Tuesday, 30 April 2024

Bills

Energy and Public Land Legislation Amendment (Enabling Offshore Wind Energy) Bill 2024

Second reading

Debate resumed on motion of Harriet Shing:

That the bill be now read a second time.

David DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan) (15:02): I am pleased to rise and make a contribution on the Energy and Public Land Legislation Amendment (Enabling Offshore Wind Energy) Bill 2024. The state government’s offshore wind energy program is in chaos. Its program to build offshore wind has been dealt a fundamental setback with the decision of federal Minister Tanya Plibersek to ban – to block – the Port of Hastings development that would have enabled the assembly of offshore wind machinery and appliances. These are very large and it is now not clear where they will be assembled, it is not clear where they will be made and it is not clear how the government will bring them to market.

The federal government – and I think there is context here I should provide – obviously has a support for offshore wind, as does the state government. We saw the passage of targets by the state government, targets that look to be in tatters, but the federal government has obviously got a process which sets out the various offshore wind areas where it will grant permits. So to be clear to the chamber: the federal government grants permits outside 3 miles, and that is the theory that this operates on. This bill sets up a regime for the state government to grant permits within 3 miles and onshore that provide for the movement of power, the support of equipment and building and so forth and the servicing of offshore wind in a range of different places.

What I say very clearly here is that the state government has got a lot of this wrong. The state government is heading in the wrong direction. We know that the state government’s energy approach is in serious trouble. This is known widely and the Minister for Energy and Resources, Lily D’Ambrosio, is regarded as a laughing-stock around the countryside, whether it be in this state or in other states around Australia. Just be clear here, this regime – and I will just step through some of the minor details here – the state government says, is updating a number of acts relating to land to include offshore wind. The bill will allow for offshore wind developers to obtain tenure over public land for the purpose of assessing the feasibility of construction and design to provide certainty, it claims, to the industry. For the actual transmission of offshore energy to the Victorian grid, a subsequent easement arrangement over public land would be required to be entered into. There is a parallel bill which we will deal with later in the week, the National Electricity (Victoria) Amendment (VicGrid) Bill 2024, which seeks to give the state government enormous new powers.

The purpose of the bill: it seeks to amend the Land Act 1958, the Crown Land (Reserves) Act 1978 and the Forests Act 1958 to enable licences over public land to be granted for up to 21 years for the purpose of assessing the feasibility of constructing offshore wind energy generation; to include offshore wind energy generation companies within the scope of certain provisions of the National Parks Act 1975; and to amend the Electricity Industry Act 2000 to enable the minister to declare persons to be offshore wind energy generation companies and for other purposes.

No-one is opposed to a significant role for offshore wind, but it has got to be done in conjunction with local communities, it has got to be done in a way that recognises significant landscapes and significant seascapes and it has got to be done in a way that actually is cost effective and in a way that actually recognises that offshore wind is just one component of the energy mix that we have going forward.

Tom McIntosh interjected.

David DAVIS: You agree with this; that is good to hear. I am deeply worried about where the other parts of the energy mix are heading. We know that coal generation is suffering really significant challenges and we know that the government is going to close coal generation very shortly, but it has not yet got the baseload power that will actually replace it properly. We know that the state government has an ideological opposition to gas, and particularly the minister, who runs around calling it fossil gas wherever she goes. The minister has not yet fully faced up to the fact that natural gas is going to play a transition role at a minimum.

Tom McIntosh interjected.

David DAVIS: I will tell you where you are going to get it from. More onshore conventional gas exploration is required – and you have not given any permits for that. More than that, 10 years in power, and you have blocked it all the way through. But leaving that aside, we also will need import terminals to fill some of the holes; there is no question that that is where it is going to be.

Tom McIntosh interjected.

David DAVIS: Well, you are in government, mate. After the 10 years that you have been in government you have left the state in a terrible position, where the baseload power is not going to be there and the minister in her silly, ideological opposition to gas is actually making the problem worse. She has been the minister all the way through. She can take responsibility. Daniel Andrews can take responsibility, and Jacinta Allan can take responsibility. They have mucked up Victoria’s energy future badly. That is why firms are leaving; businesses are leaving hand over fist. I mean, the Seeley example from Wodonga is just a shocking example. A very much respected manufacturer has indicated it is out of the state. That is a bad outcome. Then we start to look at groups like Qenos, which has got a central role in plastics manufacturing here. To be clear, gas is important for plastics manufacturing in two ways: as a feedstock and as an energy source. There are many manufacturing processes that require gas. The minister has not faced these facts. The minister has got her ideological blinkers on. Everything she does is ideological. Everything she does is focused on her ideological outcomes, no matter what the practical, real-world outcomes are.

Tom McIntosh: What about you lot? You hate renewables.

David DAVIS: I do not; I actually quite like renewables. I see they have got a significant future in the state, but they have got to be supported properly, and they have got to be implemented in a way that retains the social licence. You cannot just crunch these renewables into place. We will discuss tomorrow VC261, the planning amendment that crunches and rolls over local communities, hits councils and strips away local community powers. Minister Kilkenny has taken to herself all power. She does not even, under that amendment, need to consult. She can do whatever she likes. She can wake up in the middle of the night and strip away a local community’s right to consultation and just hand a permit over with the stroke of a pen – no process, no consultation, no democracy and instead of that a heavy-handed jackboot. That is what we are seeing with this government: jackboots going across the land imposing the government’s will on communities without proper consultation.

The problem with this bill is that it has not been thought through properly. We understand, given where the federal government is, there has got to be some recognition of a process to license and to facilitate offshore wind. We get that, but we do think that there are serious problems in where the state government is going.

I want to distribute our amendments, which will seek to strengthen the consultation process. We know that the consultation process with all of these energy processes has been inadequate. If I could have those amendments distributed now, that would be much appreciated.

Amendments circulated pursuant to standing orders.

David DAVIS: The amendments fall into two key components. The first one – I will deal with the simplest one – is to set up a fit and proper person test for those who would be given these licences. We think that that is a baseline. We think it is a very modest requirement, and we think that that is an amendment that is worthy of support. It might be that the federal government gives permits and licences, but the state government in the end is responsible for what is done in its zone – the 3 miles inwards – and on land and in parks and so forth, and in those circumstances we need to make sure that the persons who have those licences actually are fit and proper people – or firms as it were. In that circumstance that is why we are moving these amendments. What we do not want is to wake up in five or 10 years time and find the state government has given permits to firms that are fly-by-nighters, firms that are not robust enough or are not capitalised properly. There are legitimate questions that we can raise here, and that is why we think this is a very baseline requirement.

The second part of the amendments relates to the requirement for local consultation. This amends clauses 8, 12 and 15 and inserts a requirement that before granting a licence the person who grants the licence, the minister, must be satisfied that adequate consultation has been undertaken with the local community regarding the proposed licence – again we think this is very modest – and that a statement about that consultation will need to be published by the minister on the relevant website. These are again very basic requirements.

We know the government has been riding roughshod over local communities. I have met the people, Mrs McArthur knows many of these people and Ms Bath knows many of these people who have been very unhappy about the way the government has treated their communities with respect to powerlines and other renewable projects. The government has been arrogant, it has been overbearing, it has not been consultative, and we need to send a very clear message to the Allan Labor government and to Minister D’Ambrosio that if you want to roll renewables out you need to do it with social licence. You need to do it with the support of local communities, you need to involve local communities from the start to the end and you need to make sure that local communities are able to have their say and that the outcomes are tailored to those communities.

I have to say that it is outrageous the way the government has behaved across a whole series of projects across the state. We will have more to say when it comes to the National Electricity (Victoria) Amendment (VicGrid) Bill 2024 later in the week, which deals with many of the same issues, but this bill is a more confined bill. It deals with offshore wind, it deals with permits, it deals with access to public land and it deals with facilitating the state side of an offshore wind industry. We are not opposed per se in any way, but we are opposed to the government’s behaviour and its attitude and its arrogant approach to local communities. That is why we are moving these amendments. That is why we want to seek a better way forward with these points. I also just want to return to issues around the assembly of offshore wind. It is still not clear where and how the state government will assemble offshore wind facilities – it is just not at all clear.

Members interjecting.

David DAVIS: I have not been in government for 10 years, let me be clear. I have not had the resources of government. I have not had the tall towers with thousands of bureaucrats working day and night on these issues, only to botch them at every turn. It is your government that has been there for 10 years. You have had the tall towers of bureaucrats lit up like Christmas trees, working day and night and actually botching everything they touch. It is not us who have been botching.

It is interesting to look here at the Australian Energy Council – it breaks down some of the points about the Port of Hastings. The renewable terminal:

… is a proposal to build a facility within Mornington’s Port of Hastings that would serve as a base of operations for the assembly …

I will just step back through the concept of the proposal. Why did the federal government get involved? They talk about the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 and the requirements there – the bilateral agreements. I note the importance of the Ramsar agreement signed in Iran in 1971 by the Gorton government; it was a Liberal government initiative, the Ramsar convention, which deals with migratory birds across the world. Obviously every one of those migratory birds moves through more than one jurisdiction, so you need these international arrangements. But in this case, the federal government under the EPBC act made a series of assessments.

The Hastings area and Western Port is an internationally recognised biosphere. For some reason, this did not occur to the state government. Really? Everyone who knows anything about Western Port knows this fact. You have got Ramsar-listed wetlands through large parts of Western Port, but it did not seem to register in the minister’s mind that this could trigger an action under the EPBC act which would deny her access. It did not seem to click. Is it a disjunction, a disconnect, a lack of understanding, or is it an overriding, overweening arrogance from this government that they are going to sweep aside everything? I invite people to go and see the video from before the election, as Melissa Horne speaks and Lily D’Ambrosio speaks.

Melina Bath interjected.

David DAVIS: Have you seen that? Well, they were moving ahead – there was nothing to stop it. It was all fantastic.

Tom McIntosh: You sound delighted, Mr Davis.

David DAVIS: Well, I am pointing out that this is not how it turned out; this is not how it ended. Those early videos of D’Ambrosio and Melissa Horne out there spruiking what they were going to do at the Port of Hastings now look very, very limp – they look very limp indeed. You would have to say that this does not look good at all.

This document goes on:

The Victorian Government does not have many options for overturning this decision. The Port of Hastings … can submit an amended project that mitigates the “clearly unacceptable” risks …

The political community know I am no particular friend of Tanya Plibersek, having had a huge fight with her in 2012–13 and forced her to return $107 million she wrenched out of Victoria. She is no particular friend of Victoria, but she did say there was a clearly unacceptable risk to biodiversity identified in the federal government’s ruling. Is it impossible to rejig this – who would know?

The project would still need to go through Victoria’s Environment Effects Statement consultation, which takes some time.

I have no doubt that Sonya Kilkenny would just wave aside a lot of the rules on that, although it was interesting to watch Jacinta Allan try to talk her way through what would happen with an environment effects statement. It was clear at the press conference she was not briefed or did not understand that there would have to be an EES in Victoria. And you have got the federal government making decisions under the EPBC act and then Victoria clearly needing to do a proper EES process.

The document goes on:

Either way, it is likely to prove a thorn in the side of governments looking to accelerate the energy transition.

So this is incompetence; it is a state government that has botched the processes. They have had years – they have been in power for 10 years. It is their fault, their mistake, Lily’s – I was going to use a word I cannot use, it would be unparliamentary – blunders.

Here we go:

For those jurisdictions with government-led transitions (notably Queensland’s Energy and Jobs … Western Australia … and Victoria’s State Electricity Commission), they will need to navigate the likelihood that government-owned projects that trigger the EPBC Act will probably not be eligible for single-touch approval, contributing to longer and duplicative assessments.

That is absolutely right. The state government needs to understand this. The conclusion in this sensible document talks about the Star of the South, which is the most advanced of them, and I pay tribute to the work that those firms have done.

The Federal Government’s ruling against the Victorian Renewable Energy Terminal could prove to be a complete anomaly. Previous projects in Westernport Bay had been rejected on environmental grounds, so for some this decision was no surprise.

Either way, the decision has shed light on the complicated and lengthy assessment processes projects must go through before construction can even begin. For Victoria, recent decisions to re-establish the State Electricity Commission and invest in offshore wind have, in some ways, had the unintended effect of putting control of their energy transition in the hands of the Federal Environment Minister.

On the SEC, we will have more to say about that when the SEC bill comes back to the chamber.

A member interjected.

David DAVIS: No doubt the government will bring it back, but it is clearly another mistake of the government’s, another set of blunders. It is not clear what it is doing. I see they have appointed a board now, after some people fled the earlier interim board and did not believe it was suitable. But now a new board has been appointed; it is not clear how it is going to operate.

One thing I should say is that the question of competitive neutrality is going to become more important. Does the government intend to use the SEC as leverage and as a privileged player in the marketplace for their purposes of expanding state control? Let me give you a way that this could well occur: the state government might decide – in fact I predict they will decide – that all government agencies and bodies will park their business with the SEC. This would be a significant breach of the competitive neutrality rules. It would be a return to a very strange old way of government provision of these services. The question would be then ‘Would the government go even further?’ as we hear rumbles around the countryside that they will then require anyone who tenders for government services to park their electricity business with the SEC, thereby scooping up another huge share of the market, as a retailer as it were, as a provider, but with huge leverage back down the supply chain to the distributors and to the energy generators. Is that what the government is proposing to do with the SEC? Well, that is an interesting question.

