Thursday, 3 April 2025

Bills

Victorian Energy Efficiency Target Amendment (Energy Upgrades for the Future) Bill 2025

Second reading

Debate resumed on motion of Lily D’Ambrosio:

That this bill be now read a second time.

James NEWBURY (Brighton) (10:11): I rise to speak on the Victorian Energy Efficiency Target Amendment (Energy Upgrades for the Future) Bill 2025. What this bill does, in simple terms, is extend the energy upgrades program from a legislated end date of 2030 to 2045. It was due to end in 2030, so extend that by 15 years. It changes and mandates a number of issues in terms of the operation of the program; it adds new legal and regulatory mechanisms around that; it also changes the mechanism of climate target setting, which I will come to in some great detail; and it does a number of other technical things, including reducing the public reporting requirements around changes in how the scheme operates. The coalition, I must say, has great, great concerns with this bill. Not just the coalition, Victorians have great concerns with this bill. We have seen what has previously been described, including by me, as perhaps one of the greatest sets of rorts under a government taxpayer-funded scheme in this state’s history. Under the energy upgrades program we have seen some of the greatest rorts ever under a government-funded scheme, and at the end of the day the point that is forgotten and probably became so stark with this upgrades scheme is that the taxpayer pays for it.

So when you see a dozen fridges on the sidewalk being dropped into a business that did not ask for it so the company and provider who dropped them off can rip off the taxpayer, the taxpayer pays for it. The taxpayer pays for the whole thing. We saw, which I will come to in more detail, just an absolutely shocking level of rorting with fridges but not just with fridges. We have seen this when it comes to hot-water heaters which were not appropriate being pulled from the scheme after being eligible under the scheme for years. More recently we have started to hear reports of hot-water heater rorts in terms of upgrades. We are hearing about rorts now because the government has moved to hot-water scheme upgrades at the moment, in terms of priority of the upgrade process, and we are hearing of shocking rorts starting in that space. I feel very confident that this government is not looking deeply enough or frankly caring enough about taxpayer money, and in discussions about this bill they have confirmed that in terms of the level of auditing of the program; I will return to it later.

In terms of this bill, the government has confirmed that in terms of going out and looking at complaints under the upgrades program, over the last financial year – as in, the current financial year, but from the middle of last year to today – the department has gone out to 25 sites.

Roma Britnell: How many?

James NEWBURY: Twenty-five sites. I feel confident in saying that my office, I am sure your office and I am sure many of our offices, over that time will have received that many complaints ourselves and over a year will receive double that. I am sure that many of our offices would receive a complaint a week. The government has confirmed that in terms of overseeing audits and inspecting those audits there have been 25 field inspections between July last year and early this year. It is extraordinary. There were more desktop audits, but frankly, what is a desktop audit going to do? Are they looking at the email that has come in and reading the email? Does that count as a desktop audit – receiving an email, seeing that they cannot find any further information other than the email that has been provided and setting it aside, job done. Twenty-five field inspections – we only have data for the period of time between July and early this year in terms of field audits. I feel very confident that the number of field audits over previous years would not be greatly higher, because we have seen stunning examples of rorting in relation to this program.

I should start by saying that the coalition cannot support the bill as stands. In addition, I move:

That all the words after ‘That’ be omitted and replaced with the words ‘this house refuses to read this bill a second time until the government explains the true costs of the extension of the Victorian energy upgrades (VEU) program from 2030 until 2045, guarantees no further instances of rorts, waste and exploitative practices will occur and concludes the ongoing strategic review of the VEU program.’

Could I have that amendment circulated. I will speak to the final point for a moment of that amendment. Mid last year the government announced a review into the energy upgrade system – in June 2024, a two-year review. There is the equivalent of almost eight staff working on that review, and the outcome of the review will not be released to the public until mid next year.

A member interjected.

James NEWBURY: But we are legislating now, member. We are legislating in relation to a scheme that the government is currently reviewing. Can you believe it? One of the reasons why is actually to cover one of the changes in this bill, and it is something that we have spoken about in this chamber over a number of years and I have spoken about many times over recent years. What has been put into this bill is a change to the climate change target setting. I hear you ask, ‘But hang on, isn’t this bill about upgrading the energy upgrades program? Isn’t this bill about changes to how the energy upgrade program works?’ You would be fair to ask, if this bill is about the energy upgrades program, as the government have said – and they have been recently attention-grabbing in the naming of their bills, with ‘(Energy Upgrades for the Future)’ – why are we changing the target setting in this bill?

Many have not been aware that this bill goes to how targets are set in this state, and how targets are set in terms of the mechanism in legislation requiring target setting has been very, very contentious.

If I can take the chamber very briefly back through some of that history, a number of years ago the coalition took a leadership position in committing to legislating targets. It was a difficult but important decision. We took a leadership role in saying it is important for the community, it is important for business and it is important for Victorians, and more broadly Australians, to understand, if we are setting targets, what they will be, because you have to let the community know, you have to let business know what the measures will be, and frankly you have to be accountable for them. That is the point. When you set targets and legislate them, you have to be accountable for them – not just change them with ministers putting out numbers on press releases, but put them into law and be accountable for them. Give businesses certainty. Give the community certainty.

This impacts more than just our state. What we do in one state impacts everywhere else, so we need to make sure that we have certainty. We took a leadership role in announcing a commitment before the last election to legislate. At the time, what did Labor say? No. They said no. In fact I distinctly remember the former Premier and I having quite a strong argument in the middle of question time about it. The question was about something else, but he and I had a go at each other to the point that the Speaker – and in no way am I reflecting on the Speaker – decided to give me a short break from the chamber. It was a heated debate about the need to legislate. Basically the then Premier – I cannot remember if these were his exact words – said something like ‘When hell freezes over’. He was strongly opposed to legislating those targets, and he did not.

To give the Minister for Energy and Resources some credit, I think the minister would have been an advocate for legislating targets at the time – not in the way that we would have legislated them with having the accountability mechanisms around them. Nevertheless, if I speak about the former Premier and the minister for energy, I would suggest that the minister probably had a different view on this. But I digress. The government said no.

Now there has been a change in Premier and we have seen targets legislated. What we said at the time the bill went through this place, and I spoke to the bill when the bill went through this place, was we need to have targets that work and, frankly, we need to have accountability mechanisms if we do not meet them. When we spoke about it, we said on things like wind energy, ‘The government’s legislating, but they ain’t going to meet the target.’ We said it from day one. The offshore wind policy in Victoria has been an absolute national disgrace. We have become a national laughing-stock on offshore wind because of a total breakdown in the government’s capacity to understand how the commercial sector works.

Then in terms of the engagement with the federal government on possible projects, we have seen a Labor government in Canberra overruling projects that the Victorian Labor government was backing, and then Victorian ministers coming out and saying, ‘These guys have no idea.’ To be fair, I do not think they are just saying that about this policy area. We have seen what the federal Labor Party what have said about the Suburban Rail Loop – not a dollar in the budget.

Roma Britnell interjected.

James NEWBURY: As my colleague has just said, it does not surprise us that the Prime Minister is not with the Premier. He is nowhere near the Premier.

But I digress. On offshore wind, when the target bill came through we made a point of saying, ‘Legislate, but make sure you reach the targets.’ We also made the point that there was no accountability mechanism in the bill. So if they do not reach them, guess what happens? Nothing.

You are changing how energy is provided in this state, and that is why we talk repeatedly about the need for energy to be reliable, secure and affordable. It must be. There have been many bills where we have made the point that those basic principles are not at the forefront of the government’s decision-making. Reliable, affordable, secure energy –

Roma Britnell: Have they brought down the emissions as well?

James NEWBURY: And we will get to that in just a moment. When it comes to the target setting, the member for South-West Coast has pointed out that the targets have been set with no accountability mechanisms.

What did not get much coverage and attention late last year was that the government snuck a little report, the Victorian Greenhouse Gas Emissions Report update, into the Parliament. On every emissions report, the government puts out a press release; it holds a parade, almost. The minister loves holding parades for herself, doing questions in question time – up, up, up, down, down, down. She is a very, very animated minister, ready for a show. But I do not know if you know, member for South-West Coast, that there was a report tabled at the end of last year, an update on the emissions in Victoria. I do not recall hearing a thing about it. There certainly was not a press release. Why would that be? Could it be because over the last two-year period reported total emissions have increased in this state by 5.4 per cent? The minister crows about climate emissions coming down, and over the two most recent reporting years they are up by 5.4 per cent. But where is the press release on that? Where is the minister doing a dance in question time on that one? ‘Up, up, up,’ she could say. We have not seen her come in and do a little up, up, up dance. Why not? We want to see it from the minister. Emissions are up, up, up in Victoria. The minister had that report snuck through the chamber. She did not crow about that. And what has followed?

Roma Britnell interjected.

James NEWBURY: This bill – exactly, member for South-West Coast. What this bill does is change the target-setting process in Victoria, which is by legislation a five-year target. Every five years there is a target for that period. So what has this government added to the energy upgrades bill? The power for the minister to set targets for the next two years and then for the next three years, changing the target process. You might say to yourself, ‘Why would the government not have split the bill and included those heads of power in its own bill?’ – because the climate target-setting measures were dealt with as a single piece of legislation, as was appropriately the case. But then on an energy upgrades bill, the government has snuck in changes to climate target setting in Victoria, and I do not think Victorians are fully aware of that.

This Labor government, which crows about its achievements, certainly has not spruiked it and certainly has not spruiked the fact that emissions are going up. So that is what we have seen over recent months: confirmation that in Victoria emissions are going up, up, up. I feel like I do not do it justice without a minister’s dance, but that is okay, I will let the minister do that one. The emissions have gone up, up, up in Victoria and we have a bill that cuts, cuts, cuts the legislated target-setting process.

Just to repeat: emissions are up and the legislative process has been cut, cut, cut. Not only is the legislative process for target setting being amended but we see a process that has no accountability mechanisms built into it. It is an extraordinary, untold failure of this government. What this government would do if they were honest is say they are getting it wrong on climate and energy policy – clearly, because they are amending their legislation to change the processes and emissions are going up.

Why does that matter? It matters for many, many reasons, but one of the reasons is embedded in reducing emissions is the energy upgrades program. If you are spending literally hundreds of millions of dollars on a program giving people free stuff, the very least you would expect is that the program works. There are questions about whether the program is giving out too much money, whether or not it is being rorted. I think those questions are very well established, but then to know that emissions are going up at the same time, you say to yourself, ‘What’s the government doing with hundreds of millions of dollars on this program?’ All of this policy is hurting Victorians, because we know when it comes to the bills that they get, the bills are going up, the cost you pay is going up.

One of the core components of the bill you pay is an environmental cost. It is embedded into the Victorian default offer. The most recent Essential Services Commission default offer report shows that the environmental cost increased over the last year from $132 to $135 of the cost, and that is partly because, as the Essential Services Commission said, of the reasons for the environmental costs that are embedded in your bill – the energy upgrades program. This government program adds directly to a consumer’s cost.

Roma Britnell interjected.

James NEWBURY: The minister did say that, member for South-West Coast. What the recent default offer shows is the environmental cost that is secretly embedded in your bill. You do not get to see that it is because of the government’s energy upgrade program. As we – the collective ‘we’ – are all paying for it, you would say to yourself, ‘Gee, I hope this is working, because we’re all paying for it,’ and we know it has not worked. Emissions have gone up. Things like the environmental charge in your bill, which is hidden, are going up. I often hear from the government that, ‘Oh well, we know that –

A member interjected.

James NEWBURY: I have got another 7 minutes, and I am going to put you through the whole thing. We know that the government then says the program reduces the average household cost to the consumer, through their bill, by $110. But how much environmental cost is built into the bill – $135. I know Labor are not very good at maths, but one is greater than the other, so we all pay more.

Frankly, and I spoke to it earlier, one thing that we as Victorians were really aggrieved about was the level of rorting in this scheme. Hundreds of millions of dollars in a scheme that was rorted in a dramatic fashion – the biggest rip-offs in the state’s history.

You can look to the comments of small business owners like Bearded Jaffle owner Todd Gawn, who said quite eloquently:

Whoever thought this scheme up needs to be hauled before any inquiry, because it’s costing us more money that none of us have.

