Thursday, 7 March 2024

Climate Change and Energy Legislation Amendment (Renewable Energy and Storage Targets) Bill 2023

Second reading

Debate resumed on motion of Ingrid Stitt:

That the bill be now read a second time.

Melina BATH (Eastern Victoria) (14:12): I am pleased to rise today to speak on the Climate Change and Energy Legislation Amendment (Renewable Energy and Storage Targets) Bill 2023. I will go through the purpose of the bill and then make some commentary on it.

The purpose of the bill is to make amendments to the Climate Change Act 2017, the Planning and Environment Act 1987 and the Renewable Energy (Jobs and Investment) Act 2017. It makes amendments to the Climate Change Act to alter the act’s title, to bring forward the long-term target for net zero greenhouse gas emissions from 2050 to 2045 and to legislate increases in interim targets from 28 per cent to 33 per cent by 2025, 45 per cent to 50 per cent by 2030 and 75 per cent to 80 per cent by 2035. The bill amends the Planning and Environment Act to require consideration of climate change when making planning decisions about the use and development of land under the act and for other purposes, which includes greenhouse gas emissions, reductions targets and increased climate resilience, and it provides the minister with some discretion to direct planning authorities in meeting the above. It also increases the renewable energy target, introduces an energy storage target and introduces offshore wind targets by a said position in the bill.

This is a critical, critical issue. Electricity supply, power supply, in our state is probably one of the most critical issues facing the state. We saw under Daniel Andrews the closure of the Hazelwood power station in 2017 virtually without warning. At the time, speaking with not only workers but unions and indeed the company – those people based in the valley – they were blindsided by that. The Latrobe Valley Authority was set up with the mandate to transfer workers from the closed Hazelwood power station across to the other two remaining, Loy Yang A and Loy Yang B and Yallourn, and also then to ‘retrain’ people – upskill them and retrain them. That worked to a 60 per cent success rate, and that is very clearly defined in all documentation and even the LVA’s own reports and the like – a 60 per cent success rate – and over its course it has actually had around $300 million to transition, to create new work opportunities for redundant workers and supposedly to create new enterprises in the valley. We hear all the time from the government benches how regional unemployment is at an all-time low, and it is. However, the valley is going through considerable change and considerable pain, and unfortunately this auspiced authority set up to transition workers and create new job opportunities has failed. It is a shambles, and it has largely wasted in the course of it that $300 million. Unemployment in the Morwell region is at about 11 to 12 per cent, so right at the heart of where the closures started we are still looking at astronomical unemployment figures. To be fair, I will put on record that Morwell has always been a bit higher than the statewide average; however, it has also been a force for power generation and a force for employment over many, many years.

This government has had all virtue in the LVA but no results there. In fact the last and most recent report that has come out is nothing more than a puff piece. There was funding there. In the last couple of years the only funding that the LVA has had has been in relation to paying the wages of staff. There are no new internal projects that are going to deliver jobs in our region, and it is a very sad state of affairs. If you read that report, it sounds aspirational but it delivers nothing.

I know back a couple of years ago I instigated and we had an inquiry into the closures and what will happen when the closure of Yallourn comes in 2028 and ongoing. The LVA came at the time. Mr Chris Buckingham came and he spoke about all these jobs that were created, but when I asked him what ongoing jobs there were, he could not answer. Something like 4000 jobs were created, but some of them were around security people for sporting events in the valley. We want to see in the valley long-term sustainable jobs. We heard from the Premier at the time that SEA Electric would be a driver of electric cars in the valley, and what we have seen is no SEA Electric. Five hundred jobs were guaranteed to us – they spruiked it to the nth degree – and there is just all this content in a media release and no delivery on the ground.

We have seen the removal of the Hazelwood power station and we have seen a battery. Engie have put up a battery there, and that is certainly going to be part of the mix going forward if we are going to transition to renewables – and I do not believe anybody in here is against transitioning to renewables. We have seen the importance of the work done by others, including Star of the South, for offshore wind farms and the opportunities for local job creation in the servicing of those wind farms and also in the technology. But now we have seen the federal government and the federal minister, Minister Plibersek, coming up and canning the government’s cherrypicked Hastings port to be that terminal. She has put a wet blanket all over that, and Minister D’Ambrosio does not have an answer. They have gone very silent on this. So that is another part where this government is just botching up the transition. Rather than actually having a focused and sustained plan, it is picking winners and then casting losers. Where is this coal port going to be? Will it be in Port Anthony or not? So what is going to happen? Many of those renewable energy bodies such as Star of the South and the others have spent, I would say, close to six years in development, and we have seen government legislation come through from the feds to enable it. Well, they have got no home in which to embark on these new technologies.

We also know the importance of solar – solar on our rooftops and also solar plants in the right location – but there also has to be a balance around solar panels covering up large-scale agricultural land. There has got to be that balance where they are in the right location and they do not inhibit the ability of farmers to grow and very much produce our good food and fibre in this area. So we look at that.

We look at this government, as we move to all the required targets as specified in this bill, taking a backward step on the hydrogen project, the Hydrogen Energy Supply Chain project, and indeed I just find quite it quite gobsmacking. I am sure the Treasurer Mr Pallas is quite frustrated with the minister for energy – and I know as I was there at the time – because he came down when the Japanese consortium came out, and there was a shovel put in the ground at Loy Yang A in relation to that HESC, which is a pilot program. So they took that pilot program, they showed that hydrogen could be manufactured from coal and then shipped across from the terminal at the Port of Hastings, funnily enough, through to the Japanese government and nation. So that proved that it could occur. Yes, the Japanese consortium, including the government, have come back and said, ‘We will invest $3.2 billion into this pipeline to make this hydrogen from coal into a reality.’

Let me be very clear on this: as part of this whole transition and being responsible as Victorians and being responsible in terms of climate change mitigation and being responsible to meet targets to support the better protection of our environment, we need to have these sorts of inventions going, but this type of technology also needs carbon capture and storage. I know that the Greens gag every time I say that, but there has been a carbon capture and storage facility, a cooperative research centre, running near Colac for about 15 years, I think, and they have been capturing carbon dioxide and storing it very safely and inertly underneath. They have multiple players around the world – business, industry and also government – who are funding that to do those tests. We know of the sea basin in Gippsland and the very important work that they are doing out there to test that safe capture so that those geological deposits could then use that carbon and capture it inertly and safely in our Gippsland Basin. There is still a long way to go, and there is no doubt about that, but this government is crab walking back from that, which is really disappointing. I am sure the Treasurer has been quite frustrated by Minister D’Ambrosio and her attitude.

What we also want to see, and I fully endorse the flow-on, is the potential for green hydrogen. So when there is an excess in our wind-trapped electricity, when there is an excess of our solar, we can actually take that, store that and then convert that into hydrogen. We were speaking with Gavin Dufty recently. I have read a little bit of his work on the importance of making sure that if there was a hydrogen economy, from his point of view it is highly likely that it could be used in transportation and industry-based purposes. There is certainly going to be a use for it.

What this government has done, and we reject it entirely in this house – the Nationals and the Liberals – is ban gas. When the transmission lines fell over the other day, what happened? We lost power to somewhere around 400,000 homes. But what happened was the gas peaking plants all kicked in and were firing on all cylinders to provide vital energy to our homes and businesses and vital services, so we saw that there was a place for those gas peaking plants. We also know that gas is a feedstock and can be used and still is very important in a number of industries that are important to Victoria. What we have seen is this government go, ‘No, I’m sorry. We’re going to shut down all gas to new homes.’ That is going to create havoc. We have seen only recently in Albury–Wodonga there is a business that has shut down as a result of pressures in the lack of gas. Again, there needs to be a sensible transition.

I am very concerned that this government will lead Victoria to a cliff and we will not have the transmission lines in place. It very much shows a lack of proper planning, but it also shows that in walking towards these targets there still should be some green lights there – the Hydrogen Energy Supply Chain project continuing to use gas as a nimble productive energy source to literally keep the wheels turning when these disasters happen. We also want to see our coal stations working and taking up the slack that is occurring at the moment.

It was very interesting the other day when my colleague in the lower house Danny O’Brien put on record who actually privatised the power stations. I may be foreshadowing a guess that my colleagues across the way might like to raise. I was certainly most interested. I have always wanted to find that document, but it was a press release from 1992 from the then Premier Joan Kirner –

A member: Mission Energy.

Melina BATH: Mission Energy – welcoming a private company to take over and be part of that Latrobe Valley Loy Yang energy system. I have probably heard it more than 50 times in this house about Jeff Kennett, but it was actually Joan Kirner who started to privatise the industry.

A member interjected.

Melina BATH: Yes, and there have been others. There have absolutely been others, as my colleague said, and I am quoting him here. If it is on this side, if we feel it is necessary to continue the work of the time because Victoria was flat broke, if Kennett felt the need to continue what Kirner had started, that is bad. But when Kirner did it, it was fine. Also, when the government chooses to privatise other things –

A member: Tim Pallas with the registration branch.

Melina BATH: Correct. Absolutely. That apparently is good. We have this foggy stuff that is happening here. There is amnesia when it suits and not when it does not. As I said, it is important to continue to move and be responsible global citizens, but this government is botching this transition.

Before I conclude, the Essential Services Commission – we have seen electricity prices go up in the vicinity of 25 to 27 per cent over the past 12 months. We have also seen gas prices go up. This makes it more difficult to do business. There are many good people out there who have got great ideas around the transmission lines and where they should go and how they should be strengthened. In not opposing this bill, I call on the government to work with various entities like, as I said, the Japanese government – $3.2 billion for the HESC as a start, to flow into green hydrogen in the future. Remove this absurd gas ban, enable us to not fall off a cliff in terms of our energy needs and support Victorians to get about their day and work meaningfully without being crushed by a huge burden on their shoulders.

David LIMBRICK (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (14:32): I also rise to speak on the Climate Change and Energy Legislation Amendment (Renewable Energy and Storage Targets) Bill 2023. This bill does a few things. Most significantly, it sets Victorian renewable energy targets of up to 95 per cent by 2035 and specifies minimum amounts of production of offshore wind energy and storage of energy – ‘energy’ being the key word, which we will come back to in the committee stage, where I will have some questions about what I think are some serious problems with this bill.

Firstly, let us state a couple of facts here. The objective of having this high renewable energy target or, as I say, weather-dependent energy target, is to decarbonise our electricity grid. If we look around the world, no-one has decarbonised a major, developed economy’s electricity grid without using a combination of large-scale hydro-electric and/or nuclear energy. No-one has done it with renewable energy alone. It remains to be seen, in this experiment that we are conducting, under pressure from international forces and many within our own country, whether we are successful with that or not.

We also keep hearing about cheap renewables. Even though our power bills keep going up, we keep hearing about cheap renewables. One must wonder in a market where an option for delivering something is the cheapest why we need subsidies and targets. Surely if we let that market be free, then the cheapest option would naturally be selected. If it is in fact cheap renewables, then that would be the option that everyone would choose. We would have 100 per cent renewables because of course that is the cheapest option. Yet we have to set these targets, we have to subsidise the hell out of it and we have to prohibit other technologies. It is all rather curious.

If we look at why some of this infrastructure is cheap, there are a few things going on here. First, when they say cheap renewables, what they are talking about is the marginal cost, so the levelised cost of energy as it is being produced after the infrastructure – the transmission and other electrical infrastructure – has been built, which of course is not included in the integrated system plan, and we have no idea how much that is going to cost. We are going to see transmission lines and condensers and storage equipment all over the state, and we do not know how much that is going to cost over the long term. That is one of the reasons it is ‘cheap’.

Another reason this energy is cheap is a lot of this material, especially the source materials such as rare earth metals and many of the components, are imported from China. I have brought this up many times in Parliament. One of the components needed for solar panels are polysilicates. If you look, there have been many articles written about this. The majority of the world’s polysilicate supply chain is tainted with slave labour. Listen to that again: the majority of the world’s polysilicate supply chain is tainted with slave labour. This puts a very dark spin on the whole cheap renewables claim. Also, the rare earth materials that are used in the magnets that are used in wind turbines, ironically, create large amounts of radioactive waste, which is just dumped in a lake in China. Ironically, people worried about radioactive waste do not seem to worry about rare earth production.

Again, this market is controlled primarily by China. I know that the federal government in the last term, the coalition – and I am assuming that the new Labor government – did make some efforts to putting strategic priority on rare earth production in Australia. I note that Victoria has some excellent rare earth mineral deposits, which we cannot process in Victoria due to our nuclear activities prohibition – stupidly. We can mine them, but then we ship them off to China or we ship them to South Australia, who can produce them but much of it goes to China. Again, we are dependent on China.