What I can say is I would not trust them to run much given what they have done with offshore wind. The process is delayed; the process is behind time. These processes of getting electricity from renewables to the market, where it is needed, have hit all sorts of obstacles, as we know, and they are obstacles of Daniel Andrews, Jacinta Allan and Lily D’Ambrosio’s own making. It is of their own making. They are their own blunders. They have been in power for 10 years now, and they have had all of this time to plan this transition. Now they are in real trouble, breakneck pressure, and the ability to achieve the transition looks increasingly difficult. But they could have planned this differently. They could have acted earlier, they could have put in place steps much earlier and they could have started with offshore wind a lot earlier. It is all very well to trumpet things far and wide and high and loud, but you have got to do the work. You have got to do the work behind the scenes, you have got to make the project stack up and you have got to get the costs under control. They have not done any of that, and that is where a lot of this comes unstuck.

We can pass a bill today that will set up a regime – an inadequate regime in our view, as we have said; it does not deal with consultation properly, and it does not deal with fit and proper person requirements – to enable offshore wind to have permits for groups onshore and in that 3-mile zone, but that does not mean that the offshore wind construction and the offshore wind deployment will actually happen, and that is what is required. I will be interested when we get into committee for the minister to provide some information about how the government is going to achieve these targets. What is the future of Hastings? Will it be assembling offshore wind? If not in Hastings, where will that occur? Those are questions for the minister when we get to committee. I commend to the house our amendments. As I said, we have tried to provide greater consultation requirements and provide a fit and proper person test.

Jacinta ERMACORA (Western Victoria) (15:27): I am very pleased to be speaking on the Energy and Public Land Legislation Amendment (Enabling Offshore Wind Energy) Bill 2024 and getting down to the business of addressing climate change, preventing climate change and mitigating climate change, which is the work of this government.

Offshore wind is a well-established industry in Europe and in other parts of the world, but here in Australia it is an absolutely brand new industry. Offshore wind farms, just like onshore ones, capture energy and convert it to electricity. Each tower and turbine has a little power station inside, which really looks quite large to me when you climb inside. Wind usually blows more strongly and more consistently offshore – and I have said that in this chamber before – and in doing so it provides an important ingredient to the grid. A little bit like baseload power – not quite, but similar – offshore wind will often compensate when it is not windy onshore.

In Australia the significant bulk of offshore wind farms are going to be in offshore areas in Commonwealth waters. I am not sure if I am speaking on the same bill as what Mr Davis was speaking on, but this bill begins the journey of establishing an accountable regulatory framework for offshore wind in our state so that communities can have their say, so that traditional owners can have their say and to ensure our environment is protected through the assessment process, through the approvals process, through the construction process and through the operation of the energy generators.

This has been an involved and complex process, and I absolutely want to say the opposite to what has already been said about Minister D’Ambrosio. I think she is presiding over a very, very complex transition in an absolutely fantastic way and a very consultative way. The most important priorities that she is focused on are a secure, reliable and affordable energy supply and responding to climate change whilst protecting our environment. Just get your head around that – it is complex. These pieces of legislation represent the steps along the way that facilitate our state’s renewable energy future, and the Allan Labor government is responding to the threat of global warming through its commitment to not just meet the Paris agreement but even in some areas go beyond it. We have some of the most ambitious climate targets in the world. These targets are legislated, providing confidence and security for renewable energy investors and operators. Victoria has already reached 38 per cent renewable energy, and this bill assists in the next steps to our target of 95 per cent renewable by 2030, with a goal of net zero emissions by 2045. 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. This data shows that the Victorian government is determined to take action on climate change.

We have a plan to ensure secure, affordable and renewable energy for the citizens of this state, and the reformation of the State Electricity Commission is part of that plan. The Allan government is determined to meet the transition challenges already being faced in the private energy sector within this state. The two most significant challenges in the current energy market are an ageing coal-fired power sector and the export of gas resulting in extreme price rises. Privately owned coal energy producers are coming to their natural end of life. This is not a result of government policy, as some would argue. It is the result of the ageing capability of these power stations and the increasing costs associated with the production of coal-fired energy. You only need to read the annual reports of these companies to see that in facing the choice between investing in more coal or renewable technologies, these businesses are choosing renewables. And while private energy companies are rightly focused on profit, the Victorian government is focused on energy security, affordability and environmental sustainability.

Government is about making decisions in the best interests of the people they serve; business is about that – profit and business. That is why the decline of coal-fired energy is being compounded by the gas sector’s pivot to international export over local provision – again, chasing the profit margin has resulted in exponential growth of gas exports over the last decade, leading to an increase in the price of gas for consumers. Where gas used to be an affordable and somewhat less polluting resource, it is now more expensive than renewable energy. The Victorian government is committed to intervening in the private energy market where consumer interests are not protected. The government’s role is to protect affordability, reliability and the environment.

There is clearly a role for the government. Victoria is Australia’s offshore wind leader. We have worked to build strong investment interest and we anticipate another successful multicompetitive auction. This is the context in which the establishment of an offshore wind energy industry is occurring in Victoria. This bill provides a regulatory framework that links infrastructure between Commonwealth waters and the Victorian energy grid. The offshore wind infrastructure passes through the 3 nautical miles of Victorian waters and over government land into the Victorian grid – a regulatory extension lead, if you will. This bill modifies Victorian public land and electricity laws to permit offshore wind projects to conduct site investigation activities for determining the design and placement of connection infrastructure.

The bill provides a clear pathway for offshore wind proponents who have received feasibility licences in Commonwealth waters under the Offshore Electricity Infrastructure Act 2021 to undertake and align related feasibility assessments in Victorian waters and onshore. This will result in better project planning and greater regulatory certainty for proponents, and this is done through allowing the Minister for Energy and Resources to declare a licence under the Offshore Electricity Infrastructure Act 2021, which is Commonwealth, for a declared offshore wind generation company. It also clarifies arrangements under the four main land acts that refer to the agreements with electricity companies for the purposes of construction and operation of new electricity infrastructure. It amends the Land Act 1958, the Crown Land (Reserves) Act 1978, the Forests Act 1958 and the National Parks Act 1975 to enable activities to be approved on public land relating to the investigation of offshore wind connection assets.

There are many benefits of having an offshore wind sector in Victoria. There are new employment opportunities, jobs, training and new skills. It will create thousands of direct and indirect jobs in the state. The creation of the localisation of these roles is underpinned by Victorian government policy, such as the Local Jobs First Act 2003 and the Local Jobs First policy, which aim to increase the participation of Australian businesses and workers. Victorian workers will benefit through the planning, construction, operations and maintenance phases of offshore wind development. The distinct phases of offshore wind projects will provide a range of opportunities for professionals, engineers and trades. This bill demonstrates the importance of our commitment to TAFE training and, in particular in the south-west of Victoria, the $5 million South West TAFE renewable energy trade training centre funded by this government last year. That trade training centre will provide training for renewable plumbing and renewable electrical technologies and a whole range of other trades in the renewable space, gearing up for offshore wind.

The operations and maintenance phase offers a considerable opportunity, and we are definitely making sure that that happens. It will certainly have an impact in south-west Victoria. This industry is likely to employ a significant number of workers in both the Warrnambool and Port Fairy communities in construction but also in operation. I recently met with the South West Trades and Labor Council, who passed on to me how pleased they are at the federal government’s offshore wind zone and how important it is to create new jobs in the region.

As an article in the Warrnambool Standard indicated on 6 March 2024, the federal government’s declared offshore wind zone off Warrnambool and Port Fairy:

… would allow for 2.9GW of offshore wind energy – enough to power two million homes or the equivalent to two-and-a-half Portland aluminium smelters which currently uses 10 per cent of the state’s electricity.

This impact will lead to a significant number of new jobs in my region. As the Standard further indicated:

It would create 1740 jobs during construction and 870 ongoing operation jobs such as engineers, labourers, technicians, operators, riggers, divers, and administrators.

I find it interesting on the other hand that those opposite are trying to sell us the furphy of nuclear power, a solution that would take at least 10 years to achieve at enormous cost and a real potential danger for communities hosting nuclear reactors. I recall John Howard putting forward Portland in the south-west of Victoria as an optimum spot to build a nuclear power reactor. The opposition has not moved on, and federally Peter Dutton continues to call for nuclear rather than getting on board with renewables and what clean energy can do for Australia in a myriad of ways. I have listened to many in my community on nuclear options and have found far more opposition than support. On my website, jacintaermacora.com.au, there is currently a petition to sign in relation to expressing concern about nuclear energy. We must make sure it will not become like France, needing to give thyroid tablets to communities within 200 kilometres of a nuclear reactor. Instead, today the Allan Labor government is moving ahead with offshore wind. This government has committed to policy and regulatory reform to support the development of the offshore wind energy industry to maximise opportunities for Victorians while combating climate change. Victoria is Australia’s offshore wind leader. We have worked to build strong investment interest, and we will have a successful multicompetitive auction. The first offshore wind farm will be constructed here, thanks to our ambitious offshore wind targets of at least 2 gigawatts of new capacity by 2032, 4 gigawatts by 2035 and 9 gigawatts by 2040. The Allan Labor government have a clear direction, and we are not shying away from the complexities of regulatory reform and facilitation of an offshore wind energy industry in this state. I absolutely am proud to support this bill.

Bev McARTHUR (Western Victoria) (15:41): Those of us who are sceptical of big government are well used to the economic damage which can be wrought when a government overextends and overspends and as a result needs to overtax. We do not need to look beyond Victoria’s past to understand that lesson, and unfortunately it is now being repeated in our present. But the economic damage we are talking about today comes from a different and newer form of government miscalculation, namely interference in the energy market. Once upon a time, believe it or not, we had a functional, effective electricity market which delivered inexpensive energy reliably. It was not so very long ago. It has taken a breathtaking act of self-sabotage to move from there to the situation we face today, where energy costs have risen vastly and yet the security of supply has actually substantially deteriorated. All the indications are that as we continue on the current trajectory, costs will continue to rise and blackouts will continue to become more common.

Of course our energy landscape could not have remained static, but the change that was required should have been evolution, not revolution. Instead of a careful adjustment to incentives and penalties, which would have sent market signals and caused slower, organic development, successive governments have mandated target-driven change at a pace which has completely disrupted the evolution of our generation and transmission systems. Central planning in economics has been rightly discredited in modern economies, and the same is true of energy markets. Even an enlightened, competent government would be unable to design an energy market as efficient as an appropriately regulated but organically evolved free market, and the problem is that we certainly do not have an enlightened, competent government – anything but. The result is that, entirely avoidably, Victoria’s energy landscape now includes more expensive and less reliable electricity, with consequences which are beginning to be felt in the wider economy.

At the best of economic times this self-inflicted wound would be damaging, but our state’s current financial situation makes matters very much worse. The link between energy and the economy is abundantly clear, as was made clear by a recent survey from the Victorian Chamber of Commerce and Industry and alarming commentary from the chamber’s CEO Paul Guerra. The study of more than 500 business members found nearly 90 per cent believe Victoria’s planned energy market changes will impact the quality of their output. Two in every three unsurprisingly stated that energy policies were their greatest business concern.

I touched on energy security earlier, and there is bad news here too. The February power outages, which saw 530,000 Victorian premises without power, had a serious impact on business. The survey showed 73 per cent of respondents were forced to close or significantly reduce their operations – three in four. Paul Guerra commented:

We need a plan, and Victorians need to understand how we’re going to reach the targets that the state government’s put out, which is 95 per cent renewable energy by 2035. Every Victorian needs to understand that the path to net zero is going to be expensive, and it’s going to be complicated …

Absolutely. He also said:

… Victoria should not be out of lock-step with the eastern seaboard, because then we will be more expensive than the other states.

And most tellingly, he said that if the Allan government ‘cannot guarantee that the lights remain on in this state, then I can guarantee that many businesses will find places other than Victoria to set up’.

It is not just surveys and comments from leaders. There are concrete consequences already. In my electorate, at Stawell, Advance Bricks & Pavers ended eight decades of operation due to rising gas prices. Just last month the largest gas heating manufacturer in Australia, Seeley International, cut 125 jobs on the Victoria and New South Wales border. Ai Group Victorian director Tim Piper said at the time:

There are also many other businesses in Victoria that have been significantly disadvantaged, probably as many as 3000 jobs affected, and those companies had next to no time given to them to change their businesses to work in with the government mandate.

They are good at mandates, this government – that is what they are good at. Those that are significantly affected are having to decide what to do with their businesses. Some will pivot, but some will not be able to. That is the context for this bill, that and the passage here last month of the Climate Change and Energy Legislation Amendment (Renewable Energy and Storage Targets) Bill 2023, which included a commitment to introduce offshore wind energy targets of not less than 2 gigawatts by 2032, 4 gigawatts by 2035 and 9 gigawatts by 2040. That target has some serious consequences, and this bill is an attempt to address them, a woefully inadequate attempt.

The Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning offshore wind energy directions paper stated that to achieve the 60 gigawatts of generation needed for the state’s 95 per cent renewable energy target using only offshore wind and solar would require up to 70 per cent of Victoria’s agricultural land. The government itself says 60 gigawatts of electrical generation will be required for energy decarbonisation, yet the Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action’s own commitment to offshore wind is just 4 gigawatts by 2035 and then 9 gigawatts by 2040. That leaves an enormous gap to 60 gigawatts, one which can only be bridged by a massive increase in onshore wind and solar. What on earth is our agricultural sector, indeed our whole state going to look like then? Where is the social licence for that transformation of Victoria? There is none, and so it is no surprise that this government is pretending the problem can be solved by offshore wind. Unfortunately, it is increasingly apparent that it will not provide the solution.

