to the charm and character of our streetscapes but serve a crucial purpose in cooling down our urban suburbs, which would otherwise suffer from very real impacts around the heat island effect.

Protecting and expanding this urban tree canopy has been one of my priorities locally and something I have raised on numerous occasions in Parliament, with Yarra and Darebin councils, with government and indeed directly with Energy Safe Victoria (ESV). All you have to do is walk down an urban street on a 35-degree day and take a moment to stand in the sun and then under a tree, and you will understand the profound difference that it makes to have that natural shade. And it is not just shade; trees are a filter for air pollution, they support mental wellbeing and they make our streets more accessible for pedestrians. They are an integral part of our city’s livability, particularly as we densify, yet all too often I have seen beautiful mature trees being lopped down because of the tension that arises from the demands of our energy infrastructure, particularly powerline clearance rules, and the imperative to protect our canopy. This happened in Gladstone Avenue in Northcote, where, regrettably and against our advice and advocacy, the then Greens-dominated Darebin council opted to remove a number of gorgeous mature gums, and residents were absolutely devastated. It is why I have been calling for much more nuance to be applied to the current regulations for electrical line clearances and for regional and metro areas to be considered differently in terms of their risk profiles and the serious impact of removing canopy from inner-urban suburbs. Blunt and indiscriminate tree removals cannot be the default.

Councils have a huge role to play here too. Councils are responsible under the regulations for keeping trees clear of electrical lines on the public land that they manage, which is most local streets. Ideally, councils should be pruning trees in advance to accommodate for the safety requirements. This would prevent vegetation growing too close in the first place. Arborists are very proficient at doing this as the trees grow – and trees grow slowly, as we know – but for existing mature trees this can be difficult.

This is why I have been exploring with ESV what other options are available to councils when they are faced with a situation in which powerlines are too close to the trees and they pose that risk of fire, electrocution or outages. There are a range of measures already available to councils. These include applying conductor covers, installing aerial bundled cable, realignment or putting the lines underground. Importantly, there are also a range of exceptions and exemptions which councils can apply to allow them to deviate from the minimum clearance space required. Yet from what we know, councils in the main simply do not make use of these provisions, meaning trees get cut down unnecessarily. Suffice it to say that I think more work does need to be done, particularly in the lead-up to renewing the electric line clearance regulations, to enable more avenues to protect our urban tree canopy.

This legislation makes important changes to ensure we maintain a proactive approach to energy safety and that we continue with our ambitious renewable energy and climate targets. It does alter the governance structures and process around clearance regulations. I note that some opposite have raised concerns about consultation, yet it is not normal practice for regulators – in this case ESV – to also have the function of creating policy, which is why the responsibility for making regulations was shifted to the Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action back in 2021. DEECA will consult publicly on the remake of the regulations, and I think that is a good thing because it means people in my own community – locals and advocates – can have their say on the regulations and the impact that they are having in our suburbs. I know that when the opportunity arises – and it will – I will certainly be having those conversations with both Darebin and Yarra councils as well as people in my own community about the importance of getting those regulations right.

Today I have focused mostly on a particular part of the legislation around energy safety regulations and clearances, but I do note there are a range of amendments which will help us to keep up with new energy safety risks that are being introduced by changes in industrial and residential technology, business models and consumer behaviour. This includes introducing a new entry power for Energy Safe officers to enter premises with a magistrate-issued warrant so they can investigate risks to public safety as well as expanding their powers to stop unsafe work and suspend an electrical contractor’s registration or an electrical workers licence where it is in the public interest.

The bill also clarifies that the Minister for Environment can sign a contract to lease unreserved Crown land on agreed terms, a change that reduces barriers to large-scale energy resources and infrastructure investment in Victoria. That is a really important thing to do.

It is about delivering on our Labor government’s vision for an energy system that is modern, environmentally responsible and socially inclusive.

Let us not forget that our government is responsible for the revival of the SEC to put power back in the hands of Victorians. We are responsible for the Solar Homes and the Victorian energy upgrades schemes, enormous programs delivering real-world, tangible energy savings for families across our communities. In Northcote we are working with Village Power to establish a neighbourhood battery, an amazing initiative that is part of our work to decentralise the energy network. For my community in the inner north, pieces of legislation like this, which deliver pragmatic, practical steps to fortify our renewable energy sector and create a regulatory environment that protects consumers and safeguards our environment – that kind of work – really make a difference. It is about securing a quality of life that is not just for this generation but for the next generation and the one after that. We need a reliable, affordable and clean energy network, one that is sensitive to the needs of both regional and metro areas and the particular pressures that we face. It needs to be sustainable, and it needs to have equity at its core. I commend this bill to the house.

John PESUTTO (Hawthorn) (15:56): I rise to speak on the Energy and Land Legislation Amendment (Energy Safety) Bill 2025. What strikes me about this bill is the paradox in it. On the one hand the government is diminishing the level of scrutiny it ought to face by the abolition of very important committees that are there to provide the government with advice but at the same time enhancing and strengthening many of the penalties, it seems without any real explanation for why, on many of the workforces that we will need to deliver the transition. Perhaps what sits at the background, though, of this bill is the absence of the government’s vision for how it will secure energy for our state and how it will assure households and businesses, not only those domestic to Victoria but nationally and globally, that we have an energy system that can support an economy and that will support Victoria’s growing population, a population which is the fastest growing population in the nation.

We have heard much in the debate about gas. It is a future that looks very ominous at this point in time. The government’s rhetoric about gas seems to be characterised by a split personality. On the one hand, if you look at the moratorium that it left in place until 2021 coupled with its road map on gas and then compare that with the economic growth statement last year, you can only wonder at how it can reconcile the two competing positions. Whatever its rhetoric on gas, it cannot ignore the reality that will have very profound and real-world consequences for Victorians – businesses and households alike. We know that the Gippsland Basin venture, a joint venture between ExxonMobil and Woodside, is a mature asset, but we know it has a number of years yet before its wells are depleted. We know that the Otways does provide a source of gas supply. But if you believe in a responsible transition to renewables, you have to support gas remaining in the system. With those depleting resources in the Gippsland Basin and the Otways, we know that there is gas available which can be sourced conventionally and brought to market in a conventional manner. But the government has done nothing to encourage that; in fact it has done everything to discourage that. What does that mean for Victoria? It means that when it comes to gas, which will be an essential energy source to support households and businesses and to support the transition, we will have to become increasingly dependent as an importer of gas from the rest of the country, whether it is the Gladstone, Darwin or Western Australian facilities or globally in Asia and beyond, to source gas.

We know that there are a number of import proposals underway at the moment. We have Squadron Energy with the Port Kembla proposal. We have Royal Vopak with a Port Phillip proposal and Viva Energy with its Geelong refinery proposal. The government needs to come clean and tell Victorian businesses and households whether it is going to approve that. The Viva Energy one is due for an announcement by the end of March. But what importing gas means is that not only do we pay a premium, because to buy imported gas you have to engage in liquefaction, you have to then ship it –

The SPEAKER: Order! The time has come for me to interrupt business for the matter of public importance.

Business interrupted under sessional orders.