That is the point, because it is his money. It is all of our money, and the government is wasting it. We heard before their answer to the waste is 25 field inspections. Can you believe it? And they were not all of the figures. We know that the department did not give us reports of rorts to the department, so presumably when members of Parliament have been reporting rorts to the minister and the minister has been providing that to department, that is not included in the reporting that has been provided. Thousands of reports of rorts would have occurred; there is no question about that. Another business owner who runs a cellar door in Coldstream explained:

They gave us 15 and they wanted to give us 21 fridges …

I started calling up businesses in Healesville and Coldstream and basically these guys are driving door to door and dropping off fridges.

There’s a doughnut shop in the main street … that’s now got 10 fridges at the front.

I remember arriving at one of my local cafes in Hampton, and there were five fridges out the front. I said to him, ‘What’s this?’ He said, ‘I turned up to work, and there are five fridges out the front.’ What is so extraordinary is that not only did the government allow this to happen but there was not outrage that taxpayers money was being wasted – and not just wasted. This is not ‘we bought an extra BIC pen’. This is businesses seeing 21 fridges offered to them. It is a level of rort that frankly should be criminal; it is absolutely criminal waste. Another example from the general manager of Punt Road Wines:

To our surprise on Tuesday afternoon two blokes in a truck pulled up … and literally put 15 fridges on the deck before anyone batted an eyelid, and seriously wanted to give us seven more.

That is a new record: 22 fridges offered to that business. What did the Essential Services Commission say when all of this was exposed?

We are aware of instances of large numbers –

this is government language; when they say large numbers they mean it –

of refrigerated cabinets –

they mean fridges –

being dumped on the street or –

this is the government saying this –

provided to customers who don’t want them.

Well, thank you, Essential Services Commission – thank you for the candour in letting us know how much taxpayer money this government was allowing to be wasted.

Is it any wonder we say this government now wants to extend this program from 2030 to 2045 – 15 more years. What is this costing? What level of scrutiny is being overlaid onto this program? Clearly nothing, or nowhere near the level of scrutiny that is required, because we are now hearing circumstances of other types of appliances, including hot-water heaters, being rorted. I suspect and put the government on notice that they are not properly managing this scheme. To learn that there have been 25 field audits tells me the government is not leaning in. They cannot say the number of audits was because of COVID and no-one could leave the house and the public service needed to be protected. This was from July last year to early this year – 25 field audits. It is extraordinary.

They have got eight staff working on a report that underpins the reason for these changes, but they will not announce the outcome of the report before legislating, supposedly, what they are currently reviewing. Can you believe it? How does it even make sense? It does not. So we have no faith in the government’s management and in the government’s simply legislating until 2045 a scheme that we know there are big issues with, and rorting has been widescale and exploitative. We have obviously called for the strategic review and the details of the strategic review.

I will finish on the point by saying this program has led to higher emissions in this state, and as a result the government are changing, through this bill, the target-setting mechanism to get around their failures. They have now been called out for it. The coalition will not support it, and we have moved an amendment to make those points. We hope every Victorian can see the minister get up and do a dance about how emissions have gone up, up, up under her watch.

Mathew HILAKARI (Point Cook) (10:41): I too talk on the Victorian Energy Efficiency Target Amendment (Energy Upgrades for the Future) Bill 2025. I follow on from the member for Brighton, and he had one point right, which was that we extended the program from 2030 to 2045. He went through dozens and dozens and dozens of examples that he gets to his office all the time. He gets these complaints about the scheme. He might be a bit sad not to hear it, but he has had dozens and dozens of complaints. Unfortunately he decided not to pass those on. You would be shocked to hear that he decided not to pass them on. Now, I do not put that on his staff; his staff have a leader in the office, and that is the member of Parliament. My understanding is you could count one hand the number of times he has passed on those dozens and dozens and dozens of concerns. That is the advice I have. So is he just making things up in this place, or is he not doing his job? Because it is one or the other, it cannot be both. You talk about the dozens and dozens of problems that you are receiving all the time at your office, about how every week there is an overload of complaints and people lined up around the block, and yet you cannot shoot off a couple of emails; you cannot do anything about it. It says there is a real problem for the member for Brighton.

He mentioned rorts earlier. I always think about sports rorts. He spent a bit of time in Canberra. I do not think he was there for the sports rorts period, but he was talking a little bit about national policy. What I know about national policy for the Liberal Party is that when Dutton dials into Melbourne, Battin jumps, and after Battin has landed, he picks up the phone and says, ‘What am I going to do, boss? Tell me about what’s going on.’ Because we saw this week –

Roma Britnell: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, I think you noted with your eyes and my eyes that the member has strayed somewhat considerably from the bill. This is not an opportunity for him to talk about things irrelevant to the bill. It is time for him to come back, perhaps, to the bill.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, member. I will note that the lead speaker for the opposition did stay relatively close to the bill, and I –

Paul Edbrooke interjected.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Frankston will not reflect on the Chair. I would encourage the member to stay close to the bill.

Mathew HILAKARI: I do worry when the member for the South-West Coast is making eyes at people. That is always a concern. Deputy Speaker, you are in trouble.

I will go to the number of audits –

Roma Britnell interjected.

Mathew HILAKARI: You mentioned your eyes.

Roma Britnell: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, frankly, I feel quite offended. I would like to ask him to withdraw if he is implying that I have some sort of sexual connotations with my eyes across the room.

Members interjecting.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Roma Britnell: ‘Making eyes at people’ – excuse me!

Members interjecting.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member to withdraw.

Mathew HILAKARI: If it assists the house, I will withdraw.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Unequivocally, without explanation, withdraw.

Mathew HILAKARI: I withdraw.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Continue.

Mathew HILAKARI: Of the 500,000 upgrades that were done in the last calendar year, I understand 0.13 per cent had complaints. Twenty-one thousand desktop audits were undertaken. Why are desktop audits undertaken? Because often you do not need someone to go out onsite; a photo will suffice. A photo for most issues does suffice.

You pass on the photo and your complaint gets dealt with, and quickly it is rectified. There are always going to be some problems with programs when you are making new installations. This is a massive program of new installations that are improving the energy efficiency of this state.

In terms of our massive engagement with this, we have seen 2.4 million households, which is about a third of the households across the state, and 179,000 businesses benefit. Those on the other side might laugh at 179,000 businesses having energy-efficient products installed at their premises, but they actually find that this is an important program. It is an important program to improve the cost of living for households all across the state and for businesses as well. This is part of a broader regime of transitioning this state from carbon-intensive brown coal. We have had a great history with brown coal. We were incredible at developing brown coal, but it is no longer fit for purpose, and gas is no longer fit for purpose either. We have to make the transition or the transition will overwhelm us – and then we would be in real trouble in this state. The 2.4 million households and 179,000 businesses that have benefited since 2009 have benefitted from heat pumps, high-efficiency air conditioners, insulation, double glazing, public lighting upgrades and refrigerated cabinets. These are among the many energy-saving items that are part of this program. Just in 2023 it delivered rebates for 19,000 reverse-cycle air conditioners and 39,000 hot-water systems, and that is saving 28 million tonnes of emissions.

This program is not just about assisting those people who are the direct beneficiaries of this program, it is about reducing demand on the entire electricity system. That is a fundamental part of it. Of course that is a fundamental part of it. Of those opposite, some of them will be able to understand the basics of demand and supply, and when you have less demand on the system it is less expensive. Some of those opposite would be wise to think about how they could support this program instead of opposing anything that improves the lives and the cost of living for Victorians and the many businesses that have benefited from this program.

Between 2021 and 2025, the Victorian energy upgrades (VEU) program will avoid $3.8 billion in energy systems costs, because it is not just direct costs on bills; a large component of bills is made up of the energy system itself – of the wires and of the new production that is going on. In Victoria this production is all about solar and it is all about wind. In communities like mine in Point Cook you can look at the production on the rooftops of so many houses. It is an energy-forward-thinking community that is up for the task of transition. In the south-west of Melbourne – in Tarneit, in Werribee, in Truganina and in Point Cook – all these places are energy progressives. They have bought electric cars already, they have installed the solar production on their rooftops and they are getting energy-saving hot-water systems. Why? Because they know this transition is coming. It is right to get ahead of this. If governments do not get ahead of this, they will be overwhelmed.

I would like to take us onto the strategic review into the VEU, and this is about strengthening the scheme. It is not about moving the scheme on, it is about strengthening the scheme and improving the scheme. We set out that the scheme should be set out for two years instead of a five-year period, because we do not want to get ahead of the review. We want to make sure we understand the review and have set out the objectives for two years and from then on, from 2030 to 2045, in five-year lots, getting back to the regular schedule. This aligns our program with Victoria’s legislated target of net zero by 2045.

This is something that is nation leading. Victorians should be very proud that we are part of changing the energy regime in this country by leading first in Victoria. We have brought back the SEC – I know I am running close to the time – and we have legislated ambitious targets for renewable generation: 65 per cent by 2030 and 95 per cent by 2035. Generation on rooftops as a share of renewable energy has more than tripled since 2014. Since we came to government it has more than tripled. We are now producing 39 per cent of our power from renewable energy in this state. That speaks volumes about the capacity of Victorians to get behind the transition that is going on.

The gas is not going to be here forever. The sun will keep shining for a very long time, so it is great to see that Victorians are getting behind this program. They are getting solar on their rooftops, they are getting hot-water systems, they are getting energy-efficient heating and cooling in their houses and they are moving to double glazing. I commend this bill to the house and I look forward to its speedy passage.

Roma BRITNELL (South-West Coast) (10:51): I rise to speak on the Victorian Energy Efficiency Target Amendment (Energy Upgrades for the Future) Bill 2025. This is a bill that amends the Victorian Energy Efficiency Target Act 2007 to make changes to the Victorian energy upgrades program and the Victorian energy efficiency certificates, which are generated by the energy upgrades.

This program was set up by this government and it has been plagued with problems. It is a program that was supposed to assist in bringing down the price of power and reduce emissions. It is worth noting that the price of power has gone up under the watch of this government. In addition, the emissions for the last two years have gone up. There are major concerns with this scheme, not only because of the failure with the outcomes but also around the scrutiny of the program. This government has set up once again – as we have seen by Labor governments time and time again – a program that was subject to people rorting the system.

It was supposed to reduce energy costs and it was supposed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by providing access to discounted energy-efficient products and services – such as lights, fridges, air conditioners and heaters – for households and businesses in Victoria. Even if that is a good concept, unfortunately the government did not put the appropriate processes and controls in place, so we saw rort after rort after rort. Many of us had businesses coming to our offices. A local cafe owner rang me and said, ‘I’ve had six fridges delivered. What’s going on? This can’t be a good use of taxpayer money.’ In a cost-of-living crisis that just smacks of waste and mismanagement and somebody taking a really big opportunity because there was not the government scrutiny put in place for this program. That is why with this bill the government talks about ‘making good’ with one of the clauses so that they can force people to make sure things work. Shouldn’t that have been done years ago? Prima facie, even if this is a good concept, the government’s failure to put process in place has resulted in extraordinary waste.

We asked in the bill briefing for a list of the complaints to tell us what sort of complaint levels they have seen. What we did get told was there have been only 25 field visits. Only 25 times has the government gone out and looked at the problems the complaints were about. We asked for the amount of complaints, but apparently the government could not give us the amount that the Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action had received. I am not sure why we would be surprised, but I am pretty confident it would be in the thousands given the amount of people I have had ring my office complaining about getting hassled and things not working, and I will come to that a bit later.

In this program the Victorian energy certificates that are generated are supposed to be delivered once the consumer’s home has been upgraded, and one certificate represents a tonne of greenhouse gas emissions. The program requires large energy retailers to acquire and surrender these certificates based on the targets that are set by the government, and that is what is being changed in this bill. What we are seeing is a government who cannot meet the targets actually changing the legislation to be able to hide the fact that what they thought they could achieve they clearly could not.

Just remember, we as the Liberal–Nationals prior to this time suggested that we actually legislate targets so that government has to be accountable and actually meet the targets we proposed that we should all be accountable for. But the reality is that this government, who opposed that at the time, have now gone and tried to put some targets in place with no accountability factors for them to have to meet those targets, and they are certainly not meeting the targets. That is why we are here today.

But these rorts that people are seeing with fridges being delivered and hot-water services that are not up to scratch for people to use their homes – we have seen some in the scheme being withdrawn due to the fact that they are not effective – have actually cost money. That is what we see from this government time and time again. Rorts actually cost money. That is why we are seeing a government who cannot manage money. Today the figures are out: we are the highest taxing state in the nation. And that is because when you waste money someone has got to pay for it, and when you cannot set targets and you cannot give certainty to investors, then you are not going to get long-term investment into new energy schemes that will bring down the cost, because there is just no policy certainty. That is what this government have overseen. This debacle of the program is also an example of that.