Some of the reasons for that are beyond the government’s immediate control – namely, rising interest rates, which impact hugely on cash flow negative capital-intensive investments like offshore wind, also the huge materials and labour inflation in that sector – but other problems are squarely within the government’s control: the disastrous management of the Hastings assembly and installation base in which ministers ignored federal government warnings and ignored their own Infrastructure Victoria report from 2017. The government’s predicated price is a fantasy too – $94 per megawatt hour. How is that plausible when existing energy developments in the US are already costed at well over $200 per gigawatt hour and the UK’s costs have risen to $140 per gigawatt hour? So fantasy is what they are talking about these days – fantasy, pure fantasy. The federal government’s decision to reduce the Southern Ocean wind zone by 80 per cent to avoid whale habitat is also hugely significant. That project will now generate at best 3 gigawatts, down from the originally estimated 14.6 gigawatts, so it is clear that the government’s offshore policy, like its energy policy generally, is in chaos.

This bill will do nothing to convince Victorian businesses that the impending energy disaster can be averted. We can only improve what is put in front of us, so while I support the coalition’s amendments to ensure greater consultation and ownership by fit and proper persons, what is needed really is a new bill, new ideas on energy, new ministers and frankly a new government.

Tom McINTOSH (Eastern Victoria) (15:51): I am proud to stand today and speak in support of the Energy and Public Land Legislation Amendment (Enabling Offshore Wind Energy) Bill 2024, delivering clean energy, massive international investment into Victoria and thousands upon thousands of jobs. Nine gigawatts here in Victoria means that these jobs will be seen for decades to come, and that is why we are putting in place the targets and supporting the investment and the training to ensure that generations of Victorians get to work in this industry.

The investment alone – in my region of Eastern Victoria we are talking $40 billion to $60 billion in renewables and, as I said, thousands of jobs. This is not an accident. This comes from years and years of work to set the framework to enable this to happen. It will bring the competitive investment. It will see, as I have said, a workforce able to depend on this work for a long time to come.

We know that we need to deliver clean energy. I have spoken in this place before about our changing climate, increasing by 0.2 or 0.3 degrees every decade for the last six or seven decades. We are seeing ice melt, and we are seeing record temperatures. Last year we were looking at about 1.5 degrees above the pre-industrial levels of the 1800s. The atmospheric change that sees that moisture trapped into the atmosphere is creating weather events that we are seeing more regularly that are impacting our quality of life. They are impacting on our farmers, they are impacting us when we go to the grocery store and they are impacting on insurance bills. The insurance bills are continuing to rise, and the real threats, whether it be sea level rise or other impacts of climate change, are either making buildings uninsurable or causing banks to signal that they will not be willing to loan against them.

This is why we are acting. We have identified the science behind the issues, and our values align with dealing with those issues to ensure the quality of life for all Victorians, because that is what being in this place is about. It is about delivering for all Victorians. So to enable those values, we have set our targets. We have our targets of 95 per cent renewable energy by 2035, as Mrs McArthur rightly pointed out in her contribution. This sits in our goal to have net zero emissions by 2045. As Mr Davis pointed out, in our decade of government we have worked our way through energy efficiency. We have taken the low-hanging fruit, energy efficiency, while we set the renewable energy targets that enabled our energy auctions. That was 600 megawatts where, again, competitive bidding to build the energy infrastructure we need has been rolled out.

We have supported home owners through Solar Homes, in energy efficiency, in putting in solar panels and solar hot water units on their homes. Despite the opposition wanting to say that the economics of renewables do not add up, home owners can see that it adds up. That is why they are doing it. It makes financial sense. Who would have thought when you have got a free resource like the sun or the wind, it costs you less to produce energy? It is absolutely mind-boggling. I will come in my contribution to the radical ideology of those opposite and why they cannot accept basic economics and why they cannot accept that renewables are affordable, which is why the community is taking them up. We are already at 40 per cent renewable energy penetration into our grid. We have batteries going into our grid. We have a 6-gigawatt battery target. Again, those opposite will laugh, like they have laughed for the last 2½ decades, but we are getting on with delivering it. Every year more renewables are going into the grid. We will be standing here in a few years to come and we will be hitting 50 per cent, and still they will keep laughing and still they will keep blaming renewables all the way through.

Michael Galea: They don’t get it, Mr McIntosh.

Tom McINTOSH: They do not get it. We are supporting various sectors of our economy, whether it is individuals or businesses, we are setting the frameworks and we are putting in place the grants to ensure that we can get to our goal of net zero emissions. Whether it is electric vehicles, which I am sure will bring the laugh – yes, Mrs McArthur is laughing, right on cue.

Bev McArthur: They’re going really well. They’re running on brown coal, those EV cars.

Tom McINTOSH: Well, Mrs McArthur, I just said more than 40 per cent of the grid is renewables, and it continues to grow. That is why you need to walk and chew gum. You lot cannot even walk without tripping over your own feet and having internal blues. We can walk and chew gum, setting up the infrastructure that Victoria needs now and will need well into the future.

In the region of Eastern Victoria our EV fast-charging infrastructure through Mallacoota, Buchan, Lakes Entrance, Bruthen, Paynesville, Maffra, Heyfield, Foster, Mirboo North, Meeniyan, Leongatha, Korumburra, Loch, Flinders, Rosebud, Portsea, Bairnsdale, Sale and Yarram is supporting people in the community to move to electric vehicles. Those opposite no doubt will sit there and laugh, and they will just watch penetration into the market grow and grow – just like renewables, the same thing will happen. And with the circular economy we are making the investments. Just yesterday Minister for Environment Steve Dimopoulos opened a $2.5 million recycling plant in Tottenham that turns hard-to-recycle items into concrete material, so we are using it for construction. There are soft plastics. He has done similar things around lithium ion processing for Stawell and Campbellfield – jobs in all of these facilities. In Eastern Victoria we have got Elecsome recycling solar panels. And of course, just on the circular economy, we have got the much-loved recycling program, which has seen 120 million containers recycled, supporting community fundraising and a whole range of other things.

I am really glad that Minister Tierney is here, because Minister Tierney has put the focus on training. When a massive new industry is coming and thousands and thousands of workers are needed, you have to train the industry, and that is exactly what we are doing. Ms Ermacora commented on the investment in western Victoria; it is happening in eastern Victoria. We are investing in our TAFEs, because we fundamentally believe in TAFEs, in training people and in ensuring that they have the skills that our industries want and need. That is a massive part of that. We hear over and over again from industry that they are going to need the workers – they are going to need so many workers to deliver this massive program.

I spoke before about the 9 gigawatts to provide that clean energy and the thousands and thousands of jobs that will come with it, and it all sits within decentralising our power grid, supporting local communities to have more control, more security and cheaper energy. Across Eastern Victoria I talk to communities at the end of the line who do want that energy security when weather events are becoming more severe and more frequent. That is a result of climate change, which is what we are trying to prevent occurring more and more. When their transmission lines are knocked down, they want to have the backup in there. That is why we are getting batteries in. That is why we are getting renewables in. We are ensuring in times of disaster there are hubs the community can go to and, like all the other services, they can get energy, because it is so critical.

Renewables are cheaper. I commented before on how home owners know it is cheaper. Report after report is showing that it is cheaper, and of course those opposite do not want to listen to it. They do not want to hear it. There is so much we are doing on this side. Whether it is looking to decarbonise our transport industry, our energy industry, our agriculture or our waste with the circular economy, everything feeds into it. It sits within our goals. We have the values, we identify the problem and we set the policies in place to achieve our goals, whereas those opposite are radically opposed to renewables. You are ideologically opposed to them in every fibre of your being, and it does not make any sense. The economics do not make sense. With what our communities want and need, it does not make any sense. With what voters tell us and the action they want on climate change, it does not make sense. But as we see with the Liberals, they are more interested in getting preselection from their local branches than they are in representing the economic interests of Victoria or the societal interests of our community when people go to the ballot boxes: ‘Don’t worry about what voters say. Don’t worry about what markets say. Ignore the economics. Ignore the community.’ I do not know what Menzies would think if he walked in here, probably about the same as what Dr Bach thought when he walked out of here.

The biggest risk to investment and jobs is the coalition. Make no mistake, the Liberal Party is absolutely the biggest risk that we face to these thousands and thousands of jobs and billions and billions of dollars of investment. They are threatening to rip it all up. It does not matter whether you look at the state or the federal sphere, the same ideological drive has been within their party and within their members for the last 25 years. It is absolutely there. As I said, there are no values, there are no policies and there are no plans. There is no idea. It is just ‘No, no, no.’ That is why the Liberal Party is not fit to govern in this century. This century we are seeing technological changes occur quicker –

Sonja Terpstra interjected.

Tom McINTOSH: Well, thank you to my colleague for pointing out they are not ever fit to. But particularly as technology is changing quicker and quicker, we cannot afford to have technophobes in government. Whilst on this side, state and federally, we want Australian made, we want security in energy and in manufacturing and we want the security of our economy, those opposite are absolutely against it. Whether it is our new industries of hydrogen and renewables or the tens of thousands of jobs that come with all of this, they are absolutely against it, and they ignore the opportunity.

America is investing half a trillion dollars, Canada is investing and Europe are setting up tariff walls that we will not be able to export our goods through if we do not meet these emission standards. Again, with vehicles coming into this country, you would rather have us sit with Russia and have people pay more for fuel – one of two countries in the developed world. Seventy-five per cent of cars in the world meet equivalent standards, whether in the US, New Zealand or wherever. You would rather have people pay more for fuel and run scare campaigns, which industry have come out and pushed aside, so the Liberals have been left standing on their own yet again. You would rather do that than see an advance for our society that is for the betterment of everyone. You would rather stand ideologically opposed. The same goes for farmers looking to diversify their income with renewables. I just do not understand why you want to put barriers and red tape between farmers and their ability to produce and export electricity. That is great income for them, but you want to stop it. You prefer to go in and frack the water and the land of farmers than have them export energy.

Coming back to electric vehicles, you would rather import fuel from Russia. You would rather have a fuel, which our businesses and citizens rely on so dramatically to get around, that is at the risk of geopolitics, of price shocks and of money going overseas than have Aussie jobs and Aussie generation keeping money here in this country and in this state. I know it sounds clichéd, but it just points to the continual noalition. ‘No, no, no’ – there is just no plan, and nothing happens. It is like under Baillieu and Napthine. Nothing happened for four years. It does not matter who you speak to, that government stood still and watched others go by.

Sadly for those standing to be the alternative government, the only thing they have got on their plate now is nuclear; that is it. Their party room has gone nuclear; their energy policy has gone nuclear. They have got leaders in this building that are all vying for it. There are ex-leaders, current leaders and future leaders. The one thing they have got in common is their hatred for renewables and their passion for nuclear energy. So, opposition, you want to be in government. Tell us: where do you want the reactors? Where do you want the waste and what is going to happen in the 20-odd years that it takes to build these things? Tell the communities of Anglesea. Tell the communities of Morwell. John Pesutto or whoever the next leader might be, stand up and tell Victorians what you believe in, what you stand for and where you are going to build your nuclear reactors.

Melina BATH (Eastern Victoria) (16:06): I am pleased to rise this afternoon to actually speak on the bill, and the bill is the Energy and Public Land Legislation Amendment (Enabling Offshore Wind Energy) Bill 2024. I could take on the breadth of conversation in relation to this debate that we have heard today, but I want to actually focus on the bill, and this is offshore wind. Some of the diatribe that we have heard from across the benches is just absolutely gobsmacking. I will say it is entertaining in its implausibility of conversation. So let us actually have a look at what this bill before us is doing.

The bill will facilitate offshore wind developers’ obtaining a tenure over public land – let us just look straight at this – to gain access to assess the feasibility of actually constructing the offshore wind turbines and then that transmission through Commonwealth waters, through the 3 nautical miles of state waters, onto the beaches, on public land space and then into and through farms et cetera. That is the nub of this bill. It does change a number of acts – and that was a good act that we heard just before in implausibility conversation. Now, it changes the Land Act 1958, it changes the Crown Land (Reserves) Act 1978, it changes the Forests Act 1958 and it puts those feasibility studies up to 21 years. It changes the National Parks Act 1975, as I said, to allow the logistics and to allow the infrastructure from these wind turbines to go through national parks and to be connected into the grid, and that is a whole other story and another debate that we are going to have shortly on the VicGrid scenario.

The Nationals certainly support an offshore wind industry, and this bill facilitates that. Indeed let us just look at some of the amendments that my colleague, the Honourable David Davis, put up. We will see the passing of this bill, but we also want it to be understood that it needs improvement. We have heard from the former speaker about more control. Well, under this government and its captain’s call, there is less and less control for stakeholders, for prime landholders and for agricultural industry, and we want to ensure that there is more, not less. The phrase that I have heard from many a stakeholder is ‘consultold’ under this Allan government. So we want to ensure that there is that adequate consultation, and there is a mechanism in the first amendment for that.

We also want, in this wind development, to weed out any shysters. What we do not want to see are developers coming in and then not being a fit and proper person as a company, so we want to ensure that. The federal government is issuing those licences, and this government is prepared to accept the federal government’s assessment. We want to drill down and have far greater diligence. That will protect not only investment but also hopefully the forward movement of offshore wind facilities. We have heard a lot of discussion about the federals and what we would do and what we would not do; it was like hopscotch to the disaster zone. But I just want to put on record that under the former Nationals and Liberals government between 2013 and 2022 there was a thing called the long-term emissions reduction plan, and their view and their position was something that I highly value and adopt in principle myself. This former Liberals and Nationals federal government looked at technology, not taxes.

Sonja Terpstra: On a point of order, Acting President, I am not sure that the issue Ms Bath is speaking about is actually relevant to the bill, and I ask that the member be relevant to the bill.

Melina BATH: On the point of order, Acting President, we have heard everything from nuclear to cotton socks to – everything. That is not acceptable as a point of order.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Michael Galea): I understand it has been a broad-ranging debate.