Much of this wind and solar infrastructure lasts about 20 to 30 years if it is not damaged in the meantime. Its natural lifespan is about 20 to 30 years. That means that we are not doing a transition, we are committing to a perpetual renewal, making ourselves perpetually dependent on cheap renewables from China. Think about the strategic problems with doing this. Will it remain cheap forever? Who knows? A response I have heard to this is that maybe we will start making it in Australia. Guess what, it is not cheap anymore if we do that.

I think what we are doing here is a grand experiment where the goals have never been achieved before anywhere throughout the world, and it is a risk. We are going to have to not only massively increase the generation and storage infrastructure but also the transmission and other technical infrastructure like condensers and things like this. If you talk to electrical engineers, they will tell you about all the other things that you need because you do not have what they call a high momentum within the grid. But that said, I think that this is such a huge risk and if renewables really were the cheapest, it would be totally unnecessary to have this target.

Therefore the Libertarian Party will absolutely be opposing this bill. I hope that we do not get to the stage where the way that we discover that this was a bad idea is through blackouts and impoverishing our state. As I have said many times, I would love our state to have the cheapest and most abundant and reliable energy in the world. We had that at one point. We no longer have that. We are now one of the most expensive. It is going to make it very difficult for us to effectively re-industrialise, because we have already de-industrialised to a large degree. We cannot even produce white paper in this state anymore. What we should be doing in Victoria is looking at what really is the cheapest and allowing that to happen and allowing that market. As we know, the way that we get the cheapest and the most abundant supply of goods and services is through allowing that market to be as free as possible.

What we are doing here in the energy market is a terrible example of one of the most tinkered and interfered with markets that we could imagine, probably outside of maybe finance and medicine. The idea that we privatise things – I hear the Liberal Party complaining about privatisation, for God’s sake. Even with the supposed privatisations that happened, the regulations on top of that were so onerous that the idea that we somehow had this magical free market that failed was just a fantasy. We have not had that. We have never had that, unfortunately, but I would like to see a free market. I want to see abundant energy that is cheap for Victoria because without it, it is going to be very hard for us to maintain our current standard of living and indeed grow prosperity in the future. I condemn this bill.

Tom McINTOSH (Eastern Victoria) (14:41): I am delighted to stand and support this bill today, a bill that I believe the majority of Victorians absolutely support the principles at its core, and that is getting on and dealing with climate change while providing the energy that this state needs. The bill will set the new goals for this state of net zero emissions by 2045 and the interim targets on the way there, and the 95 per cent renewable energy target by 2035 and those interim targets as well.

Minister D’Ambrosio and everyone who has not just worked on our climate and energy targets and goals up until now but worked on implementing our renewable energy and emission reduction strategies should be commended. The fact that this state is 42.7 per cent below our peak in emissions is commendable, and 40 per cent of our electricity is coming from renewables. That is because on this side, much like whether you look at education, whether you are looking at health or whether you are looking at transport and infrastructure, we are getting on with delivering what Victorians need and what Victorians want. The easiest thing in the world is to throw your hands up and say it is all too hard, but that is not what this Labor government does. We identify issues. In this case – and I know this is difficult for those opposite to hear – it is science: we need to stop emitting carbon and other emissions into our atmosphere, because it warms our climate. We are seeing the consequences of that right here, right now. It is not something off into the future. I am sure Mr Limbrick would acknowledge what it is doing to insurance premiums, what it is doing to farmers and what it is doing to people in Victoria who go to the supermarket to buy their goods. It does not enable sustainability in an economic sense for our farmers. It does not enable sustainability from an environmental perspective of every living thing in this state. It does not enable us to ignore the economic conditions of climate change that the world is going to be setting, which we are already seeing being set around trade and dealing with other nations, particularly as an export nation and particularly as a nation with an incredible history, and I believe an incredible future, with manufacturing.

What we have on hand with an abundant source of renewables to power our manufacturing to export to the world is an absolutely incredible opportunity. With the targets, like the targets we have set since coming into government in 2014, we are a leading jurisdiction around the world. What Minister D’Ambrosio and this government have done to set the targets to here and set the targets today to continue that work around storage – the 6 gigawatts there and offshore wind, the 9 gigawatts around our onshore renewables and around everything we are doing, whether it is energy efficiency or reducing demand – saves home owners and saves businesses money. The power you do not need to consume saves you money; it reduces the demand on our grid and it reduces our emissions.

As I said, the offshore wind targets have driven an incredible amount of investment into this state. We have literally tens of billions of dollars of investment in offshore wind lined up. I am going to talk in detail, because those opposite would like to say, as we had Ms Bath saying, ‘Oh, yes, offshore wind sounds really great. We support that. Now moving right along.’ But I will come back to that in detail.

All of these targets that we are setting are acknowledging a problem, which is what a government has to do and which we as elected members of Parliament, representatives of our community, should do: acknowledge a problem, acknowledge science, acknowledge data and speak what are difficult truths at times, because we have got one of the most highly carbonised economies in the world and we have got to transition from that. So it is a big challenge. Nobody is denying it is a big challenge, but it is about who is willing to step up and deal with the challenge. By setting the targets, everyone has a clear understanding of what we want to do. We are setting the framework. That allows investment to come in, to invest in these industries, which then brings the jobs. That is why, through our prolonged investment in TAFE and other training and engaging with school leavers, we are ensuring that a pipeline of workers with the appropriate skills to deliver the projects that we need to power this state is there and ready to go.

Now we get to those opposite, the noalition – everything is no, no, no, even when incredibly important events are occurring. Let us take the last month. We have had communities in absolute distress because of fires and because of storm events. We have got MPs in this place who were running home to get a photo of their gas stove and saying, ‘Oh, my God. Thankfully I’ve got a gas stove.’ Look, it is fair to say it was good to have a gas stove at that time, but to link that to the idea of ‘They’re going to take away your gas’ is absolutely scandalous. Nobody is going to go into anyone’s home and take their gas burners. That is absolutely ridiculous.

That sits alongside the 20 years of inaction and stalling that those opposite have been about, whether it is state or federal. There have been no policies coming out from that side on energy. Well, let us say no sustained policies, because federally I acknowledge you had something like 16 to 20 policies in the 20 years – the rotation of the media adviser handing the energy minister of the day something that sounded good at the time. But very sadly, the policies on energy and climate from those opposite seem to have been driven by particular interests in a very, very small portion of their broader party, and that has driven the narrative for a very, very long time. Hence they have put their heads in the sand and have been unable to engage in this issue in any meaningful way. We have gone on and done it. That is why, as I said before, we have got 40 per cent renewable energy in this state, and we have had an over 40 per cent reduction in emissions from our peak. Ms Bath was talking about Hazelwood before. It is just a classic example of everything that the opposition do in this space: linking the closure of Hazelwood, which was privately owned and operated, to the broader discussion and linking a storm that took out powerlines to people – the powerlines running through bush where trees were coming down and taking them out.

Let us get serious and talk about the serious issues that are at stake to keep power connected to people’s houses. Rather than saying we need nuclear generators to resolve this issue, have a fair dinkum conversation with voters, because that is what they want. Let us say we get the regulatory framework in place – let us say a small modular nuclear reactor – and we can actually get the technology right. There is one built somewhere in the Western world – they exist. Let us say it is not the most expensive form of energy and somebody somewhere here decides we are going to fund building one. Then let us say we can get it done in a meaningful way that meets some of the goals and targets that we and the rest of the world need to meet to ensure a quality standard of living for people, great. But again, they have been in power for 10 years federally and have not talked about it, but hang on a minute, what is here in the back pocket? Nuclear energy. Because it is not about delivering anything. It is about coming in and muddying the waters and confusing people as to what is really going on. It really is shameful. I do not know how you on your side rest your heads at night knowing this is such a serious issue that should be above politics. Those opposite are talking about nuclear. They are spruiking it. Bring it to the people, but we know that is not what your real intent is. Your real intent is just to muddy the dialogue, to confuse people and to scare people.

There were other comments around unemployment. Unemployment is at its lowest in regional Victoria. I was up on a constituency question earlier talking about us being half a per cent below the national average, yet somehow this is getting tied in with renewable energy. Renewable energy is going to bring tens of thousands of jobs and tens of billions of dollars of investment, but you are selling out our people from the opportunities we are bringing, through scaremongering, because you cannot bring any ideas to the table. There are no solutions. When you have values and you believe in something, you sit down and you think, ‘All right, here’s a problem; we’re going to find a solution.’ And then you bring it to this place, you bring it to the people and you offer something they can consider, something that is deliverable, and we get on with it. But we know that is not what you lot are about. I will not even get into leadership conversations and whatnot because God knows where it is even at. By the time anyone gets to watch this we could be two leaders down the track.

There was conversation before from Mr Limbrick, conversation casting aspersions over things. To come back to the point, we are already 40 per cent of the way there. The whole way people have been saying we cannot do it, and we are connected to other states. Mr Limbrick talked about not being able to do it without hydro; we are already connected to hydro. We are connected to different wind and weather patterns around the country.

I had better not go on too long because I get a bit worked up at times, but that is because this is such an important issue. It is not an issue we can just kick around like a political football and not take responsibility for people right here right now. As I said before, our farmers, our consumers at the supermarket, anybody who is trying to live in accommodation without an air conditioner, anybody who is trying to live in accommodation where they do not want water rising up underneath their house or anyone who has to pay insurance premiums. Anyone who has to pay insurance premiums is pretty live to this conversation and what inaction means. They are absolutely live to it.

I will finish by saying I am absolutely supportive of the minister and this legislation she is putting forward. The work that we have undertaken over the last decade has been a massive challenge. We are up to the challenge. We are putting the targets in place, we are bringing the investment, we are identifying the workers and we are training those workers. In every single place possible where we can transition workers from previous industries that have set this state up – which have given us the economic underpinnings to be what we are now and have driven our manufacturing sectors, powered our homes and powered our businesses – we want to bring those workers with us. It is not about saying the sky is going to fall in; it is about setting a plan, investing in the training, having the conversations and bringing them along.

With these targets Minister D’Ambrosio will be very, very well remembered as time goes by into history – as 10, 20 and 30 years go by – for what this state has done, for the leadership we have shown, for the energy we will provide for this state and for the net zero emission end point that we will end up with and that we enabled.

David DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan) (14:55): I am rising to make a contribution to the Climate Change and Energy Legislation Amendment (Renewable Energy and Storage Targets) Bill 2023. The truth of the matter is the state government’s energy policy is in chaos. The state government’s energy policy arrangements are completely botched. We have seen a set of targets come forward here, and let us be clear, there are federal targets and there are internationally agreed targets. Both parties at a federal level have accepted targets, including the federal coalition, both before the last election and currently, so targets are accepted. We made announcements before the state election that we would put in place targets if elected. The point here is that the state government has got to deliver parallel with those targets. So it is all very well having some targets over here, but you have actually got to have in place the steps and the requirements and the –

Tom McIntosh: Exactly. We are ahead of our targets – 40 per cent renewable energy.

David DAVIS: Well, the bill seeks to increase these targets. It alters the title of the Climate Action Act 2017, it brings forward the long-term emissions target for net zero greenhouse gases from 2050 to 2045 and it legislates emission reduction targets of 28 per cent to 33 per cent by 2025, 45 per cent to 50 per cent by 2030 and 75 per cent to 80 per cent by 2035. It increases the renewable energy target for 2030 from 50 per cent to 65 per cent. This means the government will now aim to have 65 per cent of electricity generated by renewable energy sources or by converting renewable energy sources into electricity by 2030. It introduces a renewable energy target of 95 per cent by 2035. It introduces a storage target of 2.6 gigawatts by 2030 and 6.3 gigawatts by 2036. It introduces offshore wind targets of not less than 2 gigawatts by 2032, 4 gigawatts by 2035 and 9 gigawatts by 2040 in the offshore area of Victoria by converting wind energy into electricity.

There are a few points I want to make here. Victoria has reduced its greenhouse gas emissions principally by turning off a previous coal plant, a brown coal plant in the Latrobe Valley. That is the main reason that our emissions targets have been achieved to date. But it is getting harder and it is getting more difficult, and this government has no plan and no way forward. There are a number of areas where that is super clear. We saw in recent times the state government get itself into trouble with its offshore wind targets. It set very, very ambitious offshore wind targets, and we had no in-principle objection to offshore wind; we think it can make a very significant contribution. We think that there is a clear set of parameters that will help offshore wind be successful, but the state government’s offshore wind approach has not been successful. It decided it would establish an assembly and production plant at Hastings; that has been knocked back, just unceremoniously knocked back by the federal environment minister. You have got to ask: why did they think that was a good idea? Why did they think that would go through? Why did the minister not get involved and make sure that a proper set of arrangements was in place for the assembly and building of offshore wind plants? These are huge structures, massive structures, that are intended to be built, but the state government’s approach is in tatters. It has no feasible or clear way forward as to where and how it will construct the offshore wind plants. So we are putting in place a target today – sounds a good idea – but there is no feasible way of achieving it. There is no assembly plant that is in contemplation. There are no assembly plant or planning arrangements in place to actually assemble and build the offshore wind capacity that is needed to achieve the targets.