What we have seen is the government’s price of power. When families get their bill, they get a bill that is much greater than they were expecting, because every time they get a bill the price of energy seems to go up more and more. This scheme was supposed to bring down the cost of power by $110, but embedded in the bill is an environmental cost. The government has said that the cost on the bill is $135, so there is actually not $110 saved but $135 paid extra for this scheme to put your efficient lights in, which actually are not saving you money. So there is a real issue here with this energy upgrade scheme making people’s electricity more of affordable, because it is clearly not. The environmental cost is actually costing more than the savings that the families are supposed to be achieving. That is clear when people get their bills and see their bills have gone up.

The energy upgrade program is afflicted by poor regulation and scams. Once again, remember all those fridges being delivered. Energy efficiency is something that we on the Liberal–National side of the house clearly support. An environmental action that delivers good business and housekeeping and lower costs is something that should be supported, but when a scheme has been so maladministered by the Allan Labor government, how can we trust them to administer any program appropriately?

The government commenced this two-year review, and they decided to move the parameters. In my office I continually get complaints about people being harassed and harangued. It has been five years since the member for Lowan and I approached the minister and said., ‘Come on, put something in place to protect people.’ I have got an example from my office of a 92-year-old lady in my electorate who got an electric hot-water system from one of these government energy schemes. She is 92. She does not use emails. It was all paperwork, and at 92 she could not find where that was, so when the unit was faulty she had no idea who to call for help with her warranty. These are the sorts of problems that people are seeing, but also this absolute harassment that has been allowed to go on under this government, and it seems to be back despite the fact that, like I said, the member for Lowan and I particularly spoke to the minister and said, ‘Put some protections in place.’ Our people are concerned. They are getting hassled by people who say they are representing the government and who are getting into their homes and putting things in that do not work. Then they have no recourse, because they have not got any idea where it all came from. Apparently it was coming from the government. That is what they have been told.

It has been an absolute debacle of a scheme. It has cost more money than it has saved. It has resulted in more emissions, so the environment has not benefited. It has caused increased cost on the bills of families, and therefore it is an abject failure. And here we are trying to change the process so the government can reset the targets. They have absolutely failed families in Victoria and they have failed the environment, and they are trying to cover it up by changing the targets and putting it in a bill called ‘energy target amendment bill’. It is really just one big failure of a program that has been delivering equipment that people do not necessarily want. When it goes wrong, they have got no recourse. It is certainly not saving them any money on their power bills. That is what this government continues to do to Victorians.

Eden FOSTER (Mulgrave) (11:01): I am pleased to rise today in support of the Victorian Energy Efficiency Target Amendment (Energy Upgrades for the Future) Bill 2025. I thank the Minister for Energy and Resources for all the work she has done in developing this legislation and introducing this bill.

Now, there is a lot to counter from what the other side has had to say. It is a bit of a joke on the other side with their comments, and to be honest, with the member for Brighton talking for 15 minutes about members on our side dancing, I do not know what he was going on about. I was rather confused and befuddled by the commentary on our minister’s bill, which is about a fantastic program. The Victorian energy upgrades (VEU) program is a fantastic program, and many in my electorate of Mulgrave, businesses and families alike, have benefited. So to call this a rort is offensive to all of my constituents in Mulgrave. To call this program a rort is offensive and it is disgusting, to be quite honest. To say that my community is rorting the system by benefiting from a program that reduces emissions. I do not know what they were on about in terms of it not reducing emissions; that is a whole lot of rubbish, and I will go through that as I get through my 10 minutes. But really if that is all they have – 15 minutes of talking about ministers dancing – they do not have anything to talk about on this.

They disagree with a program that benefits communities and reduces bills. It does reduce them; just ask people who have benefited from this program. Ask them about the benefits that they have when they look at their bill. Ask them what they are getting out of it, because I know that my community of Mulgrave will tell you it is a hell of a lot. If it was scrapped by those opposite because, I do not know, they have got their hands in the pockets of gas companies or they want nuclear – maybe that is why: they want to promote nuclear and spend taxpayers money on nuclear plants. Maybe that is what they want – who knows. But what I can tell my electorate of Mulgrave is that I will continue to fight to reduce emissions and continue to fight to help and support them with paying their bills, and the VEU program is a great way to do that.

For the best part of two decades now the Victorian energy upgrades program has worked to lower emissions. I know those opposite are refuting that, but we know that our emissions have dropped over 30 per cent since 2005, and that is thanks partially to this program but also other great work that we do here in Victoria in the Allan Labor government. We are protecting our environment and ensuring that the average Victorian is spending less to switch on those lights and put that kettle on. It is going to cost them less. We knew back then, as we do now, that the need to pivot away from fossil fuels was paramount. These targets, established then, have successfully set us in the right direction. Time, however, necessitates course corrections, and that is why the amendments being considered today are so important for the future of our state. Reviews happen – we do need reviews. We need to look at how things can be changed, and while under review it only makes sense to set a two-year target now so that industries have confidence in what we are doing. It does not make sense to set a five-year target whilst we are under review.

Those opposite are forgetting again the benefits to taxpayers with this program. I will just lay out a few examples. The program, since 2023, has delivered rebates for 19,000 reverse-cycle air conditioners and 39,000 hot-water systems, saving 28 million tonnes of emissions. Between 2021 and 2025 the VEU program will avoid $3.8 billion in energy system costs, benefiting even those who do not participate in the program. This bill amends the legislation so that it is ready for its next phase of service, and this is crucial; the Victorian community needs and expects our efficiency standards to be fit for purpose for the next two decades. This bill provides certainty to households and the industry during the ongoing review, which aims to modernise and strengthen the program to support the transition away from gas and to lower energy costs.

This bill has three core intents. Firstly, it is safeguarding the legislation so that the benefits of the Victorian energy upgrades program continue to deliver a greener, cleaner and cheaper Victoria for all Victorians. Secondly, the bill introduces new provisions to expand the Essential Services Commission’s compliance and enforcement powers, including new improvement and prohibition notice powers, additional civil penalty enforcement pathways and mandated training requirements for scheme participants. Finally, it is extending the program until 2045 so every Victorian, every consumer and every investor can have confidence that this state-building program is here to stay.

Since 2009 the VEU program has provided discounted energy-saving products and services to more than 2.4 million households and businesses, saving an average of $110 for households and $3700 for businesses annually. The program supports employment, investment and innovation in the energy efficiency industry in Victoria, and to have those opposite call it a rort is disgusting. Since 2009 the Victorian energy upgrades program has delivered energy-saving whitegoods and devices and goods and services to more than 2 million households and 179,000 businesses. On average, private residents – and I repeat myself again – have saved $110 a year. For a lot of families and small businesses, those savings are that little difference that puts their mind at ease; the alternative being hard decisions about what supplies to buy, how much food they can afford or whether they can pay the rent for the next week or month.

Some people in this place pretend that the cost-of-living struggles that we are all facing are somehow a consequence of renewable energy. Those of us committed to telling the truth are sticking to the facts and acting on science to deliver positive outcomes for Victorians. That is what the VEU has always been about: providing practical solutions to a complex problem. For too long governments have fixated on short-term stopgap solutions to the long-term multifaceted issue of climate crisis. Successive Victorian governments have been broadly better than most at this, and the original energy efficiency target is a prime example of that. With today’s legislation, we renew that commitment and signal to our community, our country and the world that our state is prepared to lead the way. Our destination? Away from fossil fuels towards net zero and a cheaper, cleaner energy sector for a growing Victoria. With this legislation, we are reaffirming that our ETA at that destination is 2045, the Victorian government’s net zero target. This replaces the current 2030 end date of the energy efficiency target, thus providing reassurance to prospective investors that the projects they are backing are there for the long run. The bill allows for future VEU program discounts to be targeted to specific cohorts such as vulnerable and low-income consumers to enable greater access to participation in this program. That means many in the Mulgrave electorate will be benefiting from this program for years to come.

It means that there is more confidence for the whole of Victoria but also for my community. Mulgrave is a place where Australian dreamers and battlers settle, laying the foundations for the better future that everyone promises but only Labor can deliver. For families working hard to make ends meet and leave their children in a better position than they were, opportunities to work in rapidly growing crucial industries are the best ticket to that future. I call on my colleagues to stop thinking about this bill in the abstract and start thinking about what the legislation will mean on the ground in communities like mine: new jobs, new investment, new paths to a better life for Victorian families and all the interests of a cleaner, greener, more prosperous state without nuclear, without gas, one that is healthy for generations to come, because that is what we need to think about. We need to think about our future generations. I commend this bill to the house.

Martin CAMERON (Morwell) (11:11): It is a pleasure to rise with you in the chair this morning, Acting Speaker Addison, to talk on the Victorian Energy Efficiency Target Amendment (Energy Upgrades for the Future) Bill 2025 –it is a long one to get out. This bill amends the Victorian Energy Efficiency Target Act 2007. What it is doing is extending out the legislated date from 2030 to 2045. We need to have rules and regulations about energy upgrades for the future, and we see that the program that is currently in place has benefits for the community. Whether it be getting their lights, fridges, air conditioners or heaters upgraded, this program is in place to allow our constituents around Victoria to improve how efficiently their houses use energy. I do not think anyone is immune at the moment: if you get your power bill, whether it be gas or electricity, these bills are going up and up, and they are steadily going up. This is the whole area that we talk about: the cost of living for people that are on the ground in Victoria at the moment. This bill is trying to help and bring in some things that people can use to alleviate their costs moving forward.

The issues that the coalition have around this bill are with how this program is rolled out and how we make sure that it is saving people money, for one, but also making sure that these air conditioners, heaters and so forth are being installed properly by the right registered people. I will give a couple of examples that I have seen, having been on the ground in a former life before stepping into politics. When they rolled out reverse-cycle air conditioners, people were lining up to get them. If they were changing over their air conditioners, sometimes unscrupulous people would come in and install newer, more energy-efficient reverse-cycle air conditioners, which was great for the consumer, but they did not follow the letter of the law when they were decommissioning the old ones. You have to decom the old units so that the bad greenhouse gases that are inside these units are taken out, and that costs money. The people that rolled up with a truck full of 100 air conditioners and who were trying to put as many in as they could in the shortest amount of time did not do the right thing. What they would do is they would either get their tin snips or their hacksaw and they would cut through the pipes, and all those bad greenhouse gases that we are worried about and trying to stop going into our atmosphere, up they would go. You would have that perfect little hole in the ozone layer above your house with the bad rays coming down. This was systemic, with people going from house to house and from suburb to suburb.

We need to make sure, as was spoken about before, that these audits are undertaken. We do need to get people to go out and check that these units are put in properly, because if they are not, then they become a liability and they do not save us energy and power as they are meant to do. That is why on this side of the chamber we are asking questions like: if we are going to extend out from 2030 to 2045, what program on the outside is making sure that the checks and balances are put in place so this does not continue?

Another area of concern is as a former president of a football club when they rolled out the new fridges. On this side I think there will be a lot of talking about these fridges that were rolled out. They had great intentions, but the unintended consequence was that some of the people helping to roll out this program were turning up at footy clubs, sporting clubs, clubs in our community and not dropping off one fridge but dropping off up to 15 or 20 fridges. We got to see it firsthand at our footy club, and questions were raised. Then there was a little bit of dealing in the background with other sporting clubs that were getting the same allotment. Hence we need to make sure we are auditing to make sure this program is running out properly. In theory it was great, fantastic, but practicably on the other end it was a little bit of a disaster. We need to make sure that we have our desktop audits and, as we heard before, and take a photo and send it in. We need a bigger picture to not only to protect the consumers but to protect the government so that they are getting bang for buck, because at the end of the day what it costs comes back to us the consumers and we pay for higher energy costs going forward. We really need to make sure that we have the regulatory things in place, the audits – to make sure they are happening. We are talking about energy, and the member for Malvern just before was talking about fossil fuel and gas.

Michael O’Brien interjected.

Martin CAMERON: Mulgrave, sorry. I am making sure you are awake, member for Malvern. He is awake, and that it is great to see. In just over 1000 days the Yallourn power station shuts. That will take 22 per cent of current supply into our energy grid out of the equation. We need to make sure that we are counteracting that. We hear a lot of talk about our renewables coming on line, our solar and our wind. But we need to make sure that it is going to be connected to the grid in that timeframe, because we can have these batteries that are sitting out in paddocks and we can have these paddocks that are on farmland full of solar panels, but we need to make sure that we can get it connected to the grid so we can actually use it moving forward in just over a thousand days. People are starting to get a little bit worried about that timeline. If it is going to be a rush and a push towards the end to get it in, is that going to make energy prices more if it needs to be done in a mad panic? We really need to make sure that we are looking at that also when we are talking about energy prices moving forward.