Melina BATH: The other thing that we on this side want to see more is expanding choices, not mandates. We are seeing from this government a gas ban that is a collapsing of people’s choice and a collapsing of a fuel supply that is vital in the transition to a mixed economy and a renewable economy. We are seeing a collapsing of this government’s proposition in gas. What we also want to see is prices being kept down, and the reliability of power. What we know – and we know that from facts – is that there has been a 25 per cent increase under Labor of electricity prices. We know for a fact from the Essential Services Commission that there has been a 27 per cent increase in wholesale gas prices. What we absolutely cannot afford is for there not to be a time line where we can keep the lights on and reliable energy flowing.

I finally heard someone over there talk about clean hydrogen. That has been absent in so much discussion. We see today that the government is prepared not to put on the table documents about the Hydrogen Energy Supply Chain project as part of the transition to low-emission technologies. We also need ultra low cost solar, we need energy for firming power and we need carbon capture and storage. We also need to have, importantly, a native timber industry – well, this government has trashed that and trashed the jobs and communities with it.

Also looking at land-based wind turbines, there was an inquiry into renewable energy in 2022 and there was a minority report, which I happened to write. One of those minority report recommendations spoke about this government – the Labor government, the Victorian government – adequately addressing community concerns in relation to wind farm technologies prior to there being any land-based developments. We have seen the Strzelecki Community Alliance based in and around the central part of my electorate with over a thousand members. We also saw the Minister for Planning decide that she would call in the permit – call in that wind farm and give it the green tick of approval. We have heard before that there is more choice. Well, there is not. We are actually having our choice being contracted, being denied and being rejected under this government.

Let us look at what is happening in terms of the renewable energy projects – only last month we saw Labor is removing the rights of individuals, of farmers and of community to have third-party complaints heard through VCAT. Labor is banning this appeal in VCAT. What does that mean? Well, you can go off to the Supreme Court. That is denying people rights that have been there for decades, and the cost at a Supreme Court level is astronomical. Here is one case in point where this was really important, and it was not long after I came in. There was going to be an Alberton wind farm, and indeed with that wind farm it ended up being the community versus the wind farm. The government provided a permit, but the community challenged that in VCAT and found that the permit was wanting, that there was not the proper diligence, that there were going to be homes very close – too close – to turbines, closer than is specified in the act. So it was the case that community won out, and that has been taken away, that process through VCAT.

Let us go to offshore. We also know that the Liberal and National federal government implemented the Offshore Electricity Infrastructure Act in 2021, and it was very supportive of those communications and discussions. If you have ever been to Gippsland, you would understand that it is one of the windiest places in the world. I know that Star of the South assessed the world and found that off of the South Gippsland coast was one of the windiest places. It is important that there is a proper and forensic process through the Commonwealth. We saw as of January that there were once 37 applications for offshore wind, whittled down to six with a permit to have that feasibility licence, and then a few others were asked to revise and submit. Indeed Star of the South has the potential to produce 20 per cent of Victoria’s electricity needs and create thousands of jobs.

Apparently, during the election of 2022 the then Premier on 2 March decided to come into this debate. Other than that, if you go and look, the Premier was silent on offshore wind. He must have looked around and he and his multiple media spin doctors went, ‘Let’s target offshore wind.’ I went to a meeting with Star of the South back in 2017 and subsequent others. Now there are others in the mix and they all need to do their due diligence to keep walking forward. Here, the Premier came out and decided it was a good idea. Well, it was already happening.

One of the things we do want to see in any of these investigations or interrogations and the continuity of this development is a rigorous environmental assessment phase. I have been speaking with commercial fishermen in the Gippsland region, and they have a very important industry. If you look at frequent flyer miles and the importance of keeping low emissions, actually harvesting locally and eating locally in a domestic phase is vitally important, yet Australia imports 70 per cent of its commercial fish. So it is all about balance. We need to ensure there is minimal impact on key fishing grounds as these developments go through.

The next thing that we need to assess is where these renewable terminal hubs will be, with the construction of that whole industry and wind turbines out to sea. Premier Allan was certainly blindsided in January when the federal government rejected the proposal to expand the Port of Hastings for environmental reasons. I find it just absurd. Minister D’Ambrosio, at the time that all this was going ahead, surely would have previously had a chat with the federal government. Surely that was the case – but clearly not. The other opportunity here is Port Anthony and Barry Beach. As a Gippslander, with the closure of power stations in the Latrobe Valley, the opportunity for jobs in our region – whether they be servicing in South Gippsland, in Wellington shire, in the Latrobe City Council – these are all important. I noted the other day up in Echuca, when I raised the issue to the Minister for Regional Development and called on her to say how she was going to support regional development, specifically in the Latrobe Valley, she mentioned Shepparton, she mentioned Geelong, she mentioned Wodonga – she was happy to spruik those good places, but she could not bring herself to talk about what this government is going to do in relation to the Latrobe Valley. Shame on her, because this is an area of great need and importance.

I am calling on the government to make sure that it views and supports Barry Beach moving forward and the potential of Qube to look at that. Again I go to the point about environmental standards and making sure that there is low impact. But this government is going to face an energy cliff. Yallourn power station is slated to shut in 2028, and it will remove 1.2 gigawatts of power. Loy Yang A is to shut by 2035. It has a little bit of wriggle room, potentially, with the state government backing it up. That will remove 2.5 gigawatts of electricity. So we have this onshore target of 4 gigawatts by 2035, but if this government cannot get itself together it is just not going to be possible. We know that this government is over budget in so many projects; it is absolutely devastating – $38 billion worth of projects overrun in the state of Victoria and all of them in Melbourne. We know it cannot manage money. This government has to manage time lines, because Victorians cannot afford to not be able to pay their bills and have the lights switched off. I support Mr Davis’s amendments for this bill before us today.

Ryan BATCHELOR (Southern Metropolitan) (16:21): The Energy and Public Land Legislation Amendment (Enabling Offshore Wind Energy) Bill 2024 is an incredibly important piece of legislation to progress Victoria’s exceptionally important offshore wind program. I will spend a little bit of time thing going through some of the features of the legislation and then seek to contextualise why it is so important to this state’s transition of its energy sector as we decarbonise our electricity and energy generation and move towards our significant and ambitious and necessary renewable energy targets here in this state.

The legislation is relatively straightforward. It amends Victorian public land and electricity legislation to allow offshore wind projects to undertake investigatory activities onsite to determine the design and placement of connection infrastructure, which is obviously required to deliver the electricity generated by offshore wind projects should they receive approval in the future. Those will be situated in Commonwealth waters off the coast of the state, but connections are required to connect and link those projects into transmission infrastructure and the grid. The bill, should it become law, will provide a very clear pathway for proponents of offshore wind feasibility licence holders to undertake and align related feasibility assessments in Victoria. Essentially we are complementing the regulatory frameworks the Commonwealth have put in place to govern the prospect of offshore wind in Commonwealth waters to enable a regulatory framework that works in harmony and in synch with that process, to enable that energy to be connected to the Victorian grid. This will be done by empowering the relevant minister to declare a licensee under the Commonwealth legislation to be an offshore wind generation company for the purposes of Victorian law. It also does a range of activities to clarify arrangements under four main land acts that refer to agreements with electricity companies for the purposes of connection and operation of electricity infrastructure in a range of ways. Through this bill we are really introducing the concept of offshore wind into the Victorian energy framework, and I think it is a pretty momentous piece of legislation, even if it is largely one that is about facilitating regulatory frameworks and aligning them.

The importance and symbolism of this legislation is that it is the first step in a new chapter of energy generation in this state, a new chapter of clean energy generation in this state, and it underscores this government’s commitment to decarbonising our energy sector and moving the state on a path to clean energy and doing what we can as Victoria and as Victorians to tackle climate change and make the necessary changes across our economy to deal with the realities of our climate changing and the need to ensure that the electricity that we need does not come with significant carbon emissions. This bill, through the important and significant first step in establishing a regulatory framework for offshore wind here in Victoria, will set us on that path. It is just one of a series of measures that the Labor government has undertaken since we were first elected in 2014 that have seen Victoria become an absolute leader in renewable energy in this country, that have seen us streets ahead of other jurisdictions around the country and that have seen us make an impact by generating more of our power every year, every month and every day that we progress on this journey towards a cleaner and more renewable energy sector.

Importantly, the licence regime that this legislation seeks to establish will provide an opportunity for the government to continue to have a guiding and coordinating role in the placement of connection assets so that there is a sense that where there may be various licence-holders under Commonwealth law it provides the capacity for the Victorian government to play a facilitating role in connecting those through to the grid. We hope and we believe that by being an active steward of these measures we will help deal with any of the decisions and any sensitivities that may exist around any of the prospective decisions that need to be taken about where connections need to go, because there will of course, with any sort of development like this, be people who are concerned about a particular site or a particular area. What the legislation before us does is enable that necessary development to occur in such a way as to be aware of, listening to and engaged with relevant communities, including with relevant traditional owners in the area; the legislation before us will help facilitate that.

In providing a place for offshore wind developments to occur in various parts of land management related energy infrastructure regulatory systems here in the state it is important to note that proponents are still going to obviously be required to meet existing obligations under Victorian law. There is still an important role, particularly for the Minister for Environment or their delegate, in granting licences to have regard to various matters, including whether the granting of this licence would contribute to achieving our renewable or offshore wind targets and other relevant matters that could be related to a range of factors.

What we are seeing here is that the regulatory system that we know we need to have to facilitate offshore wind development here in the state is going to be substantially progressed by this significant piece of legislation that seeks to recognise for the first time in Victorian law the existence, the prospect and the potential of offshore wind development. We know that offshore wind, as has been outlined in a range of policy statements and policy frameworks put out by the government, particularly under the exceptional leadership of the Minister for Energy and Resources, Minister D’Ambrosio, who has been an absolute champion of renewable clean energy in this state, is demonstrating that we can achieve so much as a state with a determined, tenacious approach that is grounded in an absolute understanding that we need to change.

Simply wishing away the problems of our coal-fired power stations and simply wishing away the problems of carbon-intensive energy generation in this state will not achieve change, and we are certainly not fanciful enough to believe that a mirage or a chimera of nuclear energy is in any way a solution to the real challenges that we face as a state – and all jurisdictions face – as the coal-fired power stations upon which we have relied for so long reach the end of their lives. Denying the reality of the problems of our coal-fired power stations will not provide electricity for Victorians in the future. Wishing and hoping that somehow nuclear energy is the solution to the problems is a fanciful idea when the nuclear power stations that people propose – like they have in France – would take longer and cost more than any of the renewable solutions that the government is pursuing and would not be online by the time our coal-fired power stations reach the end of their natural lives. So not only is nuclear more expensive, but it will not fix the problem that we have got. All it will do is saddle Victorians with higher power prices for multiple generations. That is exactly what proponents of nuclear power will do.

Instead, what this government is pursuing is a considered, measured approach that is delivering renewable energy into our mix. As I have said, offshore wind is an incredibly important part of that mix because it provides generation capacity in a way that is not comparable to other forms of onshore wind in particular. That is why it is such an important part of our mix: because it has some different characteristics. As Ms Bath pointed out, it is very windy in Gippsland. Any of us who have walked along a Gippsland beach will know just how much the wind blows in that part of the world. That is why the sites off Gippsland as well as the sites in western Victoria have been identified as particularly important and significant sites for future offshore wind developments – because we have ambitious targets.

Our ambitious offshore wind targets are for at least 2 gigawatts of new capacity by 2032, 4 gigawatts by 2035 and 9 gigawatts by 2040. These targets are the first of their kind in the country, and they are placing Victoria as not only the national leader in the development of offshore wind but also in great international standing. We have become the first subnational jurisdiction in the world to join the Global Offshore Wind Alliance. Testament to the seriousness and the significance of the government’s ambition here and the confidence which people have in both our framework and our capacity to deliver is the fact that we have got more than 30 projects that have expressed an interest in Victoria since our targets were announced. International investors are ready to come to Victoria. This legislation sets up part of the framework that is required to enable that interest and investment to become reality in clean energy generation.

To do that we are going be running a series of multiproject competitive auction processes that are going to kick off in the latter part of this year and go into 2025. We hope to have, as a result of these processes and as outlined in our offshore wind plan, negotiations and the awarding of contracts in a couple of years. What that is going to do is kickstart what is really going to be a significant growth in jobs that is going to come during the construction phase. That is jobs for Victorians, particularly those located near those offshore wind zones in Gippsland and in western Victoria. There are estimates of up to 4000 jobs during the construction phase and 1700 jobs for the operations and maintenance of these new facilities.

We will be establishing local manufacturing capability in Victoria and putting local content requirements as part of our framework so that we can not only build the industry that we need to support this energy generation right here in Victoria but maximise our ability to be the leader in the nation in doing so, so that we can use the expertise that we gain here in Victoria and we can create the jobs for Victorians but also have the capacity and knowledge to export to other jurisdictions around the country. We want Victoria to be an offshore wind hub and an offshore wind jobs hub, and that is exactly what we are going to be doing.

The last thing I want to do just very briefly is talk about where this places Victoria. I have already said we are going to have the most ambitious offshore wind targets in the nation. It is part of our plan; it is part of the action that this Labor government is taking to reduce carbon emissions in our economy. We have already smashed our 2020 emissions target of a 15 to 20 per cent reduction. We achieved a reduction of nearly 30 per cent, and in 2021 we achieved a reduction in our emissions of more than 32 per cent, because this Labor government does not just talk about climate action, we are delivering on it. We have been decarbonising our energy sector at the fastest rate in the country since the government was elected in 2014. We have cut emissions by more than any other state. We have got the strongest climate change legislation. We have got the most ambitious renewable energy targets. We are a leader in climate action, and this bill will cement that leadership.