We saw yesterday the federal minister make announcements about the scoping of offshore wind zones off the south-western coast of Victoria. The ones that were announced are actually about 20 per cent of the size of the initial announcement going back several years. This is going to mean that the viability of offshore wind in that zone is going to be diminished. It is going to be further from the main high-voltage powerlines, and it means that the scale of the offshore wind generated there is going to be significantly diminished. Even for individual firms that may get small zones allocated to them, they are going to have smaller zones rather than the larger zones, so the economies of scale that many had hoped would be achieved with the offshore wind look increasingly difficult.

Is the offshore wind going to be financially viable? That is the question. Are they going to actually be able to build the huge blades and the huge industrial structures that they are talking about? Are they going to be able to do this? It is all very well to nod and go on on a bit of a wing and a prayer and all of that, but actually the truth is you have got to be very hard-headed about what is going on here. If you are going to have these targets, you have actually got to do the work. You have got to do the homework and you have to do your due diligence to actually make sure that things are properly set in place, that the construction mechanisms are right and that the environmental approvals are all lined up. This is actually not rocket science I am talking about here. But this minister, Lily D’Ambrosio, has not done these things. In fact she has botched it and the offshore wind strategy is in chaos.

It is also clear that a number of the other aspects are not realistic either. But let us just suppose they are legislated and it all goes forward. How is the government going to achieve some of the actual sharp targets? Aside from the offshore wind, how are they going to achieve these storage targets? Where are they going to get this volume of storage? The batteries that are talked about now are a long way short of what is required. Clearly batteries will be part of the solution in the long run, clearly they have got a significant role to play, but the volume of what is being proposed here is far short of what is actually going to be required.

Then we have seen the government go to war with gas. They have gone to war with the gas industry. They are closing down gas manufacturing in Victoria – and in southern New South Wales in the case of Albury–Wodonga – but we saw the state government in 2017 actually fund a new facility in Wodonga for Seeley International. It was quite a good idea to get that business and secure jobs for Victoria. That was actually what the then Minister for Regional Development did in 2017. It is only a few short years ago now, and through the gas substitution plan they have actually forced the closure of that plant. That is what we are seeing – 120 people will lose their jobs. Some will go to South Australia, but for some there will just be less jobs. You have got a major group, Seeley, who produce a whole range of different air-conditioning and heating and other appliances, many in Australia, being clobbered – being absolutely punished by this government. That is just a strange attitude from a Labor government. This is actually a forced or unplanned deindustrialisation that is being driven here – a deindustrialisation of our manufacturing sector, a desire to close off our manufacturing sector.

What I also want to say today is that we will move a reasoned amendment. I move:

That all the words after ‘That’ be omitted and replaced with ‘the bill be withdrawn and not reintroduced until the government:

(1) guarantees secure and reliable energy for every Victorian, noting the recent system collapse which led to 530,000 people without power;

(2) commits to energy being affordable, noting the 25 per cent price increase over the last year;

(3) details how Victoria will have adequate baseload power, noting the state government’s ban on gas;

(4) sets out a plan to upgrade 57-year-old transmission infrastructure, noting that almost one in seven of Victoria’s 13,000 electricity transmission towers is damaged and experts warned the government in 2020 of the risks in extreme weather events;

(5) reveals to Victorians exactly how the new planning powers and ministerial directions will operate and why the Government is stripping communities from planning decisions;

(6) explains what the impact will be on agricultural land, when analysis from the government’s offshore wind policy directions paper of March 2020 shows that to meet net zero targets, up to 70 per cent of Victoria’s land will need to host wind and solar farms;

(7) provides an update on how Victoria will reach the 2032 wind target, noting the collapse of the flagship project in Hastings; and

(8) provides public transparency on climate measures through a website with live measures covering emissions, renewable energy, battery storage and wind energy.’.

The reasoned amendment can be distributed now with the agreement of the President so that people can see it. It will look at guaranteeing secure and reliable supplies for Victorians. We know that the recent event is an important wake-up call – 530,000 households lost power. All of our electorates were affected. We know so many people have been impacted – and businesses.

The second point commits to energy being affordable, noting the increase in price. This is a 25 per cent price increase listed on this. That refers to the default offer, but some of the actual prices paid by families and businesses have gone up much more than that, so it is a significant increase.

It asks for details of how Victoria will have adequate baseload power. This is the thing about the renewables: even with the best will in the world for renewables, you have to pair it with very substantial storage and significant baseload power. I am quite clear here today that the opposition sees that there will be a significant role for storage, but there will also be a significant role for gas peaking power to actually firm the network and to actually provide the support for the inherently intermittent nature of some of the renewables. We need more storage and need more batteries, but we think there will be a role for peaking gas used in a way to firm the network.

We also want to see a plan set out to upgrade the 57-year-old transmission infrastructure. We have seen in the last few years, as recently as February but also earlier in 2020, that old towers that were not built to sufficient standards are actually very vulnerable. We have seen that trip some of our major power stations and result in a very significant loss of power. Where is the state government’s plan to upgrade the existing pylons, the existing electricity transmission network? Where is the state government’s plan to do that? We see no sign that the state government is going to replace aged and weaker towers. We see no plan to properly monitor them. If you are going to bring renewables to the city, you need long-term transmission capacity and you need to have towers of a viability and security that the community can rely upon. We have indicated our concerns with this bill through the reasoned amendment. It is the case that the state government is in chaos. The state government does not have a proper way forward here. Targets are one thing, but the delivery of those targets is quite another.

Sarah MANSFIELD (Western Victoria) (15:06): I rise to speak on the Climate Change and Energy Legislation Amendment (Renewable Energy and Storage Targets) Bill 2023. Much of the Greens position was covered in the lower house, and I will try not to repeat it, but in short we support the two main objectives of this bill: (1) putting Labor’s renewable energy and emission targets into law and (2) ensuring that new planning schemes and planning scheme amendments consider climate change.

On the latter, I want to join my lower house colleague in congratulating Victorian Labor on a policy their federal colleagues recently effectively rejected, a climate trigger. This change in our planning laws means climate change must be considered when land is rezoned or amendments are made to planning schemes. Restricting it to planning scheme changes means it may not go as far as we in the Greens would like. For example, it would not apply to a new coal or gas mine located in a zone where that is already allowed, but it is still a really good start and the kind of next-generation climate legislation Australian governments really should have introduced decades ago. Our hope is that it deters new dangerous fossil fuel developments as well as developments in those locations subject to climate extremes such as flood zones, crumbling coasts and high bushfire-risk areas. We urge the Premier, the Minister for Energy and Resources and everyone else involved in this excellent plan to raise it with their federal colleagues in the Albanese government, who just rejected a very similar Greens proposal. Federal Labor just knocked back a bill for a climate trigger on the basis that their so-called safeguard mechanism, a frankly embarrassing Tony Abbott era policy that has already allowed new several new coal and gas mines since it is passing, is good enough protection against the existential climate threat.

Onto the other main change in this bill, once again the Greens welcome Victorian Labor’s plan to improve Victoria’s renewable energy and emissions targets along with legislating energy storage and offshore wind targets. However, I would not be doing my job if I did not say you need to be going further and faster. Unfortunately, given the time frame climate change presents us with and given the massive transition we still have to undertake, these targets still fall short of what the science says governments must do to stay within 1.5 degrees of global warming.

We will be proposing improvements on this. First and foremost, we propose lifting that 2030 target to 100 per cent, which is the Greens policy and which Victoria can still achieve. Emerging research has shown that Victoria can achieve coal-free electric power generation and possibly 100 per cent renewable power by 2028. Six years gives us plenty of time to gradually close down our remaining ageing coal-powered plants and deliver a renewables blitz that our incredible landmass and interstate transmission infrastructure would enable. But if that fails, we propose that Victoria at least match the ambition of the federal government and legislate an 82 per cent target by 2030. It is an odd thing to have a far more conservative federal government with a more ambitious renewable target than us. While they include states already further along than Victoria, like South Australia and Tasmania, they also have to include the laggards like Queensland. Either way, we feel that matching that ambition is a decent compromise.

Finally, I want to speak on a small but potentially quite important proposal the Greens envisaged and now understand Labor would have no problem in accepting. As it stands, section 6 of Victoria’s Climate Change Act 2017 allows for both carbon offsets and carbon capture and storage, or CCS, to be counted towards meeting Victoria’s new target of net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2045. This could potentially be a massive issue for Victoria’s decarbonisation, given we know both dodgy offsets and inefficient carbon capture and storage projects have ready been accepted by official federal and state agencies and used by fossil fuel companies to keep polluting coal and gas projects in business. This is not even to besmirch the Victorian government. Just look at what has happened with the maligned Australian carbon credit units (ACCUs) system or Chevron’s Gorgon project over in Western Australia for examples of what companies and governments say these technologies will mean for emissions reduction versus what scientists later confirm actually happens in real terms. The spoiler alert – real emissions went up both with broken CCS projects and projects accredited under that fraudulent carbon offset system.

Unfortunately, there is an additional loophole here that future potentially less progressive Victorian governments may seek to exploit. Section 7 of the act specifies that for those same purposes of determining net zero:

… the Premier and the Minister must determine the amount of total greenhouse gas emissions attributable to the State.

Essentially the energy minister alone gets to determine how offsets or CCS contribute to net zero. This creates an opportunity for current and – more pertinently – future governments that may want to use dodgy accounting tricks to get Victoria out of its climate responsibilities. Again this is not to suggest that the Victorian government would use this loophole, who with this bill have shown real leadership in lifting our targets and inserting climate change into our planning laws. What we propose is a way of ensuring that leadership is not devalued down the line with crooked carbon accounting. Our amendment on clause 5A means that the minister would simply be required to get expert advice on how much offsets and CCS contribute to net zero as well as their likely effectiveness in actually reducing emissions. The advice must then be made public by the department’s website. I now ask if the amendments could be circulated, please.

Amendments circulated pursuant to standing orders.

Sarah MANSFIELD: On that, I would like to commend this bill to the house, and I look forward to continuing discussions with the government about the sensible amendments we have proposed.

Sheena WATT (Northern Metropolitan) (15:13): I rise today with a sense of hope and excitement about the future of Australia’s climate action. We Victorians pride ourselves on being first to achieve things and, well, the best. We are once again the first – the first jurisdiction in Australia to implement and legislate a whole-of-economy pledge model based on the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Paris agreement, the first state to set a 75 to 85 per cent reduction target by 2035 and the first state in Australia to power all government operations with 100 per cent renewable energy by 2025, including all metropolitan trains and trams.

The great state of Victoria is unequivocally the nation’s leader in climate action. We are one of 20 worldwide governments, state or federal, that will have legislated climate action targets, a chance to take the world stage and lead from the front on climate action – and we are not done yet. The work is ongoing. We have started the process and are getting on with it. On this side of the house we are committed to taking decisive action and to making the hard choices to help secure Victoria’s economic prosperity and competitiveness in a net zero emissions future. That is what this bill does. It continues to set world-leading climate action, renewable energy, offshore wind and energy storage solutions while cementing climate consideration in land use planning decision-making.

But those opposite have continued to oppose our agenda at every step of the way. They have stood on the side of climate change deniers in voting against the Climate Change Act in 2017. Not only that but they have also voted against our Victorian renewable energy target legislation. At a certain point it just becomes, well, predictable. Since 2014 the Victorian Liberals have voted against or tried to gut the following energy bills in our Parliament: the Climate Change Bill 2016, the Renewable Energy (Jobs and Investment) Bill 2017, the Renewable Energy (Jobs and Investment) Amendment Bill 2019, the Energy Legislation Amendment (Licence Conditions) Bill 2020 and the Energy Legislation Amendment (Energy Fairness) Bill 2021. Will they vote against this bill and keep the record going?

By opposing Victoria’s renewable energy target, the opposition continues to risk thousands of jobs in the renewable energy sector and beyond. What will the opposition say to the 59,000 workers they will be putting out of work, and what will they say to the 6000 apprentices who will be denied future careers? In 2018 then opposition leader Matthew Guy described renewable energy targets as detrimental to Victoria’s economy, but only four years later they suddenly supported renewables and emissions targets. It is funny what happens when they are trying to get elected. Deputy Liberal leader David Southwick claimed that solar rebates for Victorians were government intervention and red tape and that market intervention, not energy companies, was responsible for energy price increases. Solar rebates are bad? Suddenly it did not seem to matter when they were trying to win an election.

