Thursday, 31 October 2024
Bills
Building Legislation Amendment and Other Matters Bill 2024
Please do not quote
Proof only
Bills
Building Legislation Amendment and Other Matters Bill 2024
Second reading
Debate resumed.
Tom McINTOSH (Eastern Victoria) (14:12): What the Labor government has shown in energy is leadership, and what Victorians need to keep energy prices down in their homes, in their businesses, in their schools and in their hospitals is leadership. We know the only thing those opposite know about leadership is the revolving door that they send people out once they have had 12 months in the chair. That is the only thing they know about leadership: cutting people down and kicking them out of their party’s leadership position. The consequence of this is the Liberal Party have no plan on energy.
David Davis: On a point of order, Acting President, this is a bill about the building industry and the gas industry. It is not a bill about the opposition, and the member here seems to be heading out on a frolic to attack the opposition. He should return to the bill and not do that.
The ACTING PRESIDENT (Bev McArthur): I will uphold the point of order. Mr McIntosh, can you please stick to the point?
Tom McINTOSH: I absolutely will. I was talking about leadership in energy policy, and perhaps if there was not so much frolicking in and around leadership I would not have it drawn to my attention. What Victorians need, as I have said, for low prices and for guarantee of supply, is a clear plan. The reason why I was raising the lack of focus on policy by those opposite – their attention being drawn to other things more internal – is that they do not do the work to bring up the policies and create the plans that industry can clearly get around and understand, that Victorians can clearly get around and understand. When you do not have targets, when you do not have a pipeline of work to get to your targets, to get to your goals, you cannot achieve them. That is exactly what we saw the last time those opposite were in power, four years of nothingness, and that is exactly what would happen again. That is why –
Tom McINTOSH: We are here talking about energy, Mr Davis. That is why they come up with harebrained ideas like $30 billion nuclear power stations, because they do not do the work, they are lazy and they take pot shots from opposite.
We know what else the Liberals will do: they will cut jobs right across the board. We know the Liberals hate workers. Their economic policies are to drive down wages. They do not want to see the prosperity of all Victorians, with every generation having a better quality of life than the one before. That is not in their interests. It is cheap politics, it is nasty politics and it is negative politics, and Victorians see that and know it. They see it in a variety of policies. They see it in housing: negativity and ‘No.’ They see it in energy: negativity and ‘No.’ They see it in building: negativity. It does not matter what it is, it is the same outcome from the Liberal Party.
If they ever, God help us, get their hands on the levers, we will see nothing but inaction, and living quality for Victorians will go backwards. Wages for Victorians will go backwards, and energy supplies will go backwards. And do you know what will happen? They will get to the end of their four years of doing nothing, much like Dolittle and Naptime, and they will look around and go, ‘Gosh, this century we’re in, energy demand is going up. I don’t know why. There’s something called the internet, with data centres that draw more energy.’ There are going to be residents of Victoria saying, ‘We want to power our homes for the devices and the technologies that we need and we want.’ And what are the Liberals going to turn around and say? They are going to go, ‘My God, where are we going to get our energy from?’ And they are only going to have one option, and that is to rip up Victorian farms and frack them. They will have no option due to their inaction, their lack of planning, their lack of policies, their internal divisions, their negativity and their nastiness. Their divisiveness will lead to them needing to rip up Victorian farms because that is the only way they will be able to meet their blind ideologies.
We know that Victorian farmers and Victorian shoppers, anyone who goes to the supermarket or the grocery store, will want the world-class agricultural products that this state generates, gives to our residents and exports around Australia and around the world. But those opposite will be very, very willing to rip up those underground water aquifers and poison them, poison the soil and degrade the capacity of our farmers to provide for Victoria, our nation and the world. They will not care, because their meaninglessness and nothingness with their policies and plans will leave them in a void where they have no other option but to go after farmers, whereas on this side we have got clear plans that are seeing us deliver the cheapest wholesale energy – electricity and gas – of any state on the east coast. We have the cheapest retail electricity and gas of any state on the east coast, and that is because of a pipeline of policies working towards targets that industry can clearly understand and residents can understand. It is about getting out in front and laying the pathway we achieve.
We have seen solar uptake across this state – one in three homes, 3 gigawatts on our rooftops – and residents know it is the cheapest form of power. If only you lot could get your heads around it. I asked Mr Davis earlier in the debate: what is your plan? What percentage of your electricity generation will be renewable? He cannot answer, because he has got no idea and no plan. You guys know what you are against, and you know that you can come up with some idea for 30 years time in the never-never for a nuclear reactor that is just selling workers a pup. We have coal workers who need jobs as our coal stations close, not coal workers being left waiting for a decade in limbo. It is negativity. It is nastiness. You are selling Victorians a pup, and Victorians know that another four years of the Liberals would be like the last four years, with inaction, indecisiveness, downward pressure on workers’ wages, loss of jobs and, worst of all, ripping up farms for fracking.
Melina BATH (Eastern Victoria) (14:19): Well, that was a fairly large load of claptrap that we were just subjected to. Clearly the lunchtime break did not bring about any clarity to Mr McIntosh