Sarah MANSFIELD (Western Victoria) (16:36): I rise today to speak on the Energy and Public Land Legislation Amendment (Enabling Offshore Wind Energy) Bill 2024. As the title of the bill suggests and as we have already heard in the chamber today, this bill facilitates the connection of future offshore wind turbines in Commonwealth waters to transmission infrastructure and Victoria’s electricity grid.

I would like to echo the sentiments that were expressed by my colleague Dr Tim Read in the other place and at the outset be very clear that in principle the Greens support offshore wind as a part of our transition to a zero-emissions economy. We must put the renewables transition in perspective. While there is commentary that questions different types of renewables, whether we need them and where they go, let us zoom out for a second. 2023 was the hottest year on record. Ocean temperatures reached their highest, and ice coverage in the Antarctic plummeted to a record low. Across Australia communities faced heatwaves, cyclones and extreme weather events, and in Victoria communities were devastated by both fires and floods. Just recently America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration declared a global mass bleaching event for only the fourth time in history. This is unequivocally the result of climate change, which in turn has been driven by the burning of fossil fuels and clearing of forests and vegetation.

Time is no longer on our side; it has in fact long run out. We no longer have a choice but to transition to a zero-emissions economy as fast as possible to limit the worst impacts of climate change. We actually have the tools to do this, and we have had them for a very long time. The reality is Victoria has been too slow to retire coal and prepare for a full transition to a net zero economy. We are still burning 10,000 tonnes of coal a day, and with projects like the hydrogen energy supply chain, which Ms Bath alluded to earlier, the government may plan to continue burning more coal. The HESC has nothing to do with the transition. It is in fact another fossil fuel project that is there to keep coal alive. As Rachel Baxendale recently reported in the Australian, Victoria has the dirtiest electricity generation grid in the country, and our coal-fired power stations are emitting as much carbon dioxide as they were five years ago. On the other hand, a recent report from Nexa Advisory on VNI West stated that the rate at which we are currently delivering new renewable generation in Victoria is insufficient for our transition away from coal.

I was at a meeting the other day with people who have spent their entire lives fighting for climate action. They have been doing this for decades, and they are increasingly despairing. They feel betrayed and abandoned by governments and in fact have all but lost faith that governments can turn this around from this point. Governments have an opportunity to restore their faith, to show people like this that we can do it, and this is why the Greens will continue to push Victoria to go further and faster. It is about time that the Victorian government introduced legislation to do what we need to do to enable energy from offshore wind to be transmitted to users. But why now? Why not three years ago, when the Commonwealth brought in their Offshore Electricity Infrastructure Act 2021?

The piece of legislation before us today in practice allows offshore wind companies to investigate the appropriateness of different sites for transmission infrastructure. It also enforces potential licences in line with current Victorian legislation, including environment effects statement processes if required, the Marine and Coastal Act 2018 and the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006. So it does not stop an energy company from, say, testing the soil in a national park to see if it might be appropriate for a project. But if a company sought to proceed with a project in a national park, that application would then be subject to existing checks and balances, including other legislation and regulations that are designed to protect the environment.

In considering this new piece of legislation, while we very much think that it is, as I have stated, overdue and much needed, we also put serious consideration into whether we believe these checks and balances that will interact with this legislation are currently fit for purpose when it comes to providing environmental and cultural protections. Our concern is that they are not, and there are countless examples of where these checks and balances have found in favour of the destruction of precious environmental assets, including the North East Link and other major highway construction projects. We look at things like seismic blasting to explore for oil and gas, greenfields developments and so-called mine rehabilitation. We have also got concerns with some of the offset schemes that tend to be wheeled out to accompany these projects. We often see this, for example, with the destruction of grasslands or forests.

The Victorian Greens are clear that we cannot solve the climate crisis by destroying nature. We need intact ecosystems. Habitat destruction in Victoria has led to the worsening of the climate crisis and it threatens our biodiversity. The Environmental Defenders Office is clear in stating that we need up-front nature protections and red lines to protect our most at-risk ecosystems. What would have been really welcome in this legislation is an assessment framework for allocating licences based on the condition and ecological value of public land. I think all stakeholders would appreciate greater clarity about where infrastructure is likely to be built, where it is not and the reasons why. Such a framework would save a lot of time, effort and money and would give offshore wind operators and communities some guidance before they apply for a licence, let alone start the EES process and planning processes to build the infrastructure.

We are going to have some more questions about these issues during the committee stage, and while we continue to hold concerns about the strength of existing mechanisms to protect the environment in Victoria, this cannot actually be dealt with in the legislation that is before us today. We need stronger environmental protections across the board. We do not need a different standard for renewables, we need a better standard for all infrastructure. We will continue to push for this at every opportunity. What we do not want to see is some false contest that is created by pitting the environment against renewables, something that has been somewhat cynically done by those who are ideologically opposed to renewables. The reality is we need both: climate change will devastate nature, and destroying nature will worsen the climate crisis. With the right regulations, we can get it right and we can have both.

Today we will be supporting this bill to facilitate the long overdue transition to renewables, but we recognise it is only part of the equation when it comes to cutting emissions and taking climate action. Labor also need to do more to protect and restore the environment, and of course they need to stop supporting new fossil fuel projects.

Richard WELCH (North-Eastern Metropolitan) (16:43): Well, it has been a very wideranging debate today. We have had great protestations about this being somehow about nuclear power. I think the number of times nuclear was mentioned means those over there secretly do want nuclear power, because they talk about it so much. There has been talk about the fact that somehow some people in this chamber are ideologically opposed to renewables – I am not aware of that. We certainly are not; they have to be part of our energy transition and it is very, very important that they are. Really, for that reason, that is why this relatively simple piece of legislation should be treated seriously. I have problems with it because, frankly, it is just terribly written. It is a bad piece of writing and it is a bad piece of law, because so much of what is put in here is completely arbitrary in nature. When something is arbitrary, all you are inviting are unintended consequences. There is just insufficient rigour across it, and this actually relates a lot to what my Greens colleague was saying. Let us look through a range of these things.

If we are going to allocate licences for 21 years for people to lock up public land and somehow do assessments that take 21 years, shouldn’t we first confirm that the offshore site is suitable? Because if you overlay this legislation onto what happened in Hastings, it would have been a complete fool’s errand. There is no concept of that. And what is the value of these licences? Is there any financial component that puts a financial discipline over those companies that are doing the assessments? Where is the discipline upon them to have rigour in what they do? I note that in the legislation it allows for transfer of the licences to occur between potential energy suppliers, but it does not specify on what terms. In fact it occurs at the whim of the minister. So what impact would that have on the marketplace? What terms will those be under? The law does not explain. This does not explain it at all.

Why is it 21 years when most of this transition needs to take place in the next 10? Again, there is no time discipline on what anyone is doing in these projects. It does not take 21 years to assess a bit of Crown land. It does not take anyone in any walk of life or in any project 21 years to do an assessment of whether something is feasible or not, so why 21 years? Why not the existing 10? I do not see anything wrong with the existing 10 years. The existing 10 puts a discipline on those granted the licences to get on with it. Twenty-one is arbitrary. For me, this is just really clumsy and messy, and the worst part of all of course is that this clumsiness and messiness and this arbitrariness is typical of the way Labor approaches every single project they do, because what they cannot do with talent, skill or intelligence they do with a jackboot. Taking away planning rights, taking away consultation rights and taking away the right to appeal is the clumsiest and crudest way to force projects through. There is really only one key antidote to this, which again I think is part of my Greens colleague’s key point. The ability to have scrutiny over those who are given the licences and the ability for the community to have proper consultation is the only way you could put some sunlight onto these decisions. The remedy to badly constructed policy, terms and legislation is to ensure that the community is consulted and that those who are benefiting under the legislation, particularly those granted the licences, are actually worthy of those licences and are under some form of discipline in what they do.

We need a framework for these things because up to now it has been pretty much cowboyville, so a framework is welcome, but the lack of rigour in it and the lack of anticipation of unintended consequences is really poor. I do not see any antidote to that except for the community being able to have scrutiny and proper consultation. I have got nothing much more to add to that, so I think I will leave my contribution there.

Sheena WATT (Northern Metropolitan) (16:48): Acting President, thank you very much for the opportunity to rise today to speak to the bill put before us – the first piece of legislation put forward by the government in our offshore wind program. The matter of this bill truly is simple: it will amend the Victorian public land and electricity legislation to allow for offshore wind projects to undertake site investigatory activities to determine and allow the placement of future connection infrastructure. This future connection infrastructure is required to deliver power generation by offshore wind projects in declared Commonwealth waters into the Victorian energy grid.

This bill will provide a clearer pathway for offshore wind proponents that are awarded feasibility licences in the Commonwealth waters under the Offshore Electricity Infrastructure Act 2021, and these are to undertake aligned and related feasibility assessments in Victorian waters and onshore for better project planning overall and of course to move forward our offshore wind agenda. This is achieved by allowing the Minister for Energy and Resources to declare under the act an offshore wind generation company. This also clarifies arrangements under the four main land acts that refer to agreements with electricity companies for purposes of construction and operation of the new electricity infrastructure. It also amends previous acts to enable activities to be approved on public land relating to the investigation of offshore wind connection assets, these being the Land Act 1958, the Crown Land (Reserves) Act 1978, the Forests Act 1958 and, finally, the National Parks Act 1975. This of course will modernise the planning processes and enable a smoother planning process.

While this all sounds a lot, the simplicity is this: this bill will introduce the concept of an offshore wind energy generation company into the Electricity Industry Act 2000. Further, it will create a category of licence in the Land Act, the Crown Land (Reserves) Act 1978 and the Forests Act to allow the investigation of these connection routes, and it will allow a maximum licence term of 21 years, which is in alignment with the terms of other types of licences issued under land legislation. It enables the investigation of connection routes over National Parks Act land and the consent of Parks Victoria or other agencies as required.

This new licence regime will also provide a unique opportunity for the Victorian government to have an active role in guiding and coordinating the placement of connection assets. It will also help mitigate the risks to the social licence and traditional owner support caused by disorderly or really insensitive location of infrastructure. Can I just say that this, furthermore, inserts offshore wind into the existing public land licensing regime and is not to carve out offshore wind or to provide exemptions for offshore wind licences. This process is still required to meet the existing obligations and considerations under Victorian law.

This government remains committed to providing the state of Victoria with the clean energy that it needs, and offshore wind provides a critical link into our energy mix. This is not just a nice to have. Old coal-fired power stations are run down and are reaching the end of their useful lives. These stations have been flagged for closure, so we are providing a significant ramp-up of renewable energy generation to keep the lights on and meet our energy targets. Offshore wind provides an incomparable level of generation capacity, far more than onshore. Renewables are moving us faster away from outdated fossil fuels and towards 95 per cent renewables by 2035.

Victoria is Australia’s offshore wind leader. This government has indeed worked tirelessly to build strong investment interest in our state and will have a successful multicompetitive auction to achieve our targets. The first offshore wind farm will be constructed in Victoria thanks to our ambitious offshore wind targets of at least 2 gigawatts of new capacity by 2032, 4 gigawatts by 2035 and 9 gigawatts by 2040. The first wind farm in Victoria will bring power to 1.5 million Victorian homes – and that is such an extraordinary number.

We continue to lead the country in climate and energy targets with the development of offshore wind, and we have become a global leader in the development of offshore wind, even becoming the first subnational jurisdiction to join the Global Offshore Wind Alliance, something that I know we here in Victoria are enormously proud of. You see, Victoria has the best offshore wind resource potential in the country and among the very best in the world. We would be remiss, even idiotic in fact, not to capitalise on this potential energy right there off our coasts. Over 30 projects have been interested in Victoria as the targets were announced, and there are internal investors that really are ready to set up shop here in Victoria for many decades to come. With the two zones now in Gippsland and the Great Southern Ocean, these developers are setting up shop. They want to create jobs, build economic potential and energy for our state.

The Allan Labor government has released three implementation statements that track and update industry, unions and the Victorian public on our progress to deliver offshore wind projects, and we value really the integrity, transparency and honesty that comes with this. In fact in our latest implementation statement we updated the public on a range of things and we provided an update on our offshore wind time lines. Can I just say that this government will run a multiproject competitive auction process, beginning with an EOI in 2024 and closing in 2025. The request for proposal phase, targeted for commencement in the third quarter of 2025, will close in 2026, and contract negotiations and the awarding of that will be expected to occur later in 2026.

Offshore wind energy will provide economic growth and thousands and thousands of jobs in Victoria – specifically up to 4000 during construction and 1750 jobs for operation and maintenance annually – and we will establish a local manufacturing capability, setting offshore wind local content requirements that will maximise and build an industry that will last for generations to come. We will be a hub for offshore wind manufacturing and procurement, training and employing workers right here in our state, because this government cares about people – providing jobs, protecting the national environment and of course effecting real change. This bill will help to provide balance. It is not either/or when it comes to environmental considerations and offshore wind; we know that both can exist. There must of course be the right balance to ensure the delivery of offshore wind and conservation. To achieve this balance and preserve our marine environment and onshore environment, the Victorian government will work in partnership with regulators, seek expert advice and work with traditional owners, industry and community stakeholders through a range of mechanisms with our biodiversity, wildlife, sustainability, climate change and community partners.