The opposition then released their $8 billion solar plan, one to revive the hugely successful Solar Homes program rolled out by our government, saying it would lead to the installation of 1 million homes with solar and batteries. I wonder what ever happened to that program; they simply never spoke about it again and moved straight on to, well, nuclear. The opposition is not being honest with Victorians. The Liberal Party has no plan for renewable energy and instead wants Victoria to be saddled with an expensive and dangerous nuclear reactor. I am asking myself some questions, like will the Liberal Party rule out building nuclear reactors in the backyards of Victorians? In September of last year their federal leader indicated the old Anglesea coalmine would be an appropriate place to put a reactor with a nuclear exclusion zone that covered most of Greater Geelong. Wow, just wow. The only thing unpredictable about this is whether or not they will be in favour of renewables this week or stuck in what I can only describe as a 1980s nuclear fantasy land.

For me, this bill is a test for the coalition to prove whether they are ready to get with the program, to shed their climate-denying friends and start believing in the science of climate change and whether we want a Victoria with a prosperous economy and a net zero future. We are well on our way there. This government has been taking ambitious actions to reduce greenhouse emissions, which is essential to avoid the worst impacts of climate change. Victoria is a part of the major global energy transition, with renewable energy centre stage of this change. Victoria is acting now to embrace this transition and seize the significant benefits for current and future generations of Victorians. We have cut emissions by more than any other state in the nation and intend to build on this significantly.

We have brought forward our target by five years to 2045. This bill will make amendments to the Climate Change Act 2017 to legislate our updated net zero target for 2045. In doing this the bill sets in stone an emissions reduction goal that puts Victoria at the very forefront of global climate action. This bill will also legislate interim emissions reduction targets of 28 to 33 per cent below 2005 levels by 2025, 45 to 50 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030, and when we get to 2035 we are looking at 75 to 80 per cent below the levels of 2005. These interim targets have been informed by independent expert advice which considered the latest climate science, Victoria’s position in a rapidly decarbonising global economy and of course community expectations of climate action.

Expert advice and community expectations go hand in hand when it comes to determining the future of Victoria’s climate response. I myself have met with many climate organisations. As the Parliamentary Secretary for Climate Action, I would like to acknowledge the work of these fantastic organisations. It is hard to single out any, but I will acknowledge the work of Climateworks, who have done such fantastic work in informing this government and presenting their expert advice to help shape these targets. I also see this in my community of Northern Metro, where during the Sydney Road festival, which I spoke of yesterday, I fielded concerns from my constituents about Victoria’s energy future in the wake of storms as well as continued impacts of climate on the energy sector.

Climate action is about creating a better future for all Victorians; it is as simple as that. This bill legislates our ambitious climate change targets, providing clarity and certainty around the state’s direction and vision for our future. This clarity and certainty helps everyone – businesses, investors, households and governments – to play their part in transforming Victoria into a net zero economy. This bill supports this certainty with some other small changes. It updates the delivery dates of the emissions reduction sector pledges and the climate change strategy for better efficiency and updates the title to Climate Action Act from Climate Change Act to reflect the imperative of taking real action on climate change. Real action is the real thing, and that is exactly what we are doing with this bill before us.

Victoria is a part of the major global energy transition, with renewables forming the backbone of this change. The Allan Labor government, through the work of the Minister for Energy and Resources in the other place the Honourable Lily D’Ambrosio, is embracing this change and seizing the significant benefits that this transition represents. This transition will require investment in a diverse mix of renewable energy electricity generation and renewable energy storage, supported by upgraded electricity networks. Over the last nine years Victoria has established itself as a leader nationally and globally in the development of renewable energy, and over the last four budgets we have committed more than $3 billion to drive forward our renewable energy transition. In 2023 over one-third of Victoria’s energy generation – 39 per cent – was from renewable energy sources.

To manage Victoria’s renewable energy transition and ensure reliable and affordable electricity supply is maintained for all Victorians, this bill amends the Renewable Energy (Jobs and Investment) Act 2017 to legislate the following targets: increase the Victorian renewable energy target for 2030 from 50 per cent renewable electricity generation to 65 per cent; set a new Victorian renewable energy target of 95 per cent renewable electricity generation by 2035; set new energy storage targets of at least 2.6 gigawatts of energy storage capacity by 2030 and at least 6.3 gigawatts by 2035; and lastly, set new offshore wind energy targets of at least 2 gigawatts by 2032, 4 gigawatts by 2035 and 9 gigawatts by 2040. Legislating these targets sends a very clear signal to the market of Victoria’s ambition and commitment and gives confidence to the community that Victoria’s energy transition is being well managed. Legislating our renewable energy and storage targets will help provide reliable and affordable energy to Victorians as Victoria’s ageing and increasingly unreliable coal generation is replaced with new electricity capacity.

I spoke earlier about those opposite, but I just want to also talk about the impact on the Victorian economy and include some economic data. Victoria achieving these targets delivers $9.5 billion in net present value terms to the Victorian economy. It delivers 59,000 two-year jobs to the Victorian economy from 2023 to 2035. The renewable energy target achievements will place downward pressure on Victorians’ electricity bills by bringing forward low-cost renewable energy capacity and will sufficiently firm up capacity as well. Can I just say there are of course a suite of programs that we are getting on with delivering to help us achieve these targets. They include our Solar Homes program, the Victorian Big Battery and the 100 neighbourhood batteries program. And of course we are bringing back the SEC – the 100 per cent renewables powered SEC. The facts are these: in 2022–23 over 38 per cent of electricity generated in Victoria came from renewables, more than three times the 10 per cent we inherited in 2014. Since 2014, 59 projects providing 4471 megawatts of new capacity have come online, and there are currently nine projects – nine – under construction, which will provide 1300 megawatts of capacity. We have created over 5100 jobs in large-scale renewable energy since this government inherited the mess left by those opposite, and also, proudly, I think Victorians should share that we have smashed our 2020 emissions target of a 15 to 20 per cent reduction with the achievement of a 29 per cent target. There we go. In 2021 we achieved a 32.3 per cent reduction.

We are decarbonising at the fastest rate in the country, and since this government was elected in 2014 we have cut emissions by more than any other state. Victoria continues to be a leader in climate action. The Victorian government remains committed to taking the serious and far-reaching action that has made us a state for others globally to follow, and with that I commend this bill to the house.

Gaelle BROAD (Northern Victoria) (15:26): I rise to speak on the Climate Change and Energy Legislation Amendment (Renewable Energy and Storage Targets) Bill 2023. This bill does reflect the intention to set the net zero emissions target to 2045, five years earlier than the government’s previous commitment. The bill also updates the title of the Climate Change Act 2017 to the Climate Action Act 2017. I think that all sounds great, but it is certainly what this government does like to do: just get headlines. We need to see action.

There is lots of talk about targets, but people do want to see reliable and affordable energy in Victoria. People are facing rising energy bills, and the cost of living just keeps going up. We have seen that this government is very keen on closing down coal and gas, which is placing significant pressure on our energy system, and I want to thank my colleague Melina Bath for her earlier comments about this issue, because eastern Victoria has certainly felt the impacts.

Power outages are very real in northern Victoria, not just with storms. They are a regular occurrence. There have been energy blackouts, and that has had a big impact on communities like Euroa. It impacts small businesses, it impacts people and households who rely on energy for all sorts of different reasons, and it really causes them to stop in many areas. There have been meetings that Annabelle Cleeland has held in Euroa, Longwood, Nagambie and Violet Town, and hundreds of people are coming to talk about the challenge of energy and power outages continually happening in their area. There were 17 unplanned power outages in two months for Euroa. Wild weather explains some, but for many of those outages there has been no explanation. This government has been aware of these issues for years – for years. In fact, we have had one term, and there have been about 20 years of Labor government in this state. So when you look at the issues that we have with our energy today, I would say they do need to take responsibility.

They have brought back the SEC – again, sounds fantastic, but it has achieved very little. SEC is more accurately ‘soaring energy costs’, because in Victoria a recent study shows electricity prices have increased by 28 per cent compared with the prices in July 2022. In Victoria gas prices have increased by 169 per cent compared to the 2009 crisis, so under this government we see prices for energy continue to go up, up, up.

Renewable energy is an exciting space. We are certainly seeing lots of development, but we need to get the balance right. Parliament hosted an information session recently on energy, and they talked about batteries. They talked about reaching the targets for the batteries required, for which an incredible amount of mining is going to be needed. We need energy in Victoria. We have a rapidly growing population. I note the big battery at Hazelwood is 150 megawatts. It only powers 75,000 homes for 1 hour. Now, we have 2 million homes in Melbourne and we have a growing population, so that demand for energy is only going to increase. We have a very long way to go in Victoria.

We need a range of energy sources. This government likes to label certain energy good and other forms of energy bad, but all energy has an impact. All energy has an impact. So if you have a mobile phone, if you have a car, if you support solar panels, if you support wind turbines, then you support mining. We need to be open to a range of energy, and we have a state that has significant resources – resources that we seem happy to export and for other people to use. But this government has shut the door on some of those. I know Tom McIntosh earlier was saying that on this side we say, ‘No, no, no.’ Now, I had to laugh, because I feel that it is actually the government that is saying ‘No, no, no’ to a number of different things. We had the Nuclear Activities (Prohibitions) Repeal Bill 2023 recently, and at the minute that is restricted in this state, so this government has said no. So we are not able to have things like particular types of medicine worked on here by the manufacturing industry and we cannot have a number of space exploration activities that occur in other states like South Australia because this government is not permitting that to happen here. They are also saying ‘No, no, no’ and banning gas in new house developments, so I think this government needs to actually look at their own actions, because they in fact are the ones saying no to reliable and affordable energy in this state.

At the federal level we are also seeing a number of challenges. Just recently they have introduced a cap on emissions targets for vehicles. I was speaking with a car dealer from Bendigo just yesterday, and they were talking about the incredible impact that that will have on their industry. They calculated what their particular brand of vehicle had sold in a year, and they said it would put an additional cost – this extra cap – of $323 million on their business. These businesses employ people, and we also all purchase cars, so it does have an impact. They felt that it was going to cause more people to be buying older cars and in the end be less efficient down the track. You have to question why these decisions are made.

We have to stop the labels. Energy is energy. We need to work with industry to not only generate electricity but to develop innovative products that reduce energy use, because our businesses, our manufacturers and households need reliable and affordable energy. I was very disappointed when I asked the minister recently about some challenges that farmers were facing in northern Victoria who were sort of bordering solar farm projects. They had raised a number of concerns about the issues with insurance and how challenging it is for them to be able to afford insurance when they are next door to incredibly large projects. I mentioned to the minister the need for further action in this state because it is a policy black hole, but unfortunately the minister’s response was incredibly disappointing, because it just says that they should:

… carefully consider the cover they need and source multiple quotes from different insurers to ensure they are getting the best price available.

And:

They should also consider contacting an insurance broker for advice …

Again, they are not taking action to actually address the issues that exist in our communities to ensure that we can have developments that consider the impact on the local communities. It is just, again, pushing it away. The amendments that have been put forward I think clearly outline some of the challenges that we have. It says that:

… “The bill be withdrawn and not reintroduced until the government –

(1) guarantees secure and reliable energy for every Victorian, noting the recent system collapse which led to 530,000 people without power –

and also the need to commit to energy being affordable. It talks about as well the need to set out a plan to upgrade the 57-year-old transmission line infrastructure. I know that the VNI West development has been incredibly challenging across the state, and the government’s handling of that has been appalling. I know the government likes to set targets, but they are consistently missing the target. There are less than a thousand days until the next state election, and Victoria needs a change of government so that we can make the changes needed to ensure Victorians can access reliable and affordable energy.

Rikkie-Lee TYRRELL (Northern Victoria) (15:35): I rise today to speak on the government’s Climate Change and Energy Legislation Amendment (Renewable Energy and Storage Targets) Bill 2023. First and foremost, One Nation will not be supporting this bill. There are far too many unanswered questions as to how the government plans to achieve these targets in such a shortened time line – unless of course you can get a hold of the now-hidden-from-public-view Offshore Wind: Policy Directions Paper – March 2022, that is. This document outlines that should offshore wind not be available, 70 per cent of Victoria’s prime agricultural land would need to be covered in so-called renewable energy farms. Considering the federal environment minister Tanya Plibersek threw a spanner in the Allan government’s offshore wind plans earlier this year, the findings in this report are a very real possibility, which for the farming communities in my electorate of Northern Victoria is a terrifying prospect. How does the government propose to protect our vital agriculture industry if this is their plan? How do they propose we feed Victorians and the rest of the world if more and more of our prime agricultural land is to be taken up by so-called renewable projects? Why is it that when the city-centric governments have ideas, it is the regional areas that pay the price? But we are saving the planet, right?