Some of the other bits and pieces that were rolled out included hot-water services that were pulled out and changed. The issue of a hot-water service being changed over from gas to electric is not the concern; it is what was left when the gas hot-water service was removed. Was it removed correctly? Was the gas point terminated correctly? Moving forward, if we have a dodgy connection where the gas used to come into the hot-water service and it is just left dangling out in the middle of nowhere, it can be hit or it can be turned back on.

Some of the people that were installing were actually just turning off the gas cock and walking away. So this is the part that I would like to see really ramped up – regulation to make sure that we have people on the ground making sure these installations are done properly and safely as we move forward. As the member for Brighton said, we are going to be opposing this bill today, and we are opposing it because we are not sure how these laws and regulations are going to work to make sure that the community is kept safe when we are changing over hot-water services, heaters and air conditioners.

Meng Heang TAK (Clarinda) (11:21): I rise today to speak in favour of the Victorian Energy Efficiency Target Amendment (Energy Upgrades for the Future) Bill 2025. I listened to the contribution by the member for Morwell keenly because I understand that in this chamber he has the most expertise in terms of this. I understand that all of his concerns and opposition to this bill are exactly what this bill is all about. It is all about protections for consumers. Consumer protection is the heart and centre of this amendment. Before I go on, I would like to rebut the member for South-West Coast. She said that people are harassed, by the Victorian energy upgrades (VEU) program particularly, all the time. To my understanding, we have banned doorknocking and telemarketing and there is strict enforcement of consumer protection by the Essential Services Commission. So this is very interesting, and it is odd to hear that the coalition and the opposition are opposed to this bill which is all about protections for the consumer.

Before I go on to talk about the protections for the consumer, I would like to join the hardworking member for Mulgrave in talking about the uptake by our community here in the south-east. We have seen a great deal of energy-related legislation come to this place in recent times. That is testament to the work of the Minister for Energy and Resources and testament to the commitment of this government to providing cheap, clean, reliable power to Victorians. I am talking about the Victorian community here in the south-east, in the City of Greater Dandenong and also in the City of Kingston, and the uptake of this initiative by quite a large number. I would like to go to that, given the data has shown how much support there is for this initiative. There has been fantastic uptake of the VEU program in the Clarinda district. In the City of Kingston alone around 57,000 households and around 6000 businesses have participated in the VEU program since its beginning in 2009, and around 20,000 homes will have fewer cold draughts this winter due to the insulation of weather seals with the support of the program. My home is one of the households that has participated in the program. There have been 2600 upgrades in homes to energy-efficient heat pump hot-water systems, saving consumers money on hot water, and 15,000 homes have installed an in-home display to help them better track and manage their energy use. In the City of Greater Dandenong, around 56,000 households and 8000 businesses have participated in the VEU program since it began. Overall around 28,000 homes have fewer cold draughts this winter due to that insulation.

These are amazing numbers, helping households, families and businesses to access cheap, clean and reliable power, making homes and businesses more efficient and helping to ease pressure on energy bills and household budgets.

It is important to continue this work, and that is what this bill will do. It will extend the VEU program’s legislated end date to 2045, because we know that this is very important and it is of benefit to the community and to businesses. Without the changes in this bill the benefits of the VEU program are at risk of not being fully delivered. Extending the legislated end date of the VEU program aligns with the government’s net zero emissions by 2045 commitment and is critical to allow for incentives to continue to be available for consumers electrifying their homes and their businesses, supporting Victoria’s transition off gas.

There is also a host of other changes here, including introducing a new provision to expand the Essential Services Commission’s compliance and enforcement powers. This goes to the heart of the contributions of the member for Morwell. It is important, because improved enforcement and compliance powers are expected to increase the overall benefit of the VEU program, as there will be greater consumer protections and stronger program enforcement. The bill will enable the ESC to take prompt enforcement action and require mandatory training to be undertaken by scheme participants so that we do not have the unintended consequences that have already been alluded to. The ESC’s enforcement powers will expand to allow for an improvement notice to be issued to noncompliant persons and require persons to complete rectification works for an activity undertaken under the VEU scheme. A prohibition notice power will prevent scheme participants from continuing to work under the VEU program. As a result of these improved enforcement and compliance powers, it is expected that there will be reduced difficulties or frustrations for consumers, and that will be reflected in a reduction in complaints received by the ESC.

The other broad changes in the bill are to clarify the intended operation of the existing head of power of prescribing activities in relation to the additionality requirement to confirm the VEU program can provide incentives in future specified circumstances where an action is required under another regulation or law. As well, there is the removal of an existing restriction relating to the eligibility or vintage of certificates that can be surrendered by energy retailers each year. These are important changes and amendments, and the bill will allow for future VEU program incentives to be better targeted specifically to a class of energy consumers, such as vulnerable and low-income consumers, to enable greater accessibility in the VEU program.

These are holistic changes, all directed at improving the quality and accessibility of the VEU program, an amazing program which has had huge uptake across my electorate and across Victoria. I am glad to be here supporting this legislation today that will help to continue and improve this important program and build on the government’s work in delivering cheap, clean and reliable power for all Victorians, continuing our transition, helping households, families and businesses to access cheap, clean and reliable power, making homes and businesses more efficient and helping to ease pressure on energy bills and household budgets.

This is an important bill for my community and for all Victorians. I commend the minister for bringing it forward, and I commend this bill to the house.

Wayne FARNHAM (Narracan) (11:30): I am pleased to rise to today to talk about the Victorian Energy Efficiency Target Amendment (Energy Upgrades for the Future) Bill 2025. It has been an interesting debate. I have been listening to the debate from people on both sides of the chamber and there have been some very good points put forward. This essentially is giving the government the ability to move the goal posts, I suppose, for want of a better term. One change is to, rather than setting targets every five years, they can change their mind on that and set them for every two or three years.

There are a few points I am going to go to on this bill that I have picked up in the debate. As previous speakers have said on this side, I do not think the Victorian energy upgrades (VEU) program has been properly managed. We have heard various contributions in here today. The member for Morwell touched on it earlier, as did the member for Brighton and other members, where we had all these fridges turn up that either people did not know were coming or too many came for what was needed.

I am going to be very pragmatic in this contribution. I was not here obviously when this program started, so I am just going to put forward a few points. With any program that you introduce there should always be a review. There should always be checks and balances, because things do get rorted, maybe intentionally, maybe unintentionally, but it does happen. I think we should always put in place these stop points to check and make sure everything – and the taxpayers money – is not being rorted or wasted. I am not sure about the Traralgon Football Club issue that the member for Morwell was involved in, but I will use that as an example. I am not sure if the football club said, ‘We’ll upgrade four fridges.’ I do not know many footy clubs that have 15 fridges, but the member for Morwell might be able to give me a hint as to how many fridges they actually needed.

A member interjected.

Wayne FARNHAM: One – okay. We do know the member for Morwell likes a vessel of happiness, as he likes to refer to it. This is what I do not understand about the program and how it got probably out of control: if a football club or a netball club or a soccer club or whatever club only needed one fridge, why did 15 turn up? Why did 20 fridges turn up? I think this is where we get into these programs where you do want to stop the waste and stop the rorting. I do not know how it was set up, so it is hard to be too critical about it, but from the outside looking in it seems a little bit unrealistic to me that 20 fridges would turn up when you only need one. There is a problem in the system for that to happen.

I am pretty sure I have benefited from this program prior to this life in this place, when I had a bloke turn up and replace all the downlights in my house. I got a phone call, ‘Do you want new downlights?’, and I went ‘Yeah, well, they look like crap. Let’s get new ones.’ I am assuming it was through this program. That is my assumption. But downlights are one thing. They are a pretty easy thing to replace. You just unplug them, plug them in, great, off you go. But as the member for Morwell pointed to earlier when we were talking about air conditioning systems, and I have had to remove many air conditioners in my previous life, there is a system you have to go through. You have to capture the gas. You have to de-gas the air con unit before you put in the new one. That has not happened, and I know the examples the member for Morwell was talking about because I had people say the same thing to me: ‘Wayne, aren’t they meant to capture the gas?’ Yes, they are. Those things were not happening.

This is what the government needs to do. They need to put in these checks and balances and they need to make sure that they have got the right people doing the right job, because we do not want to see a repeat of what happened under the Rudd government when we had the insulation scheme that Peter Garrett was in charge of. That was a disastrous scheme. People lost their lives because they were not qualified to do the work that needed to be done. You would think putting insulation in a house would not need a lot of qualification, but I can assure you, if you cut through a power supply, you will get electrocuted. This is where it is important. The government needs to put in these checks and balances, and this is where we are pushing back against the government on this.

I will reference the member for Mulgrave. Earlier she said she did not quite believe that the emissions had gone up. In fact they have gone up. The Victorian Greenhouse Gas Emissions Report shows that admissions have gone over the past few years.

We can debate the amount that emissions have gone up – if they have gone up 5 per cent or 5.6 per cent – but they actually have increased. So when we see these schemes are pumping hundreds of millions of dollars of Victorian taxpayers money to reduce emissions, I think we have got to start to ask ourselves why emissions have gone up. I think it is a very pertinent question. We have more solar than we have ever had before. We have got more wind farms than we have ever had before, although I think our offshore wind farms are not doing too well at moment. We have electric vehicles, we have electric scooters, we have electric bikes, and cars that are diesel or petrol – they have less emissions now. So I think one question I would put to the government is: why have emissions increased? I think that is a fair question. If you are going to pump hundreds of millions of dollars into a scheme, you have got to sit back and ask yourselves: why have these emissions increased? Because if you are producing the VEU program and you are managing that program to reduce emissions but emissions are going the other way, then some questions have to be asked. I think that is a fairly commonsense approach to it.

The other issue with this bill, and probably another reason why we oppose this bill today, is that at the moment you are doing a review into this program. Wouldn’t you wait for the review to come out and be published and then look at the legislation to support the review? The review I assume will make recommendations to the government on what is working and what is not working, so wouldn’t we wait for that review to come forward? Wouldn’t we look at those comments and the report and then go back and say, ‘Well, now we need to bring in legislation to support the review and the recommendations that were made’? To me it seems a little bit nonsensical to bring this in now when there is a review underway. It does not make sense. To me it is a little bit cart before the horse, and we are seeing that quite often here. I do not know when the review is due to be released. My assumption is it will be very soon. I think we have really got to wait for the review to come out before we start to put through the legislation, because somebody could miss something. In that review there could be a very strong recommendation, and then you are going to have to bring this legislation back to the chamber to implement the recommendation that could come from the review. So I think at the moment this legislation is probably a little bit early.

Look, there is one thing I have often been critical of this government about, and that is when it sets its targets. I think sometimes the targets are aspirational rather than factual, and it is probably the case when we come to this bill as well. I heard this earlier on – I was not in this place then – that this side of the house tried to get targets put into legislation and that got voted down. When you set a target, to give yourself the ability to change the target because you did not achieve the target to me seems an easy way out. I would assume if you set a target and you are not quite getting there, you would work harder or find the problem with the system to actually get to that target. Sometimes your target might be 12 months late, but my assumption is the government or the department would work that little bit harder to achieve the target rather failing to meet it then winding the target back so they can say, ‘Well, now we achieved it.’ That seems wrong. I would turn around and say to the department or to the government: if you set a target, pull every lever you possibly can to achieve that target. Do not set an aspirational target; set a factual target. There are very big differences. The government is very good at this. They will come out and set all types of targets. One I will refer to is 80,000 homes a year. I knew that was never going to happen, but it is an aspirational target. It was never a factual target. That is my advice to the government: if you are going to set a target, pull every lever to achieve the target.

Michaela SETTLE (Eureka) (11:40): I rise today to speak in support of the Victorian Energy Efficiency Target Amendment (Energy Upgrades for the Future) Bill 2025. I have to say that when I was looking at this bill this morning and thinking about what I would say in Parliament I thought, ‘This is a great good-news story.’ Then I found that those on the other side have moved a reasoned amendment to stall this bill. I cannot believe that those on the other side would stop people in Victoria from accessing these extraordinary savings that we have seen for households and businesses. Those on the other side would rather play political, or perhaps even ideological, games, which would mean that the average Victorian could not access this important scheme.