However, we want the federal government to lend more support to our offshore wind strategy. The truth is Victoria has done a lot of heavy lifting, and we have done it alone – a testament to the hardiness of our industry and our workers – but we are calling for a national approach to offshore wind that aligns environmental approvals and regulation. We need to ensure that investor confidence in Australia is felt everywhere, right around the nation, not just in this state. Developing a strong pipeline of projects that help stand up our industry is crucial, and that requires federal leadership to happen, a national taskforce to align things like planning approvals and national targets that show our entire nation really is very serious about this and, more importantly, funding that ensures that we can stand up the first new industry in Victoria in decades, creating more local jobs, more economic growth and more upskilled Victorians. We already have a national electric vehicle strategy, a hydrogen strategy and a national energy performance strategy under development. Do you know what? It is really time for national leadership on offshore wind to help Australia reach our ambitious renewable energy targets.

The Allan Labor government remains committed to decarbonising our state, and we are not just talking about climate action, we are indeed delivering on it. Our targets are delivering the most rapid reduction of emissions in Australia, with the potential to unlock billions of dollars of investment and thousands of jobs. I have said it a number of times, and it bears repeating: we have smashed our 2020 emissions target of 15 to 20 per cent reduction – we achieved 29.6 per cent. And in 2021 we achieved a 32.3 per cent emissions reduction. We are decarbonising through new renewable energy across the state, whether that is wind, solar, batteries or of course our nation-leading plan for offshore wind generation right here in Victoria. Since 2014, 59 projects, providing 4471 megawatts of new capacity, have come online. There are nine projects currently under construction, and they will provide 1314 megawatts of capacity. That is 5100 jobs in large-scale renewable energy since we were elected, and this agenda is saving households money at bill time.

Offshore wind energy technology has been tried and tested internationally for decades, and costs have come down over time. More and more countries are turning to offshore wind as part of their renewable energy transition. Many countries around the world have established offshore wind farms, and we are building on their experience. Denmark has been a leader in offshore wind energy since the 1990s, when it built the world’s first offshore wind farm. Earlier this month Denmark had a total installed capacity of 2.7 gigawatts of offshore wind power, and the Thor offshore wind farm, currently under construction in the North Sea, will supply a further 1 gigawatt when it is scheduled for completion in 2027. Construction of an offshore wind farm of this scale brings massive investments and thousands of green jobs. An offshore wind farm with 1 gigawatt capacity, according to calculations from market actors from across the year 2020, created approximately 9500 jobs for workers throughout the lifetime of the project.

In Denmark, extraordinarily, 84 per cent of electricity is renewables-generated, and they are expected to reach their target of 100 per cent renewables by 2030. This world-leading action has been enabled by policies that allow community members to own and profit from shares in wind power. This means that people are more likely to support the development of wind farms. This has also positioned Denmark as a leading manufacturer and exporter of wind technologies. You compare that to Australia, where coalmining employs 0.2 per cent of the labour force; in Denmark it is in fact 2 per cent of the total labour force – what an extraordinary difference, and one worth highlighting. One that folks may be more familiar with is of course the United Kingdom, and they have been a pioneer in offshore wind energy since the early 2000s and are currently the world leader in offshore wind capacity. The country has several large offshore wind farms, including currently the world’s largest offshore wind farm – there you go. Offshore wind farms are a proven force for economic growth and clean energy generation. Overseas success stories are becoming more and more common, and if we continue to get trapped in the outdated forms of gas and coal, we will be left with a system that hurts our natural environment and of course our energy prices.

In regard to the amendments to be moved by the opposition, the government will not be supporting them. They serve no additional benefit to the provisions of existing public licence legislation where consultation is already considered by the minister in making a decision. These include a minimum 60-day consultation process under the Offshore Electricity Infrastructure Act 2021, local consultation required under the proponent management plans by the Commonwealth regulator, extensive community consultation which is currently underway by VicGrid and consultation during the environment effects statement process. Further, the insertion of a requirement for a fit and proper person is not required as it would in fact duplicate existing processes undertaken by the Commonwealth offshore infrastructure regulator. Empowering communities and putting their feedback and views into the infrastructure development process is key not only to this piece of legislation but to government actions in the broader development of our transmission networks.

This bill is the first piece of legislation that will allow the implementation of our groundbreaking offshore wind strategy, allowing us to decarbonise, provide local jobs, increase power to Victorian homes and drive down prices, and for that I commend the bill to the house.

Ingrid STITT (Western Metropolitan – Minister for Mental Health, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Multicultural Affairs) (17:03): Offshore wind is critical to our energy mix needs, and it is not just a nice thing to have, it is an absolute necessity as we transition. Our old coal-fired power stations are reaching the end of their life, and these stations have flagged their closure, so there needs to be a significant ramping up of renewable energy to keep the lights on and to meet energy and climate targets. Offshore wind provides comparable levels of generation capacity, far more than onshore renewables, moving us quicker away from fossil fuels towards the 95 per cent renewable target by 2035.

Victoria is Australia’s offshore wind leader. As others have said, we have worked to build strong investment interest, and we will have a successful multicompetitive auction. The first offshore wind farm will be constructed here thanks to our ambitious offshore wind targets of at least 2 gigawatts of new capacity by 2032, 4 gigawatts by 2035 and 9 gigawatts by 2040. These are the first targets of their kind in the country, and we have become a global leader in the development of offshore wind, even becoming the first subnational jurisdiction to join the Global Offshore Wind Alliance. Our state has the best offshore wind resources in the country – in other words, we are very windy – and amongst the best in the world. This bill is our first piece of legislation in our offshore wind program, and it is a fairly simple piece of legislation. It will amend Victoria’s public land and electricity legislation to allow offshore wind projects to undertake site investigatory activities to determine and design the placement of connection infrastructure. This connection infrastructure is required to deliver electricity generated by offshore wind projects in declared Commonwealth waters into the Victorian grid.

This bill provides a clearer pathway for offshore wind proponents awarded feasibility licences in Commonwealth waters under the Commonwealth Offshore Electricity Infrastructure Act 2021 to undertake and align related feasibility assessments in Victorian waters and onshore for better project planning. This is done through allowing the Minister for Energy and Resources to declare a licensee under the Offshore Electricity Infrastructure Act to be declared an offshore wind generation company. It also clarifies arrangements under the four main land acts that refer to agreements with electricity companies for the purpose of construction and operation of new electricity infrastructure. It amends the Land Act 1958, the Crown Land (Reserves) Act 1978, the Forests Act 1958 and the National Parks Act 1975 to enable activities to be approved on public land relating to the investigation of offshore wind connection assets. This inserts offshore wind into the existing public land licensing regime. It is not a carve-out for offshore wind and does not provide exemptions for offshore wind licences. The new licensing regime also provides an opportunity for the Victorian government to have an active role in guiding and coordinating the placement of connection assets. This can help mitigate the risks to social licence and traditional owner support caused by disorderly or insensitive location of infrastructure.

In regard to the amendments moved by the opposition, as my colleague Ms Watt has just indicated, the government will not be supporting them. They serve no additional benefit to the provisions in the existing public licensing legislation, where consultation is already considered by the minister in making decisions, and this includes a minimum 60-day consultation process under the Offshore Electricity Infrastructure Act 2021; local consultation required under the proponent management plans by the Commonwealth regulator; extensive community consultation, which is currently underway by VicGrid; and consultation during the environmental effects statement process. Further, the insertion of a requirement for a fit and proper person is not required, as it would duplicate processes already undertaken by the Commonwealth offshore infrastructure regulator. Unfortunately I do not think Mr Davis has been listening to my contribution, but perhaps we can take it up further in the committee stage.

Empowering communities and putting their feedback and views into the infrastructure development process is a key that the government acknowledges, and not only this piece of legislation but government actions in the broader development of our transmission networks understand this very important principle. I commend the bill to the house and am happy to go into committee.

Motion agreed to.

Read second time.

Committed.

Committee

Clause 1 (17:10)

I have got a relatively small series of questions on clause 1. The amendments that have been circulated apply to clause 8 and onwards, and I will deal with those then. But with the committee’s indulgence, I will ask some general questions at the start. Perhaps first, on record, it would be good to understand if the government still stand by the offshore wind targets that were recently legislated.

Yes, we do.

I thereby ask the minister: when will the first offshore wind project commence, and when will the first offshore wind project conclude and deliver electricity into the grid?

Our first project is obviously critical in terms of not only delivering the energy and capacity of the particular project but also setting us on a course to meet our ambitious targets. The expressions of interest for the auction time line for offshore wind open at the end of 2024, requests for proposals open in the second half of 2025 and contracts will be awarded in 2026. If you give me one moment, Mr Davis, I just want to consult with the box about one particular detail.

Yes, Mr Davis, those time lines are indicative of when the first project will commence, and also the first 2 gigawatts of new capacity will enter the grid by 2032.

I ask the minister: in light of the difficulties that have occurred with permitting Hastings, where will these offshore wind projects be assembled?

As you know, Mr Davis, there are offshore wind zones that have been provided for in both the Gippsland area and the Southern Ocean. We would anticipate that the projects will be in those key offshore wind zones.

With respect, my question was not about where the zones will be, but where the manufacture or assembly of the actual plant and so forth will occur. Is it the government’s intention still that that will occur at Hastings?

What I can indicate in respect to the Port of Hastings, Mr Davis, is that both Minister D’Ambrosio and Minister Horne have been continuing to work with the Commonwealth on their environment protection and biodiversity conservation (EPBC) determination as well as the next steps. It is the government’s clear intention to continue to work through these issues. We know that there are many benefits associated with the Port of Hastings, which is why it was selected in the first place. It is obviously a matter that has been the subject of much work and conversation between the Victorian government and the Commonwealth, and those matters continue to be worked through. We have always said from the beginning that there are significant opportunities for multiple commercial ports in Victoria and other states to benefit from offshore wind, but we continue to also advocate strongly for the Port of Hastings.

Minister, it seems from what you are saying to me that you are not quite certain that the Port of Hastings will be the location – it may be another location. If it is not the Port of Hastings, where would the assembly occur?

I mean, the way that I would respond to that, Mr Davis, is that the Victorian government continues to assess closely the Commonwealth government’s decision on the Victorian renewable energy terminal’s Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 referral. Obviously time lines for the first Victorian auction and other key milestones, including our offshore wind targets, are unchanged until a full assessment of the impact of the Commonwealth’s decision has occurred. The design and development of the Victorian renewable energy terminal at the Port of Hastings was and is subject to approvals in line with the offshore wind implementation statement 3. The Victorian government is continuing to assess the role that other ports can play in supporting the construction and assembly of offshore wind projects, which includes the role of commercial ports.

I am not sure that that advanced the cause very far, but I will take it in the spirit it was intended. Minister, I am looking at documents laid out by a number of legal firms and others, and they suggest the state and Commonwealth approvals required for project components – and they are talking specifically about the Port of Hastings. They list a series of Commonwealth matters, including the EPBC material that we are all very familiar with now, but they list state approval requirements, and in a sense I seek from you some confirmation that this list is accurate and that it is comprehensive. Is there anything missing from this list? They say here on state approvals, and I am quoting the assessments:

… key approvals likely to be required under Victorian legislation include:

• Environmental assessment under the Environment Effects Act 1978 …

• Planning approvals under the Planning and Environment Act 1987 …

• Cultural Heritage Management Plan … under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006.

• Consent under the Marine and Coastal Act 2018 …

• FFG Permit under the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 …

Is that the full list of approvals that will be required, or are there other approvals that my learned legal colleagues have omitted?

Well, I do not have the benefit of being in possession of the documents that you are referring to, Mr Davis.

Well, perhaps the minister may be able to ask the box whether there are any other acts that should be on that list that I have not detected, if I can put it that way.

Well, I am happy to do so, Mr Davis, but I can confirm that the list that you have run through does cover the key approvals.

Bev McArthur interjected.

Ingrid STITT: I have said I am happy to go and check that for Mr Davis, Mrs McArthur. Mr Davis, yes, I reconfirm that those are the key approvals that would be required, but I can also indicate that the Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action (DEECA) has provided extensive information about the licensing regime on its website.

I have read some of that, Minister. In that light, I should ask you in the first instance with respect to Hastings: has the environmental assessment under the Environment Effects Act 1978 commenced, and if so, when will that conclude?

Mr Davis, my colleagues in the box just need a little bit more time to get you the answer, so if you can take that on notice, we will come back to you.

Thank you, Minister. The second layer of approvals is the Planning and Environment Act 1987. Is it the government’s intention to use the newly promulgated amendment VC261, gazetted on 4 April, which is a faster planning approval for any project connected with a renewable project or indeed transmission or a battery and so forth. Is it the government’s intention that VC261 be used, or will a normal, proper planning process be used?

We are just going to double-check. We understand that VC261 is in respect to onshore projects only, but I just want to double-check.

Hastings is an onshore project.

Yes, that is right. That is why we are checking with our colleagues in planning.

The third layer of approval at a state level – I will not worry about the federal level, which is not entirely in your control of course – is the cultural heritage management plan under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006. Has the government begun the process of consulting on a cultural heritage management plan, and is this a matter of high impact that will trigger a full cultural heritage management plan?

Mr Davis, what I can say in respect to traditional owners, the development of this process and the issuing of licences is that it will be the subject of further consultation by DEECA, who are working closely with our traditional owners. The broader legal and policy frameworks for protecting the rights and the interests of traditional owners will apply to the granting of licences, and this can include meeting the requirements of a land use activity agreement under a recognition and settlement agreement under the Traditional Owner Settlement Act 2010 where a licence is to be issued over land subject to that agreement and where there is no recognition and settlement agreement in place, meeting any applicable requirements under the Native Title Act 1993 – the Commonwealth act, that is – and complying with the Aboriginal Heritage Act, which protects tangible and intangible Aboriginal cultural heritage in Victoria.