If you take a look at the Energy Victoria maps of the renewable energy zones, not a single zone is in the Melbourne area – not in the inner suburbs nor the outer suburbs, none in fact for kilometres. I guess the inner-city do-gooders do not want to look upon the industrial wasteland that these absurd net zero targets will create. Well, neither do Northern Victorians, who seem to be bearing the brunt of this renewable push.

This bill plans to increase the renewables target for 2030 to 65 per cent and 2035 to 95 per cent, then net zero by 2045. My question to the government is: how? Without covering our prime agricultural land with renewables and turning my electorate into what can only be considered an industrial wasteland, how do they propose to do this?

We know they will not even consider nuclear as an option, even though the rest of the world has been using this emission-free and affordable form of power production for decades. The backwards Labor governments would rather push on with unreliable, expensive-to-build and destructive so-called ‘renewables’ that other countries, such as the United States, are shutting down – not to mention the toll these energy production facilities take on wildlife and farm animals. Eagles and other large birds with their wings cut off by turbines, goats dying from sleep deprivation due to the noise, whale and fish migrations disrupted by offshore wind turbines and sheep with what can only be described as radiation burn from grazing under solar farms are just a few examples of the devastating impacts on our wildlife and livestock these renewables have. But we are saving the planet, right?

Now what about the human toll of these invasive renewable projects? Simone and her family have spent three years living under these giant wind turbines. It has affected both their physical and mental health. Sleep deprivation, which is an outlawed torture method, earaches, headaches, chest pains, depression and anxiety have all been brought on by the noise and constant pressure coming from the turbines. Her children are in therapy to cope with the constant disruptions to their lives, and Simone’s story is not isolated. These symptoms were documented back in 2006 by French paediatrician Dr Nina Pierpont.

We have also heard from many different people who have been subjected to these facilities without any avenues of recourse. The government just tells them to go away. The authorities tell them to get over it. If communities stand up and speak out against these projects, they are told, ‘Too bad, it’s happening.’ This, according to the Labor government, is community consultation. But we are saving the planet, right? Last but not least, what happens to these solar panels and wind turbines when they come to the end of their life cycles? Are they recycled or re-used elsewhere? No, they are either buried, dumped or left to rot in landfill. But we are saving the planet, right?

In conclusion, One Nation Victoria will not be supporting this bill as the risks to my constituents, my electorate and the wider Victorian community are too varied and great to blindly follow along with this agenda.

Ryan BATCHELOR (Southern Metropolitan) (15:40): We may debate in this chamber more important pieces of legislation, but there would not be too many like this – a piece of legislation which seeks to set the framework for how this state not only meets its future energy needs but also does its part to ensure that the very real effects of carbon pollution that we are seeing on our environment are curtailed. In politics and in public policy there are often a lot of choices that we have got to make, and I want to touch on some of those choices and how we confront them over the course of this speech.

But the first choice we have got to make is whether we accept that climate change is real. Do we accept that there are changes occurring in our climate and in our environment? Do we think the fact that last year was the hottest on record, the fact that coming into even this weekend we face quite significant temperatures which are not normal for autumn and the fact that extreme weather events have caused havoc across our state in recent months, recent weeks but also recent years are being affected by the changing nature of our climate? The first choice you have got to make is whether you accept that science. We do.

The second choice we have got to make is: what are we going to do about it? Are we going to say there is nothing we can really do about climate change and that we have just got to accept that our environment is going to be degraded by its effects and that the way we live is going to be fundamentally changed forever? We can make the choice to say we want to try and do something about it. We want to lead the nation as a jurisdiction in taking carbon-intensive energy generation out of our energy market and out of our energy systems and to prioritise and put our state on a path to generating our energy from renewable sources, doing our part to make sure that we can continue to have the lights on but not burn in the process. And that is what the choice that confronts us in this legislation is fundamentally all about. What you see from the Allan Labor government is not only acknowledgement that climate change is real, that climate change exists and that climate change is something that needs to be at the forefront of our policy considerations, but you are seeing, through the leadership of both the Premier and the Minister for Energy and Resources, a drive to transform our state’s energy sector from one that relies on some of the most polluting forms of energy to some of the cleanest forms of energy. And that is exactly what this government is doing.

The legislation before us today amends the Climate Change Act 2017 and, with the Renewable Energy (Jobs and Investment) Act 2017 and the Planning and Environment Act 1987, legislates the targets that we need to achieve as a state in order to do our part to decarbonise our energy sector and to ensure that we as a globe do not keep burning the way we are. That is what we have today: the legislation to both increase our renewable energy target from 50 per cent to 65 per cent and set a new target of 95 per cent of energy generated in Victoria to come from renewable sources by 2035; to implement and set our energy storage target so we have got dispatchable power available to us, when we need it, of at least 2.6 gigawatts by 2030 and 6.3 gigawatts by 2035; to set our offshore wind generation targets, an incredibly important new part of our energy mix; and most importantly, I think, to bring forward the date of Victoria’s long-term target for net zero emissions from 2050 to 2045 and to legislate a series of interim targets to help us get along the path. There is no point waiting until 2045 and figuring out that we are not going to make our targets; we have got to have interim targets to help us get there on the way.

This is incredibly important because it is a fundamental part of ensuring that we will have a future in Victoria that equates to the past that we and our parents and their parents have enjoyed. It requires the kind of policy leadership that you have seen from this government. It requires the kind of dedicated action that has made Victoria a leader in the energy transition and has made Victoria a leader in decarbonisation. We are decarbonising our energy sector faster than any other state in the nation. We are not only meeting but exceeding our emissions reduction targets. The policy agenda that this state Labor government is pursuing and has been pursuing since it was elected is demonstrating success in reducing carbon emissions. It is setting this state on a path to an energy transition that will ensure that we are doing our bit to tackle the very real challenges associated with climate change.

But it is not just the changing nature of our energy sector, it is also the changing nature of the wider Victorian economy that the government is clear about and clear about supporting. It is about sector-wide transformation. It is ensuring that jobs are being created in these new energy industries and that we have got the number of electricians that we are going to need to help facilitate the exceptionally important increase in solar generation. For example, as the federal Minister for Climate Change and Energy said, solar is now the cheapest form of electricity production that we have ever seen as humans. So when people come into this Parliament and talk about energy costs, what we are seeing from this government is the prioritisation of future electricity generation that is built on the back of the cheapest form of electricity generation – renewable energy – and not the most expensive.

That is the other part of the debate that we are seeing right now in this country. What the Liberal Party wants to do is to lock Australians, lock Victorians, into the most expensive and dangerous form of energy production that we have, and that is nuclear power. I had the opportunity in debate last year, at quite a degree of length, to go into all of the problems that we have with nuclear energy and why it will saddle Victorians not only with one of the most dangerous forms of energy production but also the most costly. No-one who is an advocate for nuclear power can explain how much more the power is going to cost. They cannot explain where the reactors are going to go, and they cannot tell us how we are going to mitigate against the risks of nuclear meltdown, which we have seen again and again in other parts of the world.

There are choices. The choice that this bill presents is one to support a transition of our economy and of our energy sector away from one that pollutes our environment with greenhouse gases and with carbon emissions towards one that is built on cheaper and cleaner renewable energy, and the choice that those opposite would have us advocate would take us away from a renewable path and would take us away from a renewable future and put us on the path to a radioactive future. That is not one that I want to advocate, and I do not think it is something the people of Victoria want either. This is an incredibly important piece of legislation, and it is an incredibly important policy agenda that is going to set up this state’s economic and energy future. I encourage all in the chamber to support it.

Renee HEATH (Eastern Victoria) (15:50): We all want cleaner energy, we all want renewables to succeed and we all want to see cheap baseload power. However, I represent an area that has been obliterated by Labor’s policies. Decisions that have been made within these four walls have absolutely devastated rural and regional communities – and I mean devastated. I believe that this is another one.

I represent a region that has not recovered from the job losses from the closure of Hazelwood. Up to 1000 jobs were lost, and we were promised a transition, and we have transitioned to absolutely nothing. Then there was the closure of the native timber industry, which has devastated even more communities. Again, there has been no transition. I have spoken to businesses who say the only support that they have received has been advice as to how to close down their businesses. Last year I attended a rally in Traralgon, and one of my constituents said that they were feeling completely abandoned and they had nowhere left to go – no jobs and no prospects. They were concerned that the next attack would be levelled at farmers, and I think that this is that predicted attack.

These targets are completely unachievable. I believe that we should be ambitious. I believe that there is nothing wrong with that, but this is not ambition. This is misleading. In order to reach these targets we would need to install 22 solar panels per day, build 41 wind turbines per month and build the transmission infrastructure to support this. This is completely unachievable. It means upping the present installation rates 100-fold in a market for rooftop installations that has been absolutely saturated. Not only that, it will have dire unintended consequences.

Observations here in Australia and overseas show that replacing controllable electricity supplies with the necessary intermittent wind and solar has catastrophic effects on costs. The fact is that the higher the share of renewables in the electricity supply, the higher the prices, and we have heard the complete opposite from those opposite. But this is a case of fact versus fiction. The nations with the lowest share of wind and solar renewables are Russia, Saudi Arabia, Korea, India and China, and they have the lowest electricity prices. Those with the highest renewable share are Germany, the Netherlands, the UK and Spain, and they have the highest energy prices. So why are we misleading the public and saying that this is going to deliver savings? I do not think anybody has a problem with having cleaner energy – I certainly do not. I want to see that. What I have a problem with is the misleading narratives that are putting out a false sense of security and targets that we just cannot deliver on.

There is no coincidence with these prices. Wind and solar can only be commercially successful when they are the recipient of a subsidy. But how can a state that is broke offer a subsidy? For Australia as a whole this amounts to some $10 billion a year in terms of the regulations requiring increased quantities of wind and solar to be injected into the energy supply; the increased cost of transition for this less concentrated intermittent form of energy; and direct subsidies, extravagant government power purchase agreements and grants and soft loans. The Victorian government is an active participant in these policies. Indeed Minister D’Ambrosio is even more extreme than her federal counterpart Minister Chris Bowen, who at least recognises the frailties of the renewable-dominant system and its need to be compensated by some dispatchable power in the form of gas. Gas must be in the mix. Chris Bowen knows it and the coalition knows it, and that is why we will repeal this ridiculous gas ban. But in addition to these subsidies adding costs to bills or through taxes, the subsidised renewables force established generators fuelled by brown coal in Victoria to operate suboptimally because wind and solar receive a subsidy of at least $40 per megawatt hour and they can bid at negative prices.

This subsidised competition forces the commercial generators to back off, and this undermines their profitability. Eventually this forces what would be highly competitive generators to close. We saw this in South Australia in 2015 with the closure of the Northern coal power station, we have seen it recently in New South Wales with the closure of the Liddell coal generator and we saw it in Victoria in 2016 when the Labor government compounded the effects of its subsidies to wind by adding the straw that broke the camel’s back in my electorate’s Hazelwood power station by massively increasing coal royalties. The government did have a part to play in that, despite what Mr McIntosh says.

What has been the effect of this? Well, energy prices at the wholesale level have more than doubled. We have not reduced costs; that is a complete mistruth. We have doubled the cost. Before Hazelwood’s closure in 2017 this state’s electricity wholesale prices averaged around $45 per megawatt hour. They shot up with the closure, and after being subsidised during the low-demand COVID period remain at more than twice their previous levels. Yet in the face of all of this evidence, the government maintains that renewables are the cheapest form of electricity. Well, they may be cheap if you take their power whenever the elements allow wind and solar generators to operate, like sail ships harnessing the wind might have some cost advantages over ships powered by hydrocarbons, or dare I say nuclear, but it is clearly not cheap in terms of their transport economics, and the same is true with wind versus coal, gas or nuclear power.

As I said before, I represent a region that has been obliterated by Labor’s policies. The closure of Hazelwood cost locals up to a thousand jobs. The closure of our native timber industry has cost the region and areas around the state more than 4000 jobs. Our region is hurting, and this is going to have a detrimental impact on farmers. These harmful effects on farmers will be intensified by the proposal of the state and federal governments to just completely override property owners’ rights to object to obtrusive powerlines and wind facilities being constructed on or near their land.

These are productive jobs that are being lost, not jobs created on the back of tax and regulations. Might I reiterate the state government’s own findings that without offshore wind its wind and solar policies will cannibalise 70 per cent of the state’s farmland, and even the Commonwealth recognises Victoria’s disastrous approach. The jobs that the government is eradicating and the farm businesses it is sacrificing are those that supply goods and services and exports – businesses that provide the very finances that allow the state and federal governments to pay for the policies that are destroying them. That, I believe, is a tragedy.