On the sort of arguments we have heard put forward today, I was slightly gobsmacked when the member for Narracan decided to compare this to the pink batts project. Let us look at this. He wanted to talk about facts, so let us talk about some facts. Over half a million people have benefited from and worked with this extraordinary program for savings and advantage. And do you know what? Out of that we have seen 0.13 – can I just make that clear: 0.13 – of complaints arise as a part of this program. That is a pretty extraordinarily low marker when you look at the fact that over half a million people have benefited from this program, so for those on the other side to brandish this idea that we need to review and it is terrible and terrible consequences will come of it is just phooey basically when we are talking 0.13.

I also say, having listened to the member for Narracan, that I wonder if this is an ideological debate. He was creeping into not believing in climate change when he was talking about emissions –

Wayne Farnham interjected.

Michaela SETTLE: I am getting to you. In his piece he was talking about emissions continuing to go up. What I would say to him is that since these targets came into place in 2005 there has been an over 30 per cent decrease in emissions. He wanted to call into question the last couple of years. I have had a lot to do with the energy sector in my electorate of late, and it is a very complex area. I am sure that the minister’s office would be happy to brief the member for Narracan so he can understand.

On the figures he was talking about, there is a thing which is called nature, and within nature there are variations. We have all seen that. In the last couple of years what we have seen is that with the intense weather that we have had with rain there has been a lot of shift in soil make-up. There has been a small increase over the last two years, which is natural, not within the industries we are talking about. I will get to that. He is talking about a more general figure, and it is completely the norm to accept natural fluctuations. What has happened with the rain is that there has been more activity within the soil and more bug activity, which releases carbon. Carbon is held in the soil, and it gets released. We are measuring the emissions overall and those natural fluctuations. Imagine if we had a fire. There would be a lot more carbon in the atmosphere, so it is important to level out those natural events. It is important to see that since 2005 there has been more than a 30 per cent decrease.

Even more than that, what I would like to go to is that this bill is very much directed at electricity and electricity emissions.

We have seen a constant and steady decrease in the emissions from that sector. The member for Narracan is referring to the greater emissions of Victoria, not the sector emissions which this relates to, in which there has been a steady and complete drop-off.

Wayne Farnham: This is the government’s own report.

Michaela SETTLE: I am well aware. As I said, I am sure the minister’s office would be happy to explain soil biomes to you. Please get in touch.

What we are looking at here is a very steady decrease in emissions across the state. But look, that was me really just wanting to rebut some of the things that we hear from the other side. I first and foremost want to go back to the bill and to the importance of this bill. As many on this side have no doubt raised, more than 488,000 and 22,000 businesses have accessed these discounted energy-efficient products, and we have seen householders saving an average of $110 and businesses saving $3700. In anyone’s book this is an extraordinary, successful program. As I said at the outset, I am slightly bewildered by the fact that those on the other side would seek to stall a bill which hopes to not only put money in Victorians’ pockets but also move us towards the energy transition that we have to see. We have to see this for the sake of our kids and for the sake of our grandkids. That those on the other side would seek to block it – and really it is nothing more than blocking it. When one looks at the reasoned amendment, we are being asked to wait for a review to come out. This program has been rolling for quite some time, as we know, very successfully, and it is important to keep that program rolling.

The bill itself does actually strengthen the protections for communities. This bill is about making sure that Victorians can continue to access this much-needed money, continue to be a part of the energy revolution and be more protected. Those on the other side can pretend that it is around waiting for a review, but that can be seen as nothing more than a stalling tactic. As I say, I do not know whether it is political in that they just want to oppose all of the bills from government or whether in fact it is ideological and they do not believe in climate change – which terrifies me and should terrify people across Victoria. If we have an opposition who believe that we should not transition through into new forms of energy, then we are in all sorts of trouble. We do know that their mates in Canberra want us to go nuclear. Well, if the member for Narracan is concerned about the safety of this program, he should be terrified of a Peter Dutton government, which would bring in nuclear. We all know that it is, again, another stalling tactic, because of course nuclear energy will not be with us for decades and it will cost us so much more. Let us not forget that there are inherent issues and safety issues around the nuclear option. So to hear from those on the other side that they are worried about a program that has a 0.13 rate of complaints against half a million beneficiaries – I am amazed that they can run that argument while they are happy to stand by their mates in Canberra who want us to countenance a nuclear future.

This bill is an important bill. It is helping every Victorian to be part of an absolutely necessary energy transition. It is putting money in the pockets of Victorian families. It is putting money in the pockets of Victorian businesses. The bill itself puts in further protections so that we can ensure the program has an even lower rate of complaints than the 0.13 that it currently has. As I said, I think this is an important bill. It speaks to this government’s commitment to a future for our children.

Tim BULL (Gippsland East) (11:50): What a load of waffle we have just heard there. We talk about inquiries that are done to make things better, and for people over that side to stand up and say it is a delaying tactic when an inquiry has been announced by the government and then to act on that by bringing a bill into this chamber before we have the results of the inquiry that the government is doing is quite bizarre indeed.

This program was released with very good intentions. But history tells us – and you simply cannot argue with this – that it has been poorly run and poorly managed. Even the mention of its name conjures up memories and thoughts and feelings of poor regulation and rorting. The Victorian energy efficiency target scheme has been characterised by surging spot prices for the certificates that are required to be obtained – three times the cost of other jurisdictions. The previous speaker just spoke about putting money back into the pockets of Victorians – they are three times the cost. And let us not get into things like the emergency services levy or the land tax or things like that or what our power bills actually say. It is quite an incredible piece of commentary. But this flows through to the additional costs for households and small businesses – three times higher.

The reason is that these programs and the cost of this are ultimately incorporated into our power bills, and we are paying in Victoria for these certificates three times more than other jurisdictions. How you can possibly twist that to say you are putting money back into the pockets of Victorians is beyond me. This is another bill, as I touched on earlier, that has come into this chamber where we have a review being done. We had a disability bill last year that came into this chamber that I have not seen back, as the shadow minister, for a year because we are waiting on reviews to be done. The ministers all had this light bulb moment of thinking, ‘Well, we’d better hold this off,’ so it is sitting between houses and has been for 12 months while we are waiting for a review to be done, and I am standing here now talking on another bill where we have change being implemented legislatively without the review being done. It is quite bizarre.

We also have big question marks over the review itself, because the review is being conducted by the department which is largely the subject of the review. Now, you cannot mark your own homework. If we are going to have a real inquiry into this and a real look at it, we need to not put the fox in charge of the henhouse. We need to have a separate set of eyes that will prosecute this program and investigate it properly. But given that, the fact that that has not even been completed and we are standing here is quite extraordinary. That is why those on this side support the reasoned amendment, because while the inquiry is questionable, we should at least be waiting until it has provided its feedback.

I also have a few other concerns I want to touch on. Targets under the Victorian energy upgrades program are normally set in five-year tranches. That has been the history of this. This bill seeks to change this to single-year targets, and of course we would ask why 18 months out from an election we are going to single-year targets. Is the reason that the greenhouse emissions have been actually rising in Victoria for the past two years and this allows for a new striking of targets that will be more palatable to be able to sell in the lead-up to an election?

In theory anyone reading about this program would find it a very, very positive program, and run properly it would be a very, very positive program, because it aims to reduce energy costs and it aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by providing access to discounted energy products and services to Victorian households and businesses. But as has been spoken about – I think the member for Morwell might have covered off on this when he was talking, and I will touch on this at the current time – we had that example where multiple fridges were dumped on small businesses and were handed out door to door in some locations.

We also had this government having to act to ban cold calling and telemarketing following revelations of rorts and that misinformation was being given to the elderly and vulnerable in our community and they were basically being pressured to a huge degree by those who were promoting this scheme and getting a financial return from it. At the time when these rorts came about and this pressure was being put on our elderly and our vulnerable to subscribe to this scheme, the government came out and said, ‘We’re going to have a two-year strategic review.’ That was their response: ‘We’re going to have a review. It’s going to be sorted in house. The department’s going to look at themselves. But in June 2024 we’re going to have our review.’ Two years, it said, so that review should, I would hope, come back by June 2026. But here we are in early 2025, not even halfway through the forecast length of that review, and we are discussing a bill relating to this program. At that time the government’s commentary was that they were going to deliver an updated program that was fit for the future. They also said that it would enhance consumer protections, increase participation and improve the integrity of the scheme. That is not all covered off in this bill. Not all those goals and objectives have been covered off in this bill, which is another reason that we should not be debating this now. We should be waiting until it is over.

I will make a few short comments around cost. Under the Victorian energy efficiency program, when an upgrade is completed you get an energy certificate. One certificate represents around a tonne of forgone emissions. That is good. The program has annual legislated targets, and the target for 2025 is 7.3 million certificates. The spot price of a certificate has remained at over $100 since May 2024 – again, around three times the cost of a certificate in any other jurisdiction in this country. Why? Why are we three times higher? People standing up over there continually reading from their prepared notes are saying this is a saving. If we are going to provide a saving let us at least for a start get in line with the offers that are being provided by other jurisdictions within our own country. What does it mean that the certificates are three times the price? What it means is the cost of the program will flow back to consumers in their bills, because it is in their retail bills that this cost is incorporated. The Essential Services Commission’s draft default offer determination for 2025–26 allocates $122 per customer for environmental schemes. That is the allocation on the bill that is built in for environmental schemes. Of course this VEU program that we are discussing here today is part of that cost.

I will conclude my commentary by saying this bill should be held off until the review is over. There is no shame in letting it sit between houses when you realise you have gone off a bit early and a bit half-cocked. We have got a disability bill doing that at the present time, and I think there might be one other. We should be pressing the pause button on this. It is not a delaying tactic; it is a tactic to get it right. God only knows why we are here debating this now when it should be delayed. We are not even halfway through what the government announced was going to be the term of that inquiry. It was going to be two years, and we are less than one year in since that announcement was made. I can see you smiling, Acting Speaker Addison. I hope that is in agreement with me that this is something that has come into this house earlier than it should have. I would hope that some common sense will prevail and this Parliament can work together to support the reasoned amendment. If that is not going to happen, at least let it sit between chambers while this review is completed, and then we can have a more comprehensive response to that review.

Jordan CRUGNALE (Bass) (12:00): I rise in support of the Victorian Energy Efficiency Target Amendment (Energy Upgrades for the Future) Bill 2025. This amendment not only represents a policy update, it also represents our collective ambition to build a cleaner, fairer and more affordable energy future for all Victorians.

We as the Victorian government are steadfast in our commitment to helping families and businesses with utilities expenses while also tackling the pressing challenge of climate change. We understand that these two goals, economic relief and environmental responsibility, are not mutually exclusive. In fact they are deeply intertwined. When we help Victorians improve the efficiency of their homes and workplaces, we are putting money back into their pockets and we are making homes more comfortable to live in and businesses more affordable to run. We are supporting jobs, attracting new investment and driving the uptake of cutting-edge technologies that reduce our dependence on expensive fossil fuels.

Since its launch in 2009, the Victorian energy upgrades (VEU) program has been a shining example of this vision in action, and it is now the largest and most successful energy efficiency scheme in the nation. More than 2.5 million households and businesses have already participated, and the results speak for themselves. Together we have avoided over 88 million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions. In 2024 alone, nearly half a million households and 22,000 businesses accessed discounted energy upgrades – real-world improvements with real-world benefits. For households these upgrades translate to average annual savings of around $110. For businesses the average is $3700, and for those that undertake bespoke, site-specific upgrades, the savings can soar into the tens of thousands. They are not just numbers; these are Victorian families and local employers who are seeing their energy bills go down and their confidence go up.

The benefits of the program extend far beyond those who participate directly of course. Improved energy efficiency across the state helps to reduce overall demand on our energy grid, which in turn helps to lower prices for everyone. Between 2021 and 2025 alone, the VEU program is expected to avoid $3.8 billion in energy system costs. Those are savings flowing back to consumers and businesses across Victoria regardless of whether they have participated in the scheme or not.

The bill before us today strengthens and extends this important work. It ensures the VEU program can continue to serve Victorians long into the future, right through to 2045, aligning with our state’s very ambitious and essential goal of reaching net zero emissions. Because we are entering a decisive decade of transition, electrification is key to our climate strategy, and it is already underway. Our homes, businesses and vehicles are steadily moving away from gas and towards cleaner and more efficient electric alternatives. The VEU program will be a cornerstone of support during this transformation, ensuring that the switch is affordable, accessible and inclusive.