I should ask: in this circumstance, who is the registered Aboriginal party involved in Hastings? You could perhaps put that on the record for me. And it was not quite clear – I think you were saying that some engagement had already occurred. In that context I ask the next question, which is: when will that be concluded, and will any agreement be made public?

Minister D’Ambrosio does meet regularly with traditional owners, and her department will continue to work closely with traditional owners particularly around feedback to be incorporated into the licence templates that will be developed. In respect to the traditional owner parties that are subject to the offshore wind projects that we are talking about, we have obviously got two distinct zones in the state, so I can certainly get that clarified for you if you give me 2 seconds.

David DAVIS: Specifically Hastings.

Ingrid STITT: Is it Hastings in particular you want? Yes, just a moment.

I want to be sensitive and respectful of some of the contested areas, but Gunaikurnai is clearly a traditional owner group that will be worked with as well as Bunurong. You would be aware, Mr Davis, of the possibility that non-registered parties’ interests may emerge.

Are there any non-registered parties, Minister, at this stage that have expressed interest or concern?

Not at this time.

When is it intended that a cultural heritage management plan will be concluded, and will that be released?

I am not sure that we are able to put a time frame on that just yet, Mr Davis, given the time frames that I outlined earlier about the offshore wind time lines of the auction et cetera.

David DAVIS: I am just conscious 2032 is not very far, 2026 is not very far and 2028 is not very far.

Ingrid STITT: Well, I think I have given a strong indication of the government’s willingness and undertakings to continue to work closely with traditional owners impacted by these projects.

Given the arrangements in some of the other bills, for example, that we will consider this week – the VicGrid bill and so forth – will payments be made to the various traditional owners under these arrangements?

I suppose an important clarification, Mr Davis, is it is not the government that enters into the cultural heritage management plans; it is the project developers that are required to do that.

David DAVIS: It is just the Port of Hastings in this case. In the case of Hastings, it is a government body.

Ingrid STITT: Well, they are required to be developed by the developer in consultation with traditional owners.

As I understand it – and let us talk about the east of the state and the west of the state, the different areas where there may be offshore wind development, let us say – there will be different Indigenous parties that will be consulted and dealt with, but with respect to Hastings it is a government piece of land and a government authority that has control of the land in the Port of Hastings. Is it the government’s intention that that proponent will make payments to Aboriginal parties?

Yes. Minister D’Ambrosio went to these issues when she appeared before the Yoorrook truth-telling commission recently. The introduction of benefit sharing with traditional owners is part of the new Victorian transmission investment framework, and traditional owner benefit sharing under the VTIF will also apply to the development of offshore wind transmission infrastructure as we have described in Offshore Wind Energy Victoria: Implementation Statement 3.

I have read Minister D’Ambrosio’s submission to the Yoorrook Justice Commission. It makes clear that financial payments may well be made, and you are now confirming that. Who will pay ultimately for those financial payments? A proponent in the east or west, I understand, may pay, or in the case of the Port of Hastings they may pay, but will they pass on the costs to consumers? How will they recover these costs?

Mr Davis, the short answer to your question is that these matters are outlined in the Victorian transmission investment framework, and there will be further legislation coming to Parliament that will deal with the issues that you raise with benefit sharing under the program that we are talking about today.

I will explain what I am concerned about here. It is that additional costs will ultimately be passed through to consumers. I wonder if the minister would give an assurance that consumers will not pay one dollar more.

What I can say is that our renewable energy transition will keep downward pressure on energy costs, and that obviously is important for the affordability of our energy in Victoria and has the additional benefit of ensuring that we are transitioning to clean energy.

I will take that as a comment rather than an answer to the specific question, but I will leave that point in the interests of time. I am conscious of my discussions with the Government Whip earlier in the day. I indicate that there are another two acts here, which I may be able to expeditiously deal with. Consent under the Marine and Coastal Act 2018 – I ask how that will operate for Hastings, in particular, and which minister will provide that? Has discussion under that act commenced?

Are you referring to the issuing of the licences that are the subject of the bill before the house now?

I am referring to the challenge of getting renewable, in this case offshore wind, projects up, and the fact that there are a series of approvals, including state approvals, that will be required for each of these projects, and I particularly zeroed in on the Port of Hastings. As I said, I am reading from a note that laid out, as we discussed earlier on, five different pieces of Victorian legislation, and this note describes consent being required under the Marine and Coastal Act 2018 for the Port of Hastings. In that respect, I am asking: which minister will do it? Has that process commenced?

I think it is somewhat outside the scope of this bill, but I am certainly happy to go and ask the question.

Yes, it is most definitely out of the scope of the bill that is before us today, Mr Davis. Also we are not in a position to crystal-ball about what might occur under that particular act, noting of course that that is an act that the Minister for Environment is responsible for.

Thank you, Minister. I would put it to you that if you want to get these renewable offshore wind projects up, you are actually going to have to assemble the large structures somewhere. Hastings, as you have outlined, is the preferable location. There have been regulatory issues with this, and I am seeking to understand how these regulatory issues will impact on the ability to deliver on the government’s objectives under this particular bill. I am pleased to hear that the Minister for Environment is the one here, but a simple question, and you may not be able to answer it now, is: has consultation commenced under that act to deliver this Port of Hastings approval?

I think the way I will try and answer that, Mr Davis, is to sort of describe the interaction between different pieces of legislation. So the bill that we are dealing with today is intended to be applied and read consistently with other statutes. It does not modify the application of current environmental protections or obligations, and the activities authorised under a licence must be carried out in compliance with current environmental protections under existing laws. So the bill, like all legislation, exists in that broader regulatory framework. The specifics that you are asking about – the Port of Hastings projects – we are just not in a position to give clarity around those questions, given where we are and what stage we are at with our offshore wind projects.

Thank you, Minister. I am not trying to be difficult here. I have got a flow chart in front of me that lays out state steps to get approval for a coordinated assessment process for wind projects, specifically for Hastings. As we know, the minister has run into some difficulty with Hastings, and I am trying to understand how these processes will operate. One of the boxes here says, ‘Victorian approval decisions including the Marine and Coastal Act and Planning and Environment Act.’ So you actually need that approval for Hastings before you can start to assemble your wind projects there. I will leave that as a comment, and come back to the final act I wanted to talk about which is a flora and fauna permit under the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988. The environment minister has responsibility for that. I am asking: given the difficulty that was encountered with the EPBC Act, what steps are in place to ensure that flora and fauna guarantee approvals actually occur, and has that process commenced?

In respect to those matters, the department will develop a proforma licence setting out the conditions that may apply to proponents seeking an investigatory licence along with detailed guidance, which will address requirements to manage environmental sensitivities. The licensed activities will also be subject to the many environmental protections and requirements that apply under the acts being amended by this bill and other acts, including the Planning and Environment Act, the Marine and Coastal Act and the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act. The licence will also be subject to conditions which may address any known environmental values or sensitivities in that area. For example, Mr Davis, the conditions might require suitable measures to avoid or mitigate impacts. So in respect to the Port of Hastings specifically, the government is continuing to assess the Commonwealth’s decision on the Victorian renewable energy terminal’s Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act referral. As I indicated earlier in our conversation, Minister D’Ambrosio and Minister Horne continue to work closely with the Commonwealth on those issues.

That is helpful. I am not sure it quite got to the point that I was wanting to get to. I want to understand: has the process commenced with respect to the Port of Hastings to get the permits under the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act? I might be naive, but I would have imagined that if you make an application under the EPBC Act, that you would have the flora and fauna – but specifically the fauna – aspects extremely well covered and you might be at a point where you could in effect provide permits, but it does not sound quite like it is there.

Mr Davis, I have now got the answer to the first question that I took on notice from you, so I am hoping that might actually get a little bit to the heart of this. The Victorian Minister for Planning’s determination that an environment effects statement (EES) is required for the terminal under the Environment Effects Act is on hold while the Port of Hastings Corporation is in discussions with the Australian government around the implications of the current decision.

I thank the minister for that, and two further obvious questions arise. Are you going to do caboose-style train carriages – this is done, then that is done and then the other thing is done – or are the minister and the department intending that permits be done in a collateral way so that you actually seek Commonwealth approvals at the same time as you are ticking off the state boxes? Tell me if I am wrong, but it sounds to me like we are waiting for the Commonwealth to make its decisions and then commencing the EES.

No-one is waiting, Mr Davis. We have got an ambitious set of targets and an ambitious auction time line to meet, and no-one is waiting. There are discussions going on, and it is on hold while those discussions occur.

That is what I am worried about. ‘On hold’ does not sound to me like things are progressing. It sounds to me like things are frozen whilst another process at the Commonwealth level happens. If I am not interpreting that correctly, please tell me, but that is what it seems to me. Contrary to that, I would have imagined that if I was the minister, I would be moving on both fronts at once.

Mr Davis, we continue to work very hard and continue those discussions with the Commonwealth so that it does not result in any delays. Victoria’s time lines have been made very clear and our targets, which are legislated, are very clear, and we will continue to push hard to get the outcome that we are seeking.

Can I also just come back to you about the planning amendment that you asked me about earlier, which was VC261. I can confirm that that planning amendment does not apply to the matters contained in this bill.

It was not quite the matters contained in this bill, it was the planning approvals for Hastings in particular. You are making a broader statement.

It is because the infrastructure is in Commonwealth waters that it does not apply.

Minister, with respect, some of the offshore wind structures will be in Commonwealth waters, but at the 3-mile – and I emphasise mile, not kilometre – distance we are in state waters, and structures that are there and structures that are on land that pertain to offshore wind will be state-controlled structures, and they will require state approvals and state planning approvals. Perhaps I can ask with respect to inwards from 3 miles, onto the shore and beyond – that will require state planning approval. How will that be done?

Mr Davis, what I can confirm for you is that VC261 only applies to generation infrastructure, and an EES is required for everything else. We did take the time to get that advice for you, and that is the advice that I have been given.

I thank the minister for her response. I think you have been given the wrong information with respect to VC261, because it actually gives the ability on any renewable project to provide planning approvals. It also provides planning approvals for batteries and long-distance wires. You may reflect on this. I am not doubting the advice you are given, but I have read the planning amendment and I know what it says, so I just make that point.

I thereby have only one further question: when the EES process occurs for Hastings, will that involve public consultation, and what form will that public consultation take?

Mr Davis, standard EES consultation would apply. We are just getting you a bit more detail about what form that would take.

That is all right. I will deal with the amendments from clause 8 onwards and leave it to others to ask their questions now.

I have a number of questions that apply to several clauses, so I may just ask them on clause 1 to avoid repetition. Minister, can you provide examples of non-invasive investigatory activities that can be undertaken by generation companies to assess and determine the suitability of infrastructure locations?

In terms of the types of activities that are allowed under an investigatory licence, they are: assessing the desirability or feasibility of constructing offshore electricity transmission infrastructure, determining the optimal placement of offshore electricity transmission infrastructure and carrying out an activity for the purpose of obtaining a permit or the consent required by or under any act of Victoria or the Offshore Electricity Infrastructure Act 2021 of the Commonwealth for construction and installation of offshore electricity transmission infrastructure. Permissible activities will primarily consist of low-impact activities, with some ground disturbance. Examples might include ground surveys, daytime and nocturnal surveys for native flora and fauna, observing or taking photographs of relevant environmental matters, water and soil sampling, and/or subsurface excavations to understand the geology. Soil samples may be taken via boreholes and test pits, and I can confirm that as seismic testing or seismic blasting is not a technology used in the design and construction of offshore wind farms, these activities will not be permitted under any licence issued under the provisions of this bill.

I thank the minister for that thorough answer. We have had some concerns raised by environmental stakeholders that this legislation will pass without having really specified exactly what types of investigatory activities will be permitted under these offshore wind licences. My understanding is that there will be some further work done to clarify this closer to the issuing of licences. Is this the case?

Yes, Dr Mansfield. There will be further consultation particularly in relation to the proforma licences, for example. Yes.

Can you confirm that there will be a wide range of environmental NGOs that will be consulted as part of that process in developing the licences?

Dr Mansfield, yes, I can confirm that the government will be consulting with relevant NGOs and traditional owners, as we were discussing earlier, on the development of the proforma licences. I think, as I indicated to Mr Davis in relation to a number of his questions, DEECA is already working closely with traditional owners to ensure their feedback is incorporated into that template.

My next question was about traditional owners, so thank you for that. I was also wondering if the consultation will include local governments.

Dr Mansfield, the advice I have is that Minister D’Ambrosio regularly meets with local councils regarding offshore wind, and her department will continue to engage with relevant councils on the development of the proforma licences.

Has the government undertaken any work that considers allocating licences based on the condition and ecological value of the public land?

I think probably the answer to that question, Dr Mansfield, goes to some of the answers I gave Mr Davis about how we are going to ensure the licences mitigate and minimise damage to environmental areas including flora and fauna. But also the bill has to be read consistently with other statutes, and that includes having other environmental protections and obligations complied with as part of the process.

Are you aware of any, I guess, further work that might be done potentially outside of this bill but complementary to it regarding, say, developing a framework that can be used to assess the ecological value of the land? Is that something that the government is considering?

Dr Mansfield, I think that the existing provisions and frameworks contained in existing state and Commonwealth legislation in this area will be the answer. There will not be a specific framework developed for this particular set of circumstances, but we would say that the existing legislative frameworks give that protection.

And, I suppose, on that, can you clarify the checks and balances that would be in place if a generation company sought a licence in a location of high ecological value – say, for example, a national park?

They would certainly have to comply with environmental protections and obligations, and that would include any areas of high sensitivity. That would be something that would already be captured in other legislation that we have been talking about a little bit in the committee stage.