This bill is like signing an economic death warrant on Victoria. Nowhere is it more evident than with the irony that the government, having introduced wind and solar subsidies, are now forcing the state’s coal generators to the brink of insolvency, then having to subsidise the high-profile firms that are adversely affected. This can be seen with the government subsidies to Yallourn to allow the generation to continue supplying competitively priced fuels to the Portland aluminium smelter. Without this the smelter, an icon of the nation’s fading industrial prowess, will be forced to close. So Minister D’Ambrosio’s policies are destroying the aluminium industry’s viability with one hand and holding it above the water with the other, but such compensating measures cannot be afforded to the vast majority of disadvantaged businesses and households.

We are in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis – everyone is talking about it – a cost-of-living crisis that was first and foremost created by the state and federal governments’ energy policies and exacerbated by their excessive spending and job-destroying industrial relations policies. Last sitting week the Greens put a motion forward to inquire into supermarkets’ price gouging. They have even spoken about price caps. But if they want to achieve cost-of-living relief, this bill will do the opposite. It will drive up costs, it will eliminate jobs and it will accelerate the downward economic spiral into which this government has propelled this state. We need to start putting our constituents, the people that put us in this place, back at the centre of our policies and our decision-making.

Moira DEEMING (Western Metropolitan) (16:01): I rise to oppose this bill. My problem with this government’s approach to clean, green energy, which by the way has unanimous support across all parties, is that the whole, entire point of the project seems to have been lost. Ultimately it is human flourishing that we are here to promote – the targets and the measurements and the vectors and the economic statistics themselves are just ways to measure our success. We have a responsibility to be good stewards of our natural resources because the people that we are supposed to be serving here, as well as their children and grandchildren and their great-grandchildren and on and on, are entitled to live in a healthy environment and enjoy its benefits. People matter just as much as the environment.

This bill states that two people – the Premier and the minister – must ensure that Victoria achieves the long-term emissions reduction targets. Although there are provisions for setting more of these targets, there are no actual sanctions in the bill to make it enforceable. What does that mean? I am not voting to make it law that two single powerful people have a mandate to make this happen with no caveats at all. If you think that is scaremongering, the only other option is that there was no need, other than virtue signalling or perhaps wasting time, for this document to even be a piece of legislation. Nothing becomes illegal or legal. There is no legislative sanction or other mechanism that makes this bill materially different to an elaborate press release.

Victorians deserve better than this sloppy, panicked, virtue-signalling nonsense from government. We owe it to Victorians to do this properly and to do it in a way that does not crush them with skyrocketing bills. Whatever we do, we should not destroy the economic viability of the energy sources that we have now before we have cultivated alternatives. If you do not want coal, that is fine, but you do not shut down coal plants unless and until you have replaced them with energy from another source. If you do not want gas, fine, but you do not strangle the gas industry out of existence until you have replaced it with energy from another source.

I am so glad that I can say with a clean conscience that I voted against the three bills that destroyed the economic viability of gas in this state. If you want green energy, that is fine, but even though your Hastings offshore wind generator project was tanked by your own federal counterparts, you still brought this pointless bill to be debated here today. If you want solar energy, that is fine, but you did not plan for it, and now people all over this state are having their properties quite literally bulldozed and taken away from them and their rights trampled in your mad scramble to back-end a dog’s breakfast of energy storage facilities and transmission towers across this state.

This bill is a farce. It is a waste of our time. It solves nothing. Victorians are suffering, and they deserve better.

Ingrid STITT (Western Metropolitan – Minister for Mental Health, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Multicultural Affairs) (16:04): I thank the house for the opportunity to sum up, and I will also make some comments about Mr Davis’s reasoned amendment. The Victorian government is proud to be leading the nation when it comes to climate action. This bill is all about strengthening our position at the forefront of this critical transition. Upon passage of this bill, Victoria will become one of the very few state or federal governments anywhere in the world to have legislated a net zero date of 2045 or earlier. We know that we can achieve this ambitious aim, because we have beaten every one of our emissions and renewable energy targets so far. Despite what we might have heard from some in the chamber today, we smashed our 2020 emissions reduction target of 15 to 20 per cent, achieving a 29.6 per cent reduction. In 2021, from the latest data available, we cut emissions by 32.3 per cent below 2005 levels. During this period Victoria’s economy had grown by 42.8 per cent.

Our climate and energy agenda will continue to create jobs and grow the economy, and by legislating our suite of targets we are providing industry with the certainty it needs to continue investing in new, clean technology. I guess that is where I disagree with a number of members in the chamber when they say, ‘What is this for? What will it actually do?’ Well, driving investment in new, clean technology is an absolutely critical purpose of this bill. We know that by meeting our 2035 emissions reduction targets we will unlock more than $63 billion in value for the Victorian economy, while our 95 per cent renewable energy target will create 59,000 jobs by 2035. Our 95 per cent renewable energy target by 2035 is critical for ensuring energy security and cheaper power for Victorians. This government is committed to building the cheapest new-build energy generation on the market – renewables – and putting downward pressure on prices while cutting emissions.

As the old unreliable coal-fired power generators exit the market, bringing more renewable energy into the system is the only way to ensure our power grid works for all Victorians. Our energy storage and offshore wind energy targets complete the picture by ensuring we maintain firmed renewable generation 24 hours a day. These targets are supporting the creation of whole new industries in this country, and Victoria is proudly getting on with delivering big batteries and the nation’s first offshore wind generators. We are also further integrating climate change into planning systems through a new objective in the Planning and Environment Act 1987 and creating a new head of consideration for planning authorities to consider climate change when preparing a planning scheme or planning scheme amendment. These changes will help Victorian households and communities by increasing resilience in climate-related natural hazards and reducing their emissions. We have heard from local councils that they want to be empowered to take stronger action on climate change, and we look forward to working with them on these changes. Climate change is a critical challenge for our state and our planet, and the Victorian government is tackling it head on. The bill further raises Victoria’s ambition as a world leader on climate action and will further catalyse our renewable energy transformation.

In respect to Mr Davis’s reasoned amendment, I will make a few comments. In respect to the desire of the reasoned amendment to secure reliable energy for every Victorian, noting the recent system collapse, building renewable energy is critical to not only reducing our emissions and taking action on climate change but also ensuring energy security and grid reliability into the future. The extreme weather events on 13 February only highlight this fact as during the evening on that day renewables were supplying 50 per cent of Victoria’s electricity. It was because of renewables that we had enough power generation. No-one lost power as a result of insufficient generating capacity; people lost power because the infrastructure was literally torn down.

In relation to committing to energy being affordable and noting a 25 per cent increase, renewable energy is the cheapest form of new-build energy generation on the market. In fact it is five times cheaper than the coalition’s nuclear power fantasy, and that is before you consider the costs of dealing with nuclear waste. Victorians are better insulated against the global energy price rises caused by a number of factors, including Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, due to our investment in cheaper and more reliable renewable energy. Victoria has consistently had the lowest wholesale price on power in the National Electricity Market over the past year. I will not go into all the default offers, but people would be very familiar with those supports that the government is providing. In terms of adequate base power and noting issues around gas, the coalition are actually showcasing their lack of understanding about the energy system in bringing forward this reasoned amendment. Victoria’s transition to 95 per cent renewables by 2035 will ensure our system is secure and reliable while reducing emissions and putting downward pressure on prices. There is no ban on gas. Gas peaking plants will make up the remaining 5 per cent of generation when we reach 95 per cent renewables by 2035. The move to all-electric new homes is helping Victorians save money each and every year on their power bills – around $1000 a year or up to $2200 if the household has solar as well.

In terms of the plan to upgrade 57-year-old transmission infrastructure and the coalition’s views about transmission towers being damaged, I just want to make a few quick points. New transmission infrastructure is obviously critical to get energy from new areas where it is generated to homes and businesses where it is used. VicGrid is leading the development of the Victorian transmission plan and facilitating engagement and benefits for traditional owners, local communities and landowners. The collapse of transmission towers is extremely rare. In a storm event most of the damage is caused to the smaller poles and wires in the distribution network. We certainly saw a lot of that as a result of those storms. In 2020 six towers collapsed near Cressy. A subsequent investigation found that the towers failed in winds in excess of 125 kilometres an hour, and it came in severe convective downbursts, similar to a situation you would get in a tornado. The towers were built in the early 1980s, and the standards at the time did not account for such downbursts. What we will see with climate change and dangerous weather patterns is that these sorts of unusual weather events will only become more common. Energy Safe Victoria, the independent safety regulator, will conduct a thorough investigation into the incident.

In terms of the new planning powers and ministerial directions and the assertion that this will strip communities from the planning decisions, I would argue that the exact opposite will be the case. The amendments to the Planning and Environment Act 1987 will help futureproof Victorian households and communities by increasing resilience to climate-related hazards and reducing their emissions. The first is a new objective to be provided for consideration of climate policies and obligations, including emissions reduction targets and climate resilience when decisions are made about the use and development of land. The amendment supports existing planning climate action objectives – for example, reduction of fossil gas use, increased energy efficiency and increased use of active and public transport.

In terms of the view that somehow our offshore wind policies and the government’s plans around renewable energy will impact 70 per cent of Victoria’s agricultural land, I just want to put a few comments on the record. The figure being referred to is out of date. It was a modelling scenario in which more than 60 gigawatts of onshore renewables were being installed in the absence of offshore wind energy. It is worth noting that the biggest threat to agricultural land is actually climate change, and our farmers are at the forefront of the impacts of climate change. Many of them understand exactly what the threat is. If emissions continue to rise, Victoria is projected to experience double the number of days over 35 degrees, double the number of high fire danger days, a decline in cool season rainfall and more intense storms.

In terms of updates on how Victoria will reach the 2032 wind target, the Allan Labor government is working diligently on a way forward for the Port of Hastings and the Victorian renewable energy terminal. Work is continuing by both the Minister for Energy and Resources and the Minister for Ports and Freight, and they have both been working closely with the Commonwealth on the next stages of their Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 determination and will work closely with the Commonwealth on each step required by the government’s major projects. We are undeterred, and we are going to keep going because we know that we have to have this in our energy mix. In 2023 renewables generated 38.6 per cent of Victoria’s power, more than double the share five years ago. This continues to grow as we work towards our target of 95 per cent renewable energy generation by 2035. We deliver, and we are going to continue to deliver for climate action, for energy bills and for energy security.

In respect of the final point in Mr Davis’s reasoned amendment, reporting on Victoria’s emissions reduction and renewable energy progress is available on the Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action website – I encourage him to look – and the minister tables reports in Parliament on progress every year. I am happy to take many questions, as I am sure I will, in the committee stage of this bill, but I commend the bill to the house.

Council divided on amendment:

Ayes (13): Melina Bath, Gaelle Broad, David Davis, Moira Deeming, Renee Heath, David Limbrick, Wendy Lovell, Trung Luu, Joe McCracken, Nick McGowan, Evan Mulholland, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell, Richard Welch

Noes (19): Ryan Batchelor, John Berger, Katherine Copsey, David Ettershank, Michael Galea, Shaun Leane, Sarah Mansfield, Tom McIntosh, Rachel Payne, Aiv Puglielli, Georgie Purcell, Samantha Ratnam, Harriet Shing, Ingrid Stitt, Jaclyn Symes, Lee Tarlamis, Sonja Terpstra, Gayle Tierney, Sheena Watt

Amendment negatived.

Council divided on motion:

Ayes (28): Ryan Batchelor, Melina Bath, John Berger, Gaelle Broad, Katherine Copsey, David Davis, David Ettershank, Michael Galea, Shaun Leane, Wendy Lovell, Trung Luu, Sarah Mansfield, Joe McCracken, Nick McGowan, Tom McIntosh, Evan Mulholland, Rachel Payne, Aiv Puglielli, Georgie Purcell, Samantha Ratnam, Harriet Shing, Ingrid Stitt, Jaclyn Symes, Lee Tarlamis, Sonja Terpstra, Gayle Tierney, Sheena Watt, Richard Welch

Noes (3): Moira Deeming, David Limbrick, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell

Motion agreed to.

Read second time.

Committed.

Committee

Clause 1 (16:27)

David LIMBRICK: I will just ask all of my questions in clause 1 if that suits the minister. My first question is: what is the unit of measurement for energy?

Ingrid STITT: Mr Limbrick, there are a number of different measurement terms used depending on what you are referring to. Do you mean generally?

David LIMBRICK: Within the bill.