To support this, the bill clarifies that energy efficiency activities required by other laws or regulations, such as minimum standards for rental homes or electrification requirements for new buildings, can also be eligible for discounts under the VEU. This may seem technical, but it is vitally important. It ensures that financial support remains available even when certain upgrades become mandatory, and it ensures that no-one is left behind in our journey towards a more sustainable built environment. Without this change, there is a risk that households, particularly those on low incomes, might delay or avoid important upgrades simply because they are too expensive up-front. That would not only leave them with higher energy bills but slow down the broader system benefits of electrification for us all. By making these changes now we are planning for a smooth, fair and coordinated transition.

This bill also enables the program’s targets for 2026 and 2027 to be set by regulation, allowing more time for the outcomes of the current strategic review of the VEU program to be fully considered before setting longer term goals. That review is asking more important questions about participation, equity, effectiveness and readiness for the challenges ahead. It is smart and responsible to build in the flexibility that we need to respond to its findings.

Importantly, the bill also modernises how the program is managed and enforced, because the credibility and integrity of the scheme are just as important as its savings. It gives the Essential Services Commission, the program regulator, expanded powers to protect consumers and uphold standards, and this includes the ability to issue improvement and prohibition notices to scheme participants who are non-compliant and to mandate training and competency requirements for those installing upgrades. These are commonsense measures that bring the VEU program into line with other modern regulatory frameworks, and they ensure that every Victorian who accesses an energy upgrade through this program can do so with confidence and trust.

The bill also introduces civil penalty provisions that will allow the regulator to act with flexibility and discretion, ensuring that enforcement is proportionate and effective. At the same time, it removes outdated technical restrictions that were making it harder for electricity and gas retailers, the obligated parties under the scheme, to meet their targets. These streamlining reforms will make the system fairer and easier to administer, ensuring we get maximum emissions reductions for every dollar invested.

Finally, and crucially, the bill opens the door for future enhancements to the program that target vulnerable and low-income Victorians. By allowing discounts to be tailored to specific consumer groups we are ensuring that those who need support the most can access it as well. And that is not just good policy, it is good ethics.

Energy efficiency is one of the most powerful and cost-effective tools we have to address climate change, but it is also a tool for fairness, resilience and opportunity. This bill ensures that the Victorian energy upgrades program can continue to be a leading example of how we turn climate ambition into practical everyday benefits: lower bills, warmer homes, cleaner air and stronger communities.

Experts in the field have backed these reforms. The Energy Efficiency Council, a leading voice in this space, has made it clear this proposal is a winner. Their CEO Luke Menzel said:

It signals that the Victorian Government understands energy efficiency and electrification are critical to Victoria’s energy transition, and that the VEU will continue to help households and businesses invest in the technologies that will save them money and cut emissions.

Electrification of homes and businesses has another benefit too – it helps us deal with gas supply shortfalls.

AEMO’s 2025 Gas Statement of Opportunities paints a stark picture. The gas we have relied on from the Bass Strait is running out, and the backup supply options are costly. Mr Menzel went on to say:

The good news is that households and businesses switching from gas to electric appliances and equipment are already helping prevent serious gas shortages.

This bill builds on that momentum and avoids wasting money on expensive supply-side solutions that may ultimately burden the very people we are trying to help. I will further quote Mr Menzel:

Programs like the VEU, which help build on that momentum and get even more households and businesses off gas, mean less money spent on pricey supply side options.

Finally, I want to highlight what I believe is one of the most important elements of the bill, the emphasis on protecting vulnerable consumers. Expanding on the ESC’s oversight will ensure safer, more reliable upgrades. Mr Menzel said:

We are 100 per cent behind any changes that improve customers’ experiences with the VEU – particularly vulnerable households – so expanding the ESC’s oversight of installations is a welcome improvement to the scheme.

This is the kind of policy that delivers not just now but for decades to come. It reduces emissions, it lowers bills, it prepares us for future energy challenges and it helps those who need it most. I am proud to support this legislation, and I commend the bill to the house.

John PESUTTO (Hawthorn) (12:09): I rise to speak on the Victorian Energy Efficiency Target Amendment (Energy Upgrades for the Future) Bill 2025, and I do so with the frustration of a growing number of Victorians who are frankly sick and tired of the chaotic and dysfunctional approach of the Allan Labor government to energy and the energy transition. None of us should debate the importance of bequeathing to future generations an environment that is in as good as, if not better, condition than the one we inherited. But this bill and the reasons for our reasoned amendment are why Victorians are losing confidence in this government’s ability to manage what is an important transition and a historic transition. This bill is amongst the best pieces of evidence that you can find that this government has lost the plot on the energy transition, and I will come to that in a moment. The government’s own words will be my best piece of evidence.

We have a program that is totally discredited. The concept is good. We like the concept. We have never opposed the concept, under a responsibly managed and well-administered program, of helping people who can afford it, when they can, to electrify appliances in their homes and in their businesses. That concept should be non-contentious. But this program has been riddled with rorts – rorts nobody on the opposite side of the chamber can explain away. They try to ignore it, try to dismiss it, but they cannot account for it or why it has occurred and what steps are in place to prevent these rorts from occurring again. There is no plan from the government in its presentation of this bill to the house about how it proposes to put in place steps to stop those rorts from occurring. And they have been well traversed in the course of this debate.

It makes no sense to Victorians to proceed with this bill when you have a review into the very regime we are discussing here. Why not wait for the outcome of this review, as others have pointed out and I certainly strongly believe, particularly when you have rorts which have been identified over a number of years since the commencement of this scheme in 2009? Why the government wants to proceed defies comprehension. I support strongly the reasoned amendment moved by the relevant shadow minister representing Mr Davis in the other place. The government should adopt that reasoned amendment, go away and do the work.

By the way, I too have concerns about whether the review underway is truly independent and whether those conducting it are truly in a position and genuinely able to be as critical of themselves and their own administration of the Victorian energy upgrades (VEU) program as they need to be. We want the public to have confidence in this program, but it will not happen unless there is a truly independent review. It makes no sense for us to proceed with this bill, and that is why we have taken the very sensible step to propose this reasoned amendment.

It is also important to understand that the scheme is obviously not working well. It cannot work well if we are paying around $110 per certificate and in other states they are paying a third of that. Something is not right about the way these certificates are being offered to the market in Victoria. It is also important to acknowledge the evidence. If this program is as good as all of those on the opposite side of the chamber say, why are emissions rising? We all want emissions to come down. We are all committed to net zero – in this place we are – yet we see emissions going up by 5 per cent on average over the last two years. How is that happening if this scheme is working as well as it should be? We have concerns that this scheme is just not delivering on the objectives that it was supposed to offer.

Even the Essential Services Commission in its default market offer provides an increase this year consistent with other states – maybe not as high this year as in other states, although default market offers in previous years have gone up by a lot more than in other states – yet $122 of that is attributable to programs like the VEU program. When you collectively look at the evidence – the rorts, the fact that there is a review, that the review is not independent, that Victorian energy efficiency certificates are more than three times that which you will pay in other states, that the default market offer is being driven up for those who can least afford because of schemes like this – imagine what we might see if this scheme was well administered and responsibly overseen. We might see the default market offer come down or not rise by as much as it has been, so the reasoned amendment is very sensible.

I do want to talk about the backdrop in which this debate is occurring. When I said at the outset of my remarks that this government’s approach to the energy transition is confused and dysfunctional, it is, and I doubt anybody on the opposite side can understand why. Let me give an example. Last month Victoria’s Minister for Energy and Resources went to the energy ministers conference, spearheading a proposal for the Commonwealth government to underwrite LNG imports. That is this Victorian energy minister spearheading a ministerial proposal to the Commonwealth to provide that guarantee for LNG imports in Victoria. Those on the opposite side, the minister and the Premier talk unceasingly on the need to get off gas, yet they are recognising now, because they are being mugged by reality, that this drive, which is obsessed with ideology, with rhetoric which itself is emissions rich, is driving us to the point where we now have to re-engineer reliance on gas, which this government is hoping no-one will recognise. This is what the minister said when asked about the looming gas shortages in the southern states, principally Victoria and New South Wales, in 2028–29 and beyond. The minister was asked about LNG import facilities. This is what our own Labor minister in Victoria is quoted as saying:

“That’s the quickest way – and probably really right now the only feasible option,” says Victorian Energy Minister Lily D’Ambrosio.

So much for the Gas Substitution Roadmap. Reconcile that, colleagues across the chamber, with the Gas Substitution Roadmap. Reconcile what is in the Gas Substitution Roadmap with what was in the Economic Growth Statement which this government released late last year. Here is what it says. This government, despite all the rhetoric we have heard from those opposite in the course of this debate, will:

Fast-track new gas projects though the Development Facilitation Program

Not only are they recognising the reality that we need more gas to underpin our economy and our standard of living but they are now saying they will do it and they will abolish third-party rights in the process. They will recognise that:

All new potential gas projects can access the accelerated assessment pathway for new planning permits –

and the like. Here is a government which on the one hand has the Gas Substitution Roadmap saying gas is bad, we do not need it and we will not have it. Then in their own comments and in the Economic Growth Statement they say, ‘We’re going to fast-track it.’ Who is to be believed? Who knows what this government is going to do. That is why I say the government’s approach to energy transition is not responsible. It is not orderly, which is what we would do. It is dysfunctional. It is riddled with internal contradictions about what this government’s identity and approach to energy and the important process of transition actually is.

We see offshore wind. How is offshore wind going to evolve under this government? We have got people getting knocked back. Flotation Energy’s investment in the Sea Dragon project off Gippsland got knocked back. The Southern Ocean zone got reduced by 80 per cent and now even has the independent candidate for Wannon running away from it. I recognise the great work that Dan Tehan, the member for Wannon, has been doing on that. This government needs to come clean on how it will deliver offshore wind if it is so true to its own words.

My final comment is I think the government needs to be up-front with the Victorian people about what is going to happen with our ageing coal fleet. It has already entered into an underwriting contract with Energy Australia and AGL in relation to Yallourn and Loy Yang, but we all know – it is probably the worst kept secret in the world – no-one who is involved in those two plants recognises or believes that Yallourn will be ready to shut in June 2028. If it is, the government should tell us. I say to the government and the Premier and energy minister in particular: come clean. Tell us what is going to happen with those two power stations and whether they are sticking to the closure schedule.

Juliana ADDISON (Wendouree) (12:19): I am delighted to have the opportunity to discuss, make a contribution to and support the Victorian Energy Efficiency Target Amendment (Energy Upgrades for the Future) Bill 2025. This is an important bill, and I have been listening very, very closely to the outstanding contributions on this side and also the contributions of those on the other side. I am very interested in debunking some of the ideas put forward by those opposite, particularly the member for Narracan and the member for Hawthorn. Let us be very, very clear about this: much to your disappointment, emissions have gone down. They have gone down dramatically and consistently, and the Victorian energy upgrades (VEU) program is an important contributor to that. I am glad that the member for Hawthorn – he was here for a moment – talked about ‘confused and dysfunctional’ because he might have a PhD in ‘confused and dysfunctional’ in terms of his leadership of his party. To tell us that we are confused and dysfunctional is somewhat of a joke.

Brad Rowswell: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, the member for Wendouree is clearly not sticking to the bill. She may very well be edging in the direction of being in contravention of standing order 118, which I am sure you will be familiar with, regarding imputations and personal reflections on members. I would ask you to bring her back to the bill.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Meng Heang Tak): There is no point of order, but the member to return to the bill.

Juliana ADDISON: I want to talk about this bill because this is an excellent bill and an important bill, but there are also some other things that I need to address in the contributions of others that have come before me, including the contribution of the member for Narracan. I listened very intently to both the member for Narracan’s contribution as well as the member for Gippsland East with much interest. We know that there are some issues within the Liberal–National parties. They do not want to talk about renewables and they do not want to talk about reductions in emissions, because we know they want nuclear. They have made it very clear. I am not being hypothetical, as per the Chair’s discussion yesterday. They believe that nuclear is the answer. I would just put on record my support for what our Premier has said about nuclear energy: that it is risky, that it is expensive and that it is toxic. But we are not going to talk about nuclear today, because we have so many good things to talk about: renewable energy and reducing energy emissions in our area. The other thing I did want to talk about, though, is with regard to the review that the member for Gippsland spent much of his contribution focused on. I really want to take up this opportunity to respond in this debate and be really, really clear.

Peter Walsh: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, could you ask the member to refer to the member she has mentioned by his correct title? He is not the member for Gippsland; he is the member for Gippsland East.

Juliana ADDISON: The member for Gippsland East said he was very concerned about the review.

Peter Walsh: Darren Chester might take offence.

Juliana ADDISON: That says more about the member for Gippsland East than what I have said about the member for Gippsland East. Let me be really clear and explicit: the review is looking at improvements to the scheme, not at whether the scheme should exist. It clearly already is highly effective and beneficial, and the member for Gippsland East said that he would like a commonsense approach to that. What I want to say is that this review will ensure that if there are improvements that could be made, they should be made. It could not be more common sense than: ‘We’ve got a fantastic program. Let’s review it to see if it can be better.’ That is common sense, and that is something that I want to talk about as well.

The other matter that I want to talk about is just this idea that we are going to be getting consumers to pay more for the VEU. I want to debunk that as well, because the VEU program is actually reducing the cost of Victorian power bills, and this is supported by the fact that there is a net reduction for all households, including households that have not even signed up. Households that have not even accessed the VEU are getting benefits from lower power bills. I can see the member for Murray Plains is very confused by that, so I am going to walk him through it. It is important to be helpful, and I want to be helpful here. The VEU is driving down demand for energy, which reduces the wholesale price of energy. It is supply and demand; if you reduce demand, costs go down, so that is all good.

This idea that is being peddled, that we need to pause this, we need to not do this, I disagree with wholeheartedly. A pause is a waste of time. If we can improve it through the review, we definitely should. We should look for efficiencies. We should look for ways that we can do things better. But pausing it is certainly not the answer.

What is the answer? Our strong record of commitment to delivering real progress on climate change. That is what we do. That is what we have done in government, because we know that climate change is real. Whether it is the dreadful bushfires that we have had in the Grampians, the floods that we are seeing in Queensland and New South Wales, heatwaves, tropical cyclones or floods in the electorate of the member for Murray Plains, all are because of climate change. That is why we have ambitious targets for renewable energy generation, energy storage and offshore wind energy. I am also proud that this government, the Allan Labor government, has truly world-leading emissions reduction targets. That is what Victorians want and that is what they are embracing. We are well on the way to achieving these goals, with 39 per cent of Victoria’s power now generated from renewables, which is triple that of 2014. Since the member for Murray Plains was a minister in 2014, way back then, we have tripled the amount of energy that is generated by renewables, and that is something that I am incredibly proud of. I am proud to be a part of this government.

We are also doing the work to reduce emissions, making our state better off. Victorians’ wholesale power prices are consistently lower than those in other Australian states, and this is down to our record investment in renewables, which can shield our market from fossil fuel price increases. We are also putting in place the necessary arrangements for a transition away from gas, and I know that there is certainly not agreement across this place on that. Victoria’s supplies are dwindling, and we need to act to ensure a measured and methodical transition. That is why we are enacting policies to support households to electrify and move away from gas. I have already done that in my house. We have got our solar panels up and we are no longer using the gas central heating. We have got two split systems, and we are doing that rather than using our gas central heating. That is something that we do, and we love our solar panels. We were able to support a local company to install our solar panels, and whilst there is a lot of conjecture about Ballarat weather, our solar panels do very well for us during the summer months.

I also just want to talk about biogas. Biogas can also play a crucial part in accelerating our transition away from fossil gas. That is why we are capitalising on the potential of Victoria’s industry by investing millions in targeted bioenergy, which I think is a really important part of the market that we need to be looking at, talking to and engaging with.

A major component of our emissions reduction agenda is the Victorian energy upgrades program, which lowers household energy bills and incentivises a range of energy-efficient products. Through the VEU program, Victorians can access subsidies to replace major appliances including cooktops, heating and hot-water systems, in addition to low-cost and no-energy energy-saving upgrades such as energy monitors and weather sealing. The weather sealing is particularly popular in my community in Ballarat. We have had over 25,968 homes in Ballarat take advantage of weather sealing. I live in a weatherboard house that was built about 100 years ago, which very much feels the cold. We have got heritage windows, and we have got a heritage property. To have weather sealing on a range of heritage weatherboard homes across Ballarat, when we do have very icy cold mornings and under-zero temperatures, is really, really important. We know that being able to keep the cold out in winter and keep the heat in reduces costs for my community, and that is a great win.

Ellen SANDELL (Melbourne) (12:29): The Greens will be supporting this legislation, which makes several reforms to the Victorian energy upgrades program. One of the things that this bill does, as others have canvassed, is extend the Victorian energy upgrades program from 2030 through to 2045, which is the date when our state here in Victoria is meant to hit net zero greenhouse gas emissions. We support that extension very much which protects the VEU, especially against a future coalition government who might want to rip up this important part of our state’s response to climate change, probably at the behest of the gas industry, who are working very, very hard against this program and many others that we have here in Victoria. Let us make no mistake about it, let us call a spade a spade: the gas industry want to rip up programs that reduce their profits. How unconscionable is that, to put your private profits as so much more of a priority than literally the lives of Victorian communities, their health and safety and the future of our kids, our grandkids and future generations when it comes to the impacts of climate change. I find it unconscionable, the things that the gas industry is doing right now – putting ads on TV, getting to installers and telling them mistruths about electrification and about heat pumps. The VEU is a really important program that gives subsidies that make it cheaper and easier for people to get off gas, which is expensive, it is polluting, it is bad for people’s health, it exacerbates childhood asthma in people’s homes – all of the bad things – and the VEU is aiming to get off gas. That is a good thing, and that is why we will be supporting anything that strengthens it.

If we think about the 2045 target that we have here in Victoria to be at net zero greenhouse gas emissions, that is only 20 years away. 2045 feels quite far in the future, but it is only 20 years away. It is quite hard to believe that here in Victoria we are going to have to go from releasing about 85 megatons of carbon dioxide per year to hitting net zero emissions. We need to do absolutely everything that we can. That is really just the fact of the matter, and every 0.1 of a degree of climate change that we avoid makes an impact. We do not want to be defeatist about this. Yes, we have a lot of climate change already locked into the system, but every single 0.1 of a degree that we can avoid will avoid some pretty horrific impacts when it comes to natural disasters, heatwaves, floods, fires, you name it.

The VEU is part of that journey. It makes our homes and buildings more efficient. It gets our homes and businesses off dirty, expensive gas. It gets us onto cleaner, cheaper and more comfortable electric and energy-efficient options. We have almost completed the transition in our house as well, not using the VEU but using, for example, an electric induction cooktop in our home has made just the world of difference. Not only am I not worried about my three young kids breathing in all the fumes of gas or turning it on and leaving it on – because the two-year-old is wont to do that – but it also means that our cooking is just better. It goes from zero to hot in just an instant, and as someone who quite likes to cook I find induction just so much more pleasant to cook with as well.

We know that Victorians do want to get off dirty, expensive fossil gas as soon as possible and the public is actually already doing that work. There are thousands of incredible people out there who are already going around and helping other people get off gas and already giving people information on how to do that. The public is doing the work, and I am pleased to see the Victorian government also incentivising that work that communities are already doing.

The bill delivers some other reforms that we are glad to see. It will allow VEU incentives to go towards government-mandated upgrades – for example, the new energy efficiency standards for rental properties that we very much hope will come in at the end of the regulatory impact statement process, the RIS process, that is happening at the moment. We expect minimum standards for rental properties to come into effect this year, and we would love Labor to be bold. Victorian renters deserve homes that are warm in winter and cool in summer. Just because you live in a rental property does not mean that you deserve to freeze in winter or swelter through summer. That means we need to do things like requiring insulation, efficient electric appliances and draught sealing in rental properties to make sure that renters are protected. If Victoria follows the standards set by the ACT, the new standards combined with the Victorian energy upgrades program could create a really strong carrot and stick approach.

We can require landlords to finally fix their draughty, gas-guzzling properties but also give them financial support to make those upgrades and to create cheaper, more comfortable homes that renters can actually live in without freezing or dying of heat in summer. We know that heatwaves kill more people than almost any other natural disaster, and we could put a stop to this, including for people who live in rental properties.

The bill also provides the regulator, the Essential Services Commission, with a range of new and expanded enforcement tools. We hope that the new powers to target third-party installations and enforce take-back requirements will result in fewer broken walls, fewer old light bulbs left at properties and fewer problems.

The bill also enables interim targets of 2026 and 2027 to be set in regulations to allow that current review to be considered in future hard targets. Looking beyond the review, the bill also allows for future VEU program discounts to be created specifically for vulnerable and low-income consumers. That kind of objective could potentially be quite a powerful reform if it is able to be implemented in a way that that works with the scheme. We know that a lot of social organisations and a lot of environmental organisations have been calling for that targeted discount to ensure that the benefits of the VEU are actually accruing to those who might be least able to afford the up-front costs of electrification.

Taken as a whole these are all very positive improvements to the scheme. There is one thing the scheme is still missing, and that is insulation. Talk to any renter in Victoria and they will have a horror story of living in a draughty, leaky home, sweltering in the summer, freezing in the winter, letting rain in the roof and shaking in storms, and they are still living through these extreme events. In Victoria our homes are essentially glorified tents. The low standards of building that have happened in the past mean that so many of our homes are uninsulated. My home, which was built in the late 1990s, is uninsulated, and once your home is uninsulated, it is incredibly difficult to then retrofit insulation to your property. The best thing to do is put insulation in at the start, but the second-best thing to do is make it easier and cheaper for people to retrofit insulation.

Insulation means that you can save 45 per cent of the hot or cool air that is in your property. Sustainability Victoria says that about 45 per cent of the heat in your home is lost through the roof, the walls or the floor if your property is uninsulated. Adding insulation to the Victorian energy upgrades scheme would mean that it is cheaper and easier for people to retrofit insulation in their homes, and that is 45 per cent of energy costs that could potentially be saved. What a huge, amazing thing that would be for our homes. It would mean that we are all so much more comfortable in our homes. Draught-proofing and installing more efficient appliances can only go so far if all of that energy is still being lost through our walls and roofs and ceilings because we do not have insulation, so putting insulation in the scheme I think is a no-brainer. I understand that there are some issues around industry capability, and we need to make sure that it is safe and that it is installed properly; those things can be overcome. I would love to see that after this review insulation is absolutely announced as being part of this program so that people can afford to put it into their homes.

The other issue with insulation is of course that the up-front cost is quite high. There was a woman Jessica, a home owner living in Mildura, my original home town, who spoke to the ABC last year about this, and it really brought home some of the issues that people face. She said that she was forced to leave the aircon running all day so her dog did not overheat while she was at work. People who have lived in Mildura know you can get subsequent days over 45 degrees during summer, so air conditioning is not a luxury, it is actually a necessity so that you do not die. This is adding up to hundreds and hundreds more on her energy bills every month, but she is in a 1970s home. Insulating costs would be up to $6000, and she just does not have that up-front. Most people do not have that up-front. Even if they would make that back in their energy bills, it is pretty hard to find that amount of money up-front. So we know that there are some real benefits to cost of living as well when introducing insulation subsidies. Hopefully those workforce issues and those industry capability issues can be overcome, which I understand is being considered as part of the review.

I did want to just talk a little bit about some of the amendments that we are planning to circulate. One of them is in relation to insulation and the ability for insulation to be included in the VEU. The other one is around time-of-use emissions being factored into the scheme. We think it is a power the government will want to explore as the grid increasingly deals with the highly distributed renewable energy that we are seeing in the market and the interrelation between batteries, with more and more batteries in people’s homes.

I will explain those a little bit, but under standing orders I wish to advise the house of amendments to this bill and request that they be circulated.

Amendments circulated under standing orders.

Ellen SANDELL: When it comes to insulation, I also understand that there have been some stakeholders talking about a potential solution being around the residential efficiency scorecard and that under that scorecard program accredited assessors could inspect individual homes and deliver tailored energy-efficient assessments, ratings and solutions. That is part of the system currently. The Victorian government set the national standard for the scorecard, so credit to the Victorian government for doing that. It is currently being adopted as part of the nationwide house energy rating scheme, or NatHERS. Victorians can access scorecard assessments under the Victorian energy upgrades currently, so you can get a discounted assessment of your house under the VEU, and they can identify where you might need extra insulation – if it is better in your roof or if it is better in your walls, for example. They can also look at what is the most appropriate insulation for your home to ensure you are getting the safest solution possible. Some stakeholders have told us there might be an opportunity to link the two programs. That is why the Greens are proposing this prescribed activity for the VEU insulation where a scorecard assessment has been provided, to there is a linkage there.

In terms of my other amendment, in the same way that the government is planning future additions to the VEU with the vulnerable community sub-target that I talked about earlier, the Greens propose a new power to incorporate peak demand management into the scheme. That is because we know, with the growth of solar, the reduction in household gas and the slow-but-sure death of coal and gas plants, Victoria is going to require more and more household batteries to manage peak demand. Years back we did have in Victoria subsidies for batteries in homes. That has been replaced by with government with zero-interest loans. I get that there is some logic there. Loans get people thinking about the long-term savings associated with batteries. They do take longer to pay off than solar panels. That lack of a rebate is still a barrier for everyday Victorians who might have to face $10,000 or $15,000 for a battery. Understanding how we could improve time-of-use emissions in an emissions trading scheme is a power we think the government will want to explore as the grid increasingly deals with this distributed renewable energy. Some of our amendments go to some of those matters.

Finally, I do want to take a moment to talk about fossil fuel use in general. I made some comments earlier in relation to the gas industry and their concerted campaign to undermine anything that chips away at their profits. I just want to make some comments about coal and gas right now. We have a Labor government federally that has opened more than 30 new coal and gas projects in the last three years. Here in Victoria, on Tuesday we had a new gas-drilling project start. We are seeing gas drilling happening off Victoria’s coastline, in state waters and in Commonwealth waters. We are seeing gas drilling happening near the Twelve Apostles, one of our most iconic sites in Victoria. The impacts on the marine ecosystem are significant. But even if you wanted to put all of that aside, which you should not, we cannot afford to burn one more drop of oil or gas or one more lump of coal if we are to have any hope of protecting ourselves from future climate change. It is simple science. I think it is just astonishing that we have a federal Labor going to an election right now which has approved 30 coal and gas projects right across our country, and here in Victoria a Labor government that has approved projects in both state waters and in federal waters.

I just think it is absolutely outrageous that they can be pouring fuel on the fire of climate change while on the other hand saying that they are dealing with it. It simply does not add up when it comes to the science, and I urge all parties to think about it. It is a difficult problem; I get that. Climate change is a difficult problem, and we should have acted years and years ago. We did not, which is what has got us to this moment now. But it is incumbent on all of us to think about the future that we are leaving for ourselves, for our kids and for future generations. To have a Labor government that has opened 30 new coal and gas projects right across our country is an absolute disgrace.

Sarah CONNOLLY (Laverton) (12:46): I too rise to speak on the Victorian Energy Efficiency Target Amendment (Energy Upgrades for the Future) Bill 2025. Everyone here in this place knows I love getting up and talking about our fantastic legislation – which it feels like every sitting week, time and time again, we put before the house – that is related to our government’s record on energy. I have totally lost count of the number of bills that have been brought as part of this energy law reform over the past six-odd years since I was elected to this place.

The main focus of today’s bill is our government’s fantastic Victorian energy upgrade scheme. When I first saw that we were debating this bill today my actual first thought was, ‘Oh, this is going to be another amazing opportunity to highlight the incredible impact this program has had for Victorians.’ Whilst those opposite and their mates in Canberra are contemplating rolling out a $600 billion nuclear energy industry here in Australia and here in Victoria, we are getting on with delivering cheap and affordable renewable energy right across the state. With Victoria now smashing through our renewable energy targets, on top of that, the Victorian energy upgrades (VEU) program is a heavy part of reducing energy and utility bills for households and businesses right across this state.

Since the program was introduced by the Bracks government back in 2009 – it feels like a lifetime ago now – more than 2.4 million households and 179,000 businesses have taken up the program and installed discounted energy-efficient products through this program. That is a hell of a lot of people. In 2023 the program went all electric, and in just two years we have seen more than 19,000 reverse-cycle air conditioners and over 39,000 hot-water systems installed in households, and that is a saving of 28 million tonnes of emissions.

The best part about this program is that even if you do not participate, guess what, you are still going to benefit from this scheme. By reducing energy demand for households, these energy-efficient products put downward pressure on retail energy prices, and what we know is that for the past four years the program has saved Victorians around $3.8 billion in energy system costs. It is not just all about electricity, the scheme supports important things like water and gas usage as well.

Quite recently – and I love this story; these are two wonderful young women in my electorate – I was handed letters by two fantastic year 7 students from Sunshine College. I was there for an International Women’s Day morning tea, and Kiana and Alexandra had written me letters. They were learning about, of all things, sustainability and the environment as part of the year 7 curriculum. They had written a couple of letters to me, and I wrote back to them last week. They had a lot of questions and interest in how households could reduce their waste and energy usage.

One of these students came from Albion Primary School, which is a great local primary school in Albion. They have just been awarded their fifth star as part of our government’s ResourceSmart Schools Awards for energy sustainability. That program is all about doing things at schools like encouraging recycling. I know Albion Primary School was even encouraging the recycling of toothbrushes and toothpaste, which I thought was really clever because it was also encouraging kids to clean their teeth. What do you do with your toothbrush after it is a bit manky and needs to be replaced? You could take it to Albion Primary School, where they will recycle it for you. They had gone on from Albion Primary School, where they had learned great environmental sustainability habits as part of that program in that primary school, and in year 7 they were learning even more about how households could reduce their waste and energy usage.

I wrote to them. I just signed off the letters as of last week, and they go on for pages and pages because there is so much happening in this space. I was really keen to tell them all about the wonderful things that the Allan Labor government is doing to promote sustainability.

One of the things I told them about was the Victorian energy upgrades program and how households could reduce their water usage through this program by installing water-efficient showerheads. This was something that the girls were really interested in. I mention this because very soon Alexandra and Kiana will graduate, and they are going to live and they are going to work, hopefully, in our local community. They will be able to own or go ahead and rent their homes and maybe even run businesses of their own. They will be thinking about their own households and how they can be more energy efficient, not just to support the environment but also for their own cost of living. That is why a program like this one can make the changes they need for their own homes, and at a discounted price. It is better for the environment, and it is better for the hip pocket. Overall, that is what this program does for Victorians. What we do know on this side of the chamber is that it is overwhelmingly successful and overwhelmingly embraced by the local community. The local community loves these kinds of programs.

Late last year our government announced a review of the program, ensuring that it can continue to support Victoria’s transition to electric utilities. What this bill actually does is give households and the industry the certainty they need to continue taking part in this transition whilst this review is underway, because this program is an adaptive feature of our state’s climate change and energy policy agenda and one that directly impacts households. We know it is working. We know the public love it. They use it, they buy into it and it is working. What we do want to see is how we can make the scheme even stronger to go ahead and support this important work of making households and, importantly, businesses so much more energy efficient so they can go ahead and reduce their bills.

At the end of the day I do think the two of them go hand in hand. I am out in Williams Landing on a regular basis, and I remember a visit by the minister and the Premier on a Sunday morning. We were out in Williams Landing. There was a great young couple who just bought a Tesla, their first Tesla, and they invited us into their home. It was interesting to see how it was all switched on in the garage, as I am someone who does not yet own one. They also took us through why it was important for them to have solar panels on their roof, why they bought that Tesla and why they were thinking about the emissions that they as a couple were emitting and looking at reducing them. They were very much aware of their impact on climate change and wanted to reduce their footprint. But also what was fantastic, and the Premier and minister and I went through it, is they pulled out one of their bills and started going through it and showing us the cost saving. One of the things the Premier asked this couple about was that it was a lot of money to have saved. They had saved hundreds and hundreds of dollars. She said to them, ‘What are you going to spend it on?’ They were going to go on a holiday together, which I just thought was wonderful. Some of these incredible initiatives that this government over its time has gone ahead and rolled out here in Victoria do have real monetary impact, and it is wonderful to be able to see that.

One of the first things that the bill is going to do is extend this program for another 20 years, which is fantastic to know. It will still be in place. That is going to go all the way to 2045. It means that even though we will be reviewing the program and continuing to do that, Victorians can, most importantly, continue to take part in the program and continue to upgrade their homes, giving certainty to both them and the industry, supporting hundreds if not thousands of jobs right across Victoria, including plumbers, electricians and other trades who support this program.

This bill makes a number of important changes to the operation of the VEU program. We know that it is a program that Victorians have wanted to see in place. They have embraced it, continue to use it and have reduced their footprint when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions, but they have also saved so much on their utility bills. At the end of the day, this is just another way that our government is helping just regular folks with the cost of living by making sure there is more money in the hip pocket to do the things that they want to do, whether it is having a holiday or whether it is going out for dinner or ordering a pizza on a Friday night. This is just another way we can help with the cost of living. This is a great bill, and that is exactly why I commend it to the house.

Peter WALSH (Murray Plains) (12:55): In making my contribution to the Victorian Energy Efficiency Target Amendment (Energy Upgrades for the Future) Bill 2025, can I thank the member for Wendouree for staying in the chamber to give me a chance to respond to some of the comments that she made in her contribution about the fact that climate change is driving fires and floods and that somehow before the last 20 or 30 years we did not have fires and floods in Victoria. Can I remind the member for Wendouree that the biggest flood of all time was in 1956, which was literally feet above any other flood that we have seen in our in our lifetime. Prior to that, in 1909 there was another huge flood. So I do not think it is just climate change that drives floods. I also remind the member for Wendouree that 1939 had probably the next worst bushfire compared to the 2009 bushfire. We have had floods and we have had fires. I agree with the science that the intensity of the extremes of weather is happening, but it is not all caused by climate change. Climate change may be making some of it worse, but it is certainly not causing the whole lot.

The other comment I would make to a number of the economic gurus on the other side of the house who say that somehow this program is putting money in the pockets of Victorian families and in the pockets of Victorian businesses. Let us just work out or speak about where the money comes from to pay for these units. It actually goes onto the power bills, so people are actually paying for the cost of this program in their power bills. If there is any subsidy coming from the state government, that is still taxpayers money. There is nothing for nothing in this world, and for the other side of the house to paint it like somehow this is a free program that magically gives someone something for nothing is just an absolutely misleading, because it is built into the power prices. There is nothing for nothing, as I have said, so I think all those on the other side that are somehow trying to paint this as a program that is giving people something for nothing are totally wrong: it is not for nothing.

I think we can all remember the number of people who fell victim to some of the rorts of this particular program. I have got cafe owners in my electorate who suddenly had a truck pull up and deliver some fridges. They said, ‘Where did these come from? Why have we got these fridges?’ And apart from the fact they did not order them, they were not fit for purpose – they actually did not keep the contents as cool as they are supposed to under the Health Act 1958 that they have to follow in a cafe. That is just one example of where this system can go wrong, and it did go wrong in that case. I am not saying that is the case for all of it, but there does need to be good oversight to make sure these things do not happen in the future. The other one, and I think the member for Morwell might have mentioned it, was where a number of football clubs all of a sudden got a huge bank of heat pump hot-water systems that went out the back of their football sheds. They were not as efficient; they were a lot more expensive to run, and those football clubs found that they had a much larger power bill after those heat pump hot-water systems were put in.

The other things I will touch off on before actually talking about the bill are the Greens comments about what a future Liberal or National government may or may not do, and they mentioned the word ‘unconscionable’. I would say that is the kettle calling the pot black. Some of the things that the Greens said are just as unconscionable when it comes to how they dramatise and overmagnify the issues that they are talking about. They demonise the gas industry. I think they need to do an analysis of what actually keeps the lights on when we need peaking power in this state. It is gas. What actually powers industry is gas.

There are a lot of industries that use gas for furnaces and for heating. At the moment it is just not economical or practical to use electricity, so there is a need for gas as we transition to renewables. It is not about one or the other, it is about a sensible, affordable and transition. If we just say we are not going to have gas or do not want gas, the world will stop. We need to have gas as we transition to renewables into the future. Our side of politics is about a sensible, affordable transition. It is not about huge leaps that someone wants to do to be politically popular in a particular part of the state. It is about how you do it for the whole state.

That is the other issue that I want to raise. People think the renewable projects that are being built are somehow not impacting on someone in this state. If I look to my electorate, there is this huge community fight going on at the moment and huge stress on the community with the VNI West powerline that is going to go through that area. There was no genuine consultation and no genuine discussion with the community about how that project was actually going to go through. It is important that this transition actually happens –

The ACTING SPEAKER (Meng Heang Tak): Sorry, member for Murray Plains, it is time for me to interrupt business for lunch.

Sitting suspended 1:01 pm until 2:02 pm.

The SPEAKER: I acknowledge in the gallery the Honourable Kate Jones, a former minister in the Queensland government.