Minister, you said in response to Dr Mansfield’s question that local government would be involved in the whole offshore wind consultation process. But currently local government have absolutely no say in renewable projects, either wind or solar, onshore. So are you saying that now offshore wind projects will involve local government?

That is not quite what I said, Mrs McArthur. What I indicated to Dr Mansfield in answer to one of her questions around local government was about the development of the proforma licences that we are considering in the bill today and that Minister D’Ambrosio had given a commitment that she would continue to engage with the relevant councils on the development of those proforma licences. The bill will not have a direct impact on local government, although that does not take away from the significant role that local governments and communities have to play in all stages of our renewable energy development. We do obviously work very closely with local government and the community over a range of different projects across communities. This offshore wind plan and transition would be no different to that.

Minister, that is absolutely not true. Currently local governments have no involvement whatsoever in being able to object or take representation from their constituents about renewable projects, and certainly the consultation with the community is parlous. So do you want to correct your answer?

Mrs McArthur, what I was referring to was the role that local government plays, together with communities in their areas, to ensure that projects like this have an actual benefit for the communities that they serve. The Victorian government continues to work closely with local government on a range of issues relevant to these matters, including identifying risks and opportunities and providing factual information on offshore wind development to ensure that local jobs and training and supply chain and manufacturing are supported in the development of the area’s offshore wind energy sector; to assess how Victoria’s marine spatial planning framework can be used as a strategic planning tool to support planning for offshore wind and to give communities that voice in the planning and new renewable energy infrastructure; and making sure the benefits of the energy transition are shared right across the community and that there are significant ongoing roles for local governments across the state in that regard.

Minister, you have also said that offshore projects will be sharing profits, or a variation of that, with Indigenous groups. Investors would need to know up-front what such a commitment would look like. Can you describe the level of involvement that investors would need to be aware of before they embark on a project?

It is described in the offshore wind implementation statement 3, Mrs McArthur.

Take the Warrnambool offshore project, for example. What infrastructure will be required once the energy reaches the Warrnambool shores?

The whole point of this bill, Mrs McArthur, is to do that investigatory work before those questions could be answered in any meaningful way.

Well, Minister, so far the surveys of local constituents in the Warrnambool area are opposed to this offshore wind project, so you will not have any social licence to develop the project, especially when it comes onshore.

I think I will take that as a statement, and for the record note that I do not agree with that statement and I do not think that Ms Ermacora would agree with that statement either.

Given that we have got troubles with the Port of Hastings and you have said there are potential other port sites, would the Port of Portland be a possibility for an assembly site?

This should make you happy, Mrs McArthur: it is the government’s preferred location – Hastings – but the scale of our offshore wind program is such that every port in the state will benefit, including Portland.

That is great news. What about the Port of Geelong?

I think I said every port in the state will benefit from the sheer scale of the work that we are undertaking in this sector.

Minister, you have announced ambitious timescales for offshore wind. At what point do you expect local content to be first used in the offshore industry?

Yes, Mrs McArthur. It is somewhat outside the scope of this particular bill, but if it is possible for us to get you the answer to that, I will certainly ask the question.

As you know, Mrs McArthur, we are aiming to have 2 gigawatts of capacity by 2032. It is difficult to be precise about when local content opportunities will begin, but you can expect in the years leading up to that first target that we will be rolling out further information.

Minister, what form of transmission are you proposing once these projects reach onshore: underground or above ground?

The location and design of the transmission infrastructure needed for offshore wind has not been decided. VicGrid is currently assessing shortlisted options using the options assessment method to determine the technology type, including whether the transmission will go overhead or underground. The Victorian government will announce the preferred technology type in early 2024. We know there are concerns about the impact of overhead transmission powerlines on people and the environment and many have expressed a strong preference for any transmission lines to go underground, but I think, as you are aware, underground technology can be quite challenging and has different environmental and land use impacts. However, there are situations where it can be appropriate and viable, so we will continue to allow VicGrid to do their assessment and have more to say about the preferred technology type quite soon.

We will take you on trust on this whole operation as usual with these sorts of bills. Given that the Port of Hastings is on Crown land, will the government be handing over any of that land to any traditional owner groups?

That is completely outside the scope of the bill before us, that question, Mrs McArthur.

Minister, the whales are quite an issue in the Warrnambool offshore project. If they prove to be an issue, will that whole project be abandoned?

Mrs McArthur, there have already been changes made to the Southern Ocean offshore wind footprint to take account of whales, but just let me get a little bit more detail for you. One moment, please.

It is important to note, Mrs McArthur, that no seismic blasting will be allowed, which is obviously a very important consideration for our friends the whales, and in addition of course the environmental assessment processes will be quite vigorous and in accordance with their normal practice will take into account any sensitive marine considerations.

Clause agreed to; clauses 2 to 7 agreed to.

Clause 8 (18:19)

I move:

1. Clause 8, page 6, after line 31 insert –

“(3A) Before granting a licence under subsection (1), the person who grants the licence must be satisfied that adequate consultation has been undertaken with the local community regarding the proposed licence.

(3B) On granting a licence under subsection (1), the person who grants the licence must publish, on a website administered by the Department, a statement setting out details of the consultation undertaken with the local community regarding the licence.”.

Our amendments fall into two categories – and I will do this for convenience on this clause to save us repeating it on each clause. Our amendments 1, 2 and 3 seek to amend clauses 8, 12 and 15 respectively to improve consultation. They relate to different acts – the Land Act 1958 licences, the Crown Land (Reserves) Act 1978 licences and the Forests Act 1958 licences and permits. The amendments essentially read: ‘Before granting a licence under subsection (1), the person who grants the licence’ – the minister in most cases, or someone delegated – ‘must be satisfied that adequate consultation has been undertaken with the local community regarding the proposed licence.’ They further state: ‘On granting a licence under subsection (1), the person who grants the licence must publish, on a website administered by the Department, a statement setting out details of the consultation undertaken with the local community regarding the licence.’

All of these renewable projects that we see around the state have run into tremendous trouble with respect to community consultation. The social licence has often been lost because of the department’s behaviour or, in a broader sense, the Australian Energy Market Operator’s and more recently VicGrid’s approach. I do not think I need to rehearse in the chamber the long list of concerns that have been expressed by communities. They are very public. But we are troubled by the government’s approach to these major projects. Important projects should have proper processes and proper community engagement and thereby have a much greater chance of being supported by communities. So this is an attempt to say: when you are doing these major offshore wind projects, you do need to have community engagement. We want to put that beyond doubt. We want to be very strong about the need for community engagement, and I urge the crossbench to think about it in this way: does this improve the process of community engagement? We think it does.

The final amendments – and I will do all of these just for convenience at this point – are on clause 20 and are our amendments relating to fit and proper person. Again, we do not think it is enough for a state licence to be entirely derivative of the Commonwealth approach. The Commonwealth may give licences, but the state is giving a licence for activity in Victorian waters and on Victorian land, including public land. In that sense, we want to make sure that persons or companies are fit and proper people. The risk of fly-by-nighters is there, and we think it is a very modest imposition to require that fit and proper person test. But in respect of this clause – clause 8 – this is community consultation, and we will divide on those three versions of that and then the fit and proper person test.

The government, as I have already indicated, will not be supporting the opposition’s amendments. We do believe that they do not serve an additional benefit, given that licensing legislation where consultation is already considered by the minister in making the decision is already a factor, and that includes a minimum 60-day consultation process prior to the declaration of areas in Commonwealth waters under the Offshore Electricity Infrastructure Act 2021. These processes informed the size and location of declared areas in Gippsland and the Southern Ocean: local consultation, which will be a condition and requirement of all proponent management plans approved by the Commonwealth regulator – and these plans set out what offshore wind proponents may do and how they must do it over the life of the project; an extensive community process, which is ongoing and will inform the final design and placement of offshore wind transmission infrastructure in Gippsland and which is being undertaken by VicGrid; and consultation during the environment effects statement process, which must occur prior to any construction of connection assets after the investigatory licence.

In relation to the matters regarding a fit and proper person test, we do believe that it is not required, as it would absolutely duplicate the requirements already undertaken by the Commonwealth offshore infrastructure regulator. I will leave my comments there.

Business interrupted pursuant to standing orders.

Lee TARLAMIS: I move:

That the meal break scheduled for this day pursuant to standing order 4.01(3) be suspended.

Motion agreed to.

Council divided on amendment:

Ayes (16): Melina Bath, Jeff Bourman, Gaelle Broad, Georgie Crozier, David Davis, Renee Heath, David Limbrick, Wendy Lovell, Trung Luu, Bev McArthur, Joe McCracken, Nick McGowan, Evan Mulholland, Adem Somyurek, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell, Richard Welch

Noes (20): Ryan Batchelor, John Berger, Lizzie Blandthorn, Katherine Copsey, Enver Erdogan, Jacinta Ermacora, David Ettershank, Michael Galea, Shaun Leane, Sarah Mansfield, Tom McIntosh, Rachel Payne, Georgie Purcell, Samantha Ratnam, Harriet Shing, Ingrid Stitt, Lee Tarlamis, Sonja Terpstra, Gayle Tierney, Sheena Watt

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to; clauses 9 to 11 agreed to.

Clause 12 (18:32)

I move:

2. Clause 12, page 10, after line 34 insert –

“(3A) Before granting a licence under subsection (1), the Minister must be satisfied that adequate consultation has been undertaken with the local community regarding the proposed licence.

(3B) On granting a licence under subsection (1), the Minister must publish, on a website administered by the Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action, a statement setting out details of the consultation undertaken with the local community regarding the licence.”.

I have made a longer description of this, but this is a further enhancement of consultation.

For the reasons already indicated, the government will be opposing Mr Davis’s amendment.

Council divided on amendment:

Ayes (16): Melina Bath, Jeff Bourman, Gaelle Broad, Georgie Crozier, David Davis, Renee Heath, David Limbrick, Wendy Lovell, Trung Luu, Bev McArthur, Joe McCracken, Nick McGowan, Evan Mulholland, Adem Somyurek, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell, Richard Welch

Noes (20): Ryan Batchelor, John Berger, Lizzie Blandthorn, Katherine Copsey, Enver Erdogan, Jacinta Ermacora, David Ettershank, Michael Galea, Shaun Leane, Sarah Mansfield, Tom McIntosh, Rachel Payne, Georgie Purcell, Samantha Ratnam, Harriet Shing, Ingrid Stitt, Lee Tarlamis, Sonja Terpstra, Gayle Tierney, Sheena Watt

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to; clauses 13 and 14 agreed to.

Clause 15 (18:36)

I move:

3. Clause 15, page 14, after line 11 insert –

“(4A) Before granting a licence or permit under this section, the Minister must be satisfied that adequate consultation has been undertaken with the local community regarding the proposed licence or permit.

(4B) On granting a licence or permit under this section, the Minister must publish, on a website administered by the Department, a statement setting out details of the consultation undertaken with the local community regarding the licence or permit.”.

Again, this is an enhancement of consultation.

The government will be opposing this amendment.

Council divided on amendment:

Ayes (16): Melina Bath, Jeff Bourman, Gaelle Broad, Georgie Crozier, David Davis, Renee Heath, David Limbrick, Wendy Lovell, Trung Luu, Bev McArthur, Joe McCracken, Nick McGowan, Evan Mulholland, Adem Somyurek, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell, Richard Welch

Noes (20): Ryan Batchelor, John Berger, Lizzie Blandthorn, Katherine Copsey, Enver Erdogan, Jacinta Ermacora, David Ettershank, Michael Galea, Shaun Leane, Sarah Mansfield, Tom McIntosh, Rachel Payne, Georgie Purcell, Samantha Ratnam, Harriet Shing, Ingrid Stitt, Lee Tarlamis, Sonja Terpstra, Gayle Tierney, Sheena Watt

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to; clauses 16 to 19 agreed to.

Clause 20 (18:39)

I move:

4. Clause 20, line 17, before “The Minister” insert “(1)”.

5. Clause 20, line 20, omit ‘company.”.’ and insert “company.”.

6. Clause 20, after line 20 insert –

‘(2) The Minister must not declare a person to be an offshore wind energy generation company under subsection (1) unless the Minister is satisfied that the person is a fit and proper person to be declared an offshore wind energy generation company.”.’.

This amendment inserts a fit and proper person test.

For the reasons already outlined to the house, the government will be opposing Mr Davis’s amendments.

Council divided on amendment.

Ayes (16): Melina Bath, Jeff Bourman, Gaelle Broad, Georgie Crozier, David Davis, Renee Heath, David Limbrick, Wendy Lovell, Trung Luu, Bev McArthur, Joe McCracken, Nick McGowan, Evan Mulholland, Adem Somyurek, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell, Richard Welch

Noes (20): Ryan Batchelor, John Berger, Lizzie Blandthorn, Katherine Copsey, Enver Erdogan, Jacinta Ermacora, David Ettershank, Michael Galea, Shaun Leane, Sarah Mansfield, Tom McIntosh, Rachel Payne, Georgie Purcell, Samantha Ratnam, Harriet Shing, Ingrid Stitt, Lee Tarlamis, Sonja Terpstra, Gayle Tierney, Sheena Watt

Amendments negatived.

Clause agreed to; clause 21 agreed to.

Reported to house without amendment.

Ingrid STITT (Western Metropolitan – Minister for Mental Health, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Multicultural Affairs) (18:43): 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) (18:43): I move:

That the bill be now read a third time.

Motion agreed to.

Read third time.

The PRESIDENT: Pursuant to standing order 14.28, the bill will be returned to the Assembly with a message informing them that the Council have agreed to the bill without amendment.