Ingrid STITT: Okay. We have targets that are set out in the bill that talk about percentages of energy and emissions reductions reached by certain years, and we have references to kilowatts and gigawatts throughout the bill. But if you want to be more specific about where in the bill you want to take me to, I am happy to answer.

David LIMBRICK: You mentioned kilowatts and gigawatts. Maybe my physics education is a bit rusty, but they are actually measurements for power. I was wondering if the minister could provide the unit of measurement for energy that we are referring to.

Ingrid STITT: The bill expresses gigawatts of electricity.

David LIMBRICK: It is my understanding that gigawatt is not a unit of measurement for energy; it is a unit of measurement for power. These are two separate concepts. For example, if I have a heater at home that is a 1000-watt heater, that is the power of the heater. If I use that heater for 1 hour I get charged on my electricity bill 1 kilowatt hour, and that is the unit of energy. So these are the two separate concepts that I am trying to understand here, because when I get an electricity bill I get charged in kilowatt hours. I think everyone gets charged in kilowatt hours, so I am trying to understand the unit of energy that we are talking about when we are referring to this bill, because this is a very, very important concept, especially to the electrical engineers that are going to be doing this.

Ingrid STITT: I think I have tried to clarify for Mr Limbrick what the bill deals with.

David LIMBRICK: I do not think we have clarified that, because my understanding of a unit of energy expressed as it would be in this bill would be gigawatt hours. One gigawatt is the amount of power that an energy infrastructure produces, and the amount of energy is 1 gigawatt hour. These are really important concepts, I would have thought, for this bill. Can the minister clarify that when we are talking about energy, we are talking about gigawatt hours, not gigawatts?

Ingrid STITT: How the electricity is transmitted through the grid is gigawatt hours, but when we talk about the storage it is gigawatts. If you are referring to what you see on your power bills, this bill does not deal with those matters at all. This bill sets out clearly the targets for both storage and emissions reduction.

David LIMBRICK: I thank the minister for her answer. My understanding is storage is indeed measured in terms of energy and gigawatt hours, not gigawatts. If I have a battery of 1 gigawatt then that indicates that it can output a maximum of 1 gigawatt, which is a very powerful battery. But 1 gigawatt hour is the amount of energy that that battery can store. That means that it can provide 1 gigawatt for 1 hour before the battery is depleted. These are two totally separate concepts, and with energy storage my understanding is that it is in gigawatt hours, not gigawatts. Gigawatt is the level of power, not energy, and the formula for energy is watts multiplied by time.

Ingrid STITT: I have given Mr Limbrick the answer and the advice I have been given on this matter.

David LIMBRICK: One of the targets in clause 24(7A), where we talk about the energy storage targets, specifies in (1)(a):

by 2030, for energy storage facilities in Victoria to have the combined capacity to store and dispatch at least 2∙6 gigawatts of electricity at any time …

Are we talking about gigawatts, which is the maximum power, or are we talking about the amount of electricity stored in those batteries, which should be gigawatt hours? These are two totally separate concepts in the field of physics.

Ingrid STITT: I am certainly not going to profess to be an expert in those matters, but I will seek some clarification from the box. I am trying to be helpful and answer your questions, Mr Limbrick. I can see that you are passionate about this, and I will do my best to clarify it. But there is no need to shout at me about it. Mr Limbrick, what you are talking about are concepts of capacity versus output, and that is not how the targets have been expressed in the bill. We could go around and around in a few circles. Maybe we can move on to another question. We can certainly see whether there is anything additional we might be able to provide you in the committee stage, but I think we are talking about different concepts here.

David LIMBRICK: No, I dispute the assertion. We are not talking about different concepts. It is my belief that this is an error in the bill and that for the storage it should be talking about gigawatt hours, not gigawatts. This target, as implied, does not actually talk about storage of energy; it is talking about maximum output of the batteries of 2.6 gigawatts, which is enormous, and up to 2035, 6.3 gigawatts. Does the minister concede that there is potentially an error in the bill and that this would need to be changed to gigawatt hours?

Ingrid STITT: No, I do not concede that. The bill has been drafted taking expert advice, as you would imagine with this sort of technical bill. No, I would not accept that proposition, Mr Limbrick.

David LIMBRICK: I thank the minister for her answer. The government may be able to tell me that this is wrong, but other people are going to look at this. Surely the advisers can tell the difference between power and energy. Many eyes must have looked at this.

Ingrid STITT: Yes, they did.

David LIMBRICK: Surely they can explain. In the energy storage target there is no measurement of storage. It is talking about gigawatts, which is power, and I am sure the advisers can tell you that what we are talking about here is power. It is the same as my 1000-watt heater at home. The heater does not store energy, it consumes energy. It consumes 1000 watts, and if I had a battery to power that for 1 hour, then that battery would hold 1 kilowatt hour of energy. These batteries that we are talking about here are also intended to store energy. It is my understanding that the target is intended to say, ‘We are going to have this amount of battery storage.’ If the batteries are going to store an amount of energy, then they must store energy in the form of 2.6 or 6.3 gigawatt hours. This is not a matter of opinion, this is science.

Ingrid STITT: Mr Limbrick, I have gone back to the box a couple of times and I have offered to see what additional clarification might be able to be sought while we are in committee, but I have already given you the answer – the advice that I have been given from the box.

David LIMBRICK: Okay. Let me put it another way. The 2.6-gigawatt target, whatever that might mean to the government – what is the actual meaning of that target? What does it actually mean?

Ingrid STITT: Clearly what it means is that that is the target that the government will legislate to capture energy storage capacity by 2030 – 2.6 gigawatts.

These are capacity targets. They are all about making sure that we are firming up the energy capacity in Victoria. They are part of a broader suite of reforms, as you are aware. The priority of the government is to make sure that we are building capacity for storage in a circumstance where we know that renewable energy projects are going to be fanning out over the state in particular ways. I think in that sense this is about really providing a bit of certainty for our renewable reliability and also providing some certainty for investors. The targets are for those purposes, Mr Limbrick.

David LIMBRICK: I appreciate the reason why the targets exist, because there is an aspiration to have something in the future, but what we are not clear on is what that something is. The 2.6-gigawatt target implies that there is something on the network that can produce 2.6 gigawatts of power. If we have a battery which wants to store things – which is what I think we are talking about – then the battery would store 2.6 gigawatt hours of power. These are two different things. It is like the difference between kilometres and kilometres per hour in your car – they are related but they are separate concepts. If we are setting a target, it at least should be universally understood what that actually means. We are talking about batteries, and yet the unit of measurement that we have got here does not refer to anything about energy storage.

Ingrid STITT: I think that was you putting your view on these matters as opposed to a specific question, but again I will just reiterate that the energy storage targets have been set on a gigawatt basis because a range of different storage technologies with different durations will be required to ensure the reliability of the energy supply across the state.

David LIMBRICK: The minister makes a good point that there will need to be different energy storage for different durations, which brings in the other variable here, which is time. If we have a 1-‍gigawatt battery that lasts for 1 hour, then the capacity of that battery would be 1 gigawatt hour, which is a storage target. If we had a single battery that could run for 1 hour outputting 2.6 gigawatts, then the capacity of that battery would be 2.6 gigawatt hours. That is my understanding. I do not know. I feel like I am being gaslit by the government here. I majored in physics at university. This is year 11 physics. Maybe the government can say that I am an idiot, but I do not know, maybe the people of Victoria can look at this and actually some people might agree with me. It just seems like the unit of measurement here is not an energy storage unit. It is a power unit.

David DAVIS: I was just going to say that I think he is right, these are not energy storage targets. It is 2.6 gigawatts of electricity at any time to store and dispatch, so I think from a storage aspect 2.6 gigawatts is not a storage matter.

David Limbrick: That is what I am trying to get to the bottom of.

David DAVIS: You are. But I think they would argue it is the dispatchable amount that is coming out. With respect to the heading ‘Energy storage targets’, what does ‘combined capacity to store and dispatch’ mean? A single unit of power, as Mr Limbrick has correctly pointed out, is not an entirely satisfactory measurement for that.

Ingrid STITT: The energy storage targets have been set on a megawatt basis, because a range of different storage technologies with different durations, as I said earlier, will be required to ensure the reliability of the energy supply. That is why they have not been set as megawatt-per-hour definitions. Perhaps it would help if I gave you some details about what types of energy storage are going to be included in the energy storage targets, Mr Limbrick? I am happy to do that if you want me to, and I am certainly not trying to be difficult at all here. I defer to your higher knowledge of physics, clearly. I am trying to get the clarification that you have been seeking.

The energy storage targets will include short-, medium- and long-term zero emissions energy storage systems. Short-duration storage of less than 4 hours storage will include grid-scale batteries and household batteries that are aggregated to operate as virtual power plants, and medium- and long-duration storage exceeding 4 hours storage could include longer duration battery systems and other technologies.

David LIMBRICK: Let us say that this is correct. This is saying that at any time we have a goal that the storage facilities can output 2.6 gigawatts of power onto the network. Is that what this target is saying – that we want to have a peak of 2.6 gigawatts onto the network at any time and then by 2035 we want 6.3 gigawatts, and not gigawatt hours because we are not talking about storage, we are talking about how much dispatchable energy we want on the network?

Ingrid STITT: It is a target, Mr Limbrick.

David LIMBRICK: In that case, if we are talking about the power being able to be output by these batteries, that would say that we are not talking about storage capacity targets at all. Is that correct?

Ingrid STITT: I am not sure that that is quite right. We are setting energy storage targets so that we can ensure that we have the reliability that we need for our energy supply. The targets are clearly around 2030 and 2035. As I have said previously, Mr Limbrick, this is all about making sure that not only are we setting emission reduction targets and renewable energy targets but storage is part of the mix and part of the government’s overall plan to ensure reliability for Victorians in a decarbonised economy.

David LIMBRICK: I do not feel like we are making any progress on this. I will move on to a related target which also had me confused. This is new section 7B, ‘Offshore wind energy targets’. New section 7B(a) says:

by 2032, Victoria is to have the capacity to generate not less than 2 gigawatts of electricity in the offshore area of Victoria by converting wind energy into electricity …

With those 2 gigawatts, are we talking about the peak capacity output or are we talking about the amount of electricity that is generated over a year? Again, I would have thought that if you were going to set a target, you would not set it on the peak capacity, you would set it on the amount of electricity that you wanted to generate over a year, which would imply that again it would not be gigawatts, it would be gigawatt hours over a year. I would like some clarification on that. Are we talking about peak capacity or are we talking about the amount of energy generated over a year?

Ingrid STITT: It is set as peak capacity, Mr Limbrick.

David LIMBRICK: In that case it makes sense for new section 7B. Just to clarify, in new section 7A, are we also talking about peak capacity there and therefore we are not actually setting storage targets, we are talking about peak capacity? For example, by 2035 we want to have 6.3 gigawatts peak capacity into the system and we want to ignore the amount of storage that is there to produce that 6.3 gigawatts.

Ingrid STITT: It is peak capacity. The same answer as for your last question.

David DAVIS: Can I just begin by making a comment about Mr Limbrick’s points. I think essentially some of the points he has made are correct. I think there is a kind of colloquial approach to how it has been described in the bill, and it might be that the government would do better to stick with some strict physics in how it describes these points. But I think with respect, for example, to those energy storage targets, you cannot store a unit of power like that; you have got to store something that has got a time-related thing in some way to it. In any event, that is not my main set of questions. My main set of questions relates to the issues in the bill around amending the emissions reduction target. The truth is, Minister, the Premier and the minister have the ability to amend the targets, don’t they?

Ingrid STITT: I sought some clarification on this point because I knew it was something that you wanted to go to in committee. Clause 8 of the bill removes the power of the Premier and minister to amend the interim targets that are being legislated – that is 2025, 2030 and 2035 – as the 2045 target is now the long-term target date and not an interim target. This target can no longer be amended by the Premier and minister as well. The power to amend the 2040 interim target will remain in place, and that is certainly not unusual in terms of these sorts of clauses. It could be amended in exceptional circumstances, which have not been set and do not need to be set for another four years. I guess the point I am making here is that every target that we have set is being enshrined in law through the bill.

David DAVIS: What are those exceptional circumstances, Minister? They have not been set, is that what you are saying?

Ingrid STITT: No, they have not. I think what I have tried to give you is a sense of comfort that there are changes that, as a result of the bill, will mean that we no longer require a provision for the Premier and minister to amend targets.

David DAVIS: But the longer term targets, Minister, can be changed.

Ingrid STITT: Technically, yes, but I think that the point I am making is that we are very confident with the targets there we are setting, and they will be the primary driver. It would have to be something completely –

David DAVIS: Just let it record that the minister is confident and the government is confident. I just want to put it on the record that I am less confident that the government will meet these points. What will happen if the government does not meet its targets? What is the consequence?

Ingrid STITT: The primary driver for setting these targets in legislation is to make it really crystal clear for communities and for business but also for investors. We think that backing our targets in through legislating them actually sends a really powerful message about the direction that the government is going when it comes to energy capacity storage and clean energy into the future. That is the primary reason, and we are not taking a deficit frame to this, Mr Davis. We are powering ahead, and we are determined to meet our targets.

David DAVIS: I wish I shared your confidence, but I do not. At clause 25 it talks about the report to Parliament. I am just following through the targets and so forth, but at clause 25(2) it says:

the progress made towards meeting the energy storage targets; and

the performance of schemes to achieve the energy storage targets; and

investment and employment …

and then progress made towards meeting the offshore wind targets. Do these, Minister, have to be reported numerically? Or let me put it in a nice way: could they have a more homespun sort of best endeavours short report – ‘We’re trying hard to meet the targets’ – or must it be a numerical reporting annually?

Ingrid STITT: Just let me get some clarification for you, Mr Davis.

Mr Davis, for the current reporting that the government provides in relation to our emission reduction targets and our progress against those, the VRET – so the Victorian renewable energy targets – we report numerically, and whilst the bill does not specify how the reporting will be provided, I think you can be confident that it will be consistent because the government do want to be transparent about how we are going in respect to these important targets.

David DAVIS: Minister, I accept it might be the government’s best endeavours and it might be its intention to report like that, but that is not what it actually says. My concern is a future government. In four years time or five years time, for example, your government might not be successful in reaching its targets and it might decide it is not going to report any numerical targets. It might just report that the government is trying very hard, like one of those school reports, if I can be unkind. In that sense, it might be a little bit self-defeating for the objectives of the act. I do not think that is counted out is my question. I think that could happen, and these clauses do not prevent that occurring.

Ingrid STITT: I think you can look at our track record. We have met every target and we have reported transparently on those efforts. Perhaps when we deal with some amendments from the Greens you might take a little kinder view of this. I think that we have got the track record of providing transparency. Not only that, we have got a track record of reaching our targets. These targets are not plucked out of thin air, Mr Davis. They have been tested, and of course expert advice has been provided to the government about our energy transition because it is just so important for the state, for the economy and for the wellbeing of Victorians.

David DAVIS: I will accept that in the spirit it was intended. It was well meaning. The government might mean well, but I just do not think it actually says that. Leaving that aside – and I refer to the offshore wind energy targets – where will the offshore wind farms be assembled or built?

Ingrid STITT: Mr Davis, there is an area around Bass Strait and off the coast of Gippsland that has been –

David DAVIS: No, no – built, not set.

Ingrid STITT: Sorry, the manufacturing of the wind turbines – is that what you are talking about?

David DAVIS: The assembly and the associated structures.

Ingrid STITT: Okay. Just one moment. Not that the bill deals with these matters, but I will seek to get an answer for you.

Mr Davis, can I clarify with you – is this a Port of Hastings related question?

David DAVIS: It could be. These offshore wind targets are going to require the construction, assembly and transportation of massive offshore windmills. These structures are huge. They float there or they are anchored to the seabed, and they have got massive blades. This is a massive industrial operation that is going to have to happen somewhere either in Victoria or near to Victoria. It could happen in northern Tasmania or it could happen in southern New South Wales. You are correct to point out that the government has got into terrible trouble with Hastings, but maybe the government has a place that they can tell me now where these will be built and then floated out to sea.

Ingrid STITT: Of course I did not say that at all. I asked you whether your question was related to those matters that have been reported publicly about the Port of Hastings. What I can indicate is that both the Minister for Energy and Resources and the Minister for Ports and Freight are working very closely with the Commonwealth. We are going through the process of each step of that environmental assessment process that the Commonwealth is undertaking, and we will continue to push very hard for a good outcome for Victorians.

David DAVIS: Minister, when will that process of engagement with the Commonwealth be completed, and when will construction start on a facility?

Ingrid STITT: Mr Davis, aside from the fact that the targets are eight years away –

David Davis interjected.

Ingrid STITT: Indeed these are large projects that we are talking about here. There have been a series of bilateral meetings with the Commonwealth that have included representatives from across the Victorian government. What I will reiterate is that Victoria is absolutely determined to continue to be Australia’s offshore wind leader, and we have worked to build very strong investment interest. We will have a successful multicompetitive auction, and this auction will start in the next year. We will continue to work closely with the Commonwealth to settle these matters.

David DAVIS: Just to be clear, there is no date in that for the construction to start, and there seems to be no location and no date for the completion of the first of the wind farms.

Ingrid STITT: The point I would make is that the government is setting out a very clear plan. We intend to meet not only those targets contained in the plan but also, if this bill passes the house today, the legislative targets that are set out to ensure that we have got that certainty for both investment in clean energy going forward.

Sarah MANSFIELD: I move:

1. Clause 1, page 2, line 12, omit “65%” and insert “100%”.

2. Clause 1, lines 13 and 14, omit all word and expressions on these lines.

I spoke on these amendments during the debate on the second-reading speech, but just to refresh everyone’s memory we are moving to change the target to 100 per cent renewables by 2030. This is consistent with what we have been calling for for a long time. This is possible. There is emerging research that has shown that Victoria can achieve coal-free electric power generation and possibly 100 per cent renewables by 2028. We acknowledge that, given decades of delay, 100 per cent by 2030 is very ambitious. It will require significant investment, but we believe we must be ambitious when setting these targets. That is why we are moving these amendments to this piece of legislation today, and I would encourage all members to support them.

Ingrid STITT: Just responding to Dr Mansfield’s amendments, in relation to the amendment of the Victorian renewable energy targets to increase the 2030 target from 65 per cent to 100 per cent and the 2035 target from 82 per cent to 100 per cent, the VRET 2035 target of 95 per cent renewable electricity generation reflects a balance. We are leading Victoria through the accelerating renewable energy transition and capturing the benefits this transition will bring while also maintaining reliable and affordable electricity supplies for all Victorians. It recognises that while renewable electricity generation and energy storage will supply the vast majority of Victoria’s electricity following the closure of coal generation, Victoria’s gas-fired electricity generators will play an important role in providing peak capacity at times of high demand or low renewable energy generation. Continuing to utilise our gas capacity at these times will support system reliability over the medium term while allowing time for the development of more cost-effective zero-emission alternatives that could meet this need over the longer term.

The Commonwealth government’s 82 per cent renewable target by 2030 naturally takes into account states and territories that have had historically different challenges to decarbonise and are at different stages in their transition. Victoria, due to its historical reliance on brown coal and its large economy, is starting from a very different place. Our targets of at least 65 per cent renewable energy by 2030 and at least 95 per cent by 2035 represent a high level of ambition, and they are key for delivering our target of net zero by 2045. So we will not be supporting that particular amendment.

Council divided on amendments:

Ayes (7): Katherine Copsey, David Ettershank, Sarah Mansfield, Rachel Payne, Aiv Puglielli, Georgie Purcell, Samantha Ratnam

Noes (24): Ryan Batchelor, Melina Bath, John Berger, Gaelle Broad, David Davis, Michael Galea, Renee Heath, Shaun Leane, David Limbrick, Wendy Lovell, Trung Luu, Joe McCracken, Nick McGowan, Tom McIntosh, Evan Mulholland, Harriet Shing, Ingrid Stitt, Jaclyn Symes, Lee Tarlamis, Sonja Terpstra, Gayle Tierney, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell, Sheena Watt, Richard Welch

Amendments negatived.

Sarah MANSFIELD: I move:

1. Clause 1, page 2, line 12, omit “65%” and insert “82%”.

2. Clause 1, page 2, line 14, omit “95%” and insert “100%”.

I spoke to these amendments during my second-reading contribution. We are disappointed we have not agreed to change the 2030 target to 100 per cent, but we feel that 82 per cent by 2030 is a reasonable compromise. It aligns with the federal government’s targets. This amendment would also lift the 2035 target from 95 per cent to 100 per cent, which again we feel is quite reasonable and aligns well with other goals that are being set in other jurisdictions.

Ingrid STITT: For the reasons already outlined, the government will not be supporting Dr Mansfield’s amendments.

David DAVIS: I just record the opposition will not support these amendments.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The question is that Dr Mansfield’s amendments 1 and 2 on the sheet SMA07C, which tests the remaining amendments on that sheet, be agreed to.

Council divided on amendments:

Ayes (7): Katherine Copsey, David Ettershank, Sarah Mansfield, Rachel Payne, Aiv Puglielli, Georgie Purcell, Samantha Ratnam

Noes (24): Ryan Batchelor, Melina Bath, John Berger, Gaelle Broad, David Davis, Michael Galea, Renee Heath, Shaun Leane, David Limbrick, Wendy Lovell, Trung Luu, Joe McCracken, Nick McGowan, Tom McIntosh, Evan Mulholland, Harriet Shing, Ingrid Stitt, Jaclyn Symes, Lee Tarlamis, Sonja Terpstra, Gayle Tierney, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell, Sheena Watt, Richard Welch

Amendments negatived.

Clause agreed to; clauses 2 to 5 agreed to.

New clause (17:25)

Sarah MANSFIELD: I move:

3. Insert the following New Clause after clause 5 –

‘5A New section 7A inserted

After section 7 of the Climate Change Act 2017 insert –

“7A Independent expert advice in relation to determination for net zero greenhouse gas emissions

(1) In determining the amount of total greenhouse gas emissions attributable to the State, the Minister must obtain advice from one or more persons who are appropriately qualified, in the Minister’s opinion, to act as an independent expert.

(2) The advice obtained under subsection (1) must include an independent assessment of the amount of total greenhouse gas emissions attributable to the State.

(3) In forming the advice, an independent expert must consider –

(a) the demonstrated effectiveness of any proposed activities for the removal of greenhouse gas emissions from the atmosphere; and

(b) the likely effectiveness of any eligible offsets.

(4) The Minister must publish any independent expert advice obtained under this section on the Internet site of the Department as soon as practicable after the advice is received by the Minister.”.’.

Again I spoke to this amendment during my second-reading contribution. This amendment effectively closes a loophole that existed within two sections regarding the determination of net zero emissions. It addresses section 6, which allows for both carbon offsets and carbon capture and storage, or CCS, and section 7, which leaves the sole responsibility for determining attributable greenhouse gas emissions to the Premier and the energy minister.

This is a safeguard, really, against future governments who may potentially want to use dodgy accounting tricks to get Victoria out of its climate responsibilities. It ensures that the minister must seek expert advice on how much offsets and CCS can contribute to net zero as well as on their effectiveness, and really importantly, that advice must be made public via the department’s website. We think these are very sensible amendments. They increase transparency and accountability, and we would urge all members to support them.

Ingrid STITT: The government will be accepting this amendment to require independent expert advice be obtained when we reach net zero emissions in Victoria. Under the current act and regulations, reporting on greenhouse gas emissions is aligned with the Commonwealth, state and territory inventories, and this process will continue. When we reach net zero by 2045, it is critical that we ensure the integrity of our net zero declaration. While the state and territory inventory is a robust process, independent expert advice will provide additional assurances to Victorians that we have met our targets. I thank the Greens for engaging in productive conversations with the government in relation to this amendment.

David DAVIS: The opposition does not support this amendment, although we understand the spirit with which it has been brought in and see that there is some merit in it.

New clause agreed to; clauses 6 to 31 agreed to.

Reported to house with amendment.

Ingrid STITT (Western Metropolitan – Minister for Mental Health, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Multicultural Affairs) (17:28): I move:

That the report be now adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

Third reading

Ingrid STITT (Western Metropolitan – Minister for Mental Health, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Multicultural Affairs) (17:28): I move:

That the bill be now read a third time.

The PRESIDENT: The question is:

That the bill be now read a third time and do pass.

Council divided on question:

Ayes (28): Ryan Batchelor, Melina Bath, John Berger, Gaelle Broad, Katherine Copsey, David Davis, David Ettershank, Michael Galea, Shaun Leane, Wendy Lovell, Trung Luu, Sarah Mansfield, Joe McCracken, Nick McGowan, Tom McIntosh, Evan Mulholland, Rachel Payne, Aiv Puglielli, Georgie Purcell, Samantha Ratnam, Harriet Shing, Ingrid Stitt, Jaclyn Symes, Lee Tarlamis, Sonja Terpstra, Gayle Tierney, Sheena Watt, Richard Welch

Noes (2): David Limbrick, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell

Question agreed to.

Read third time.

The PRESIDENT: Pursuant to standing order 14.28, a message will be sent to the Assembly informing them that the bill has been agreed to with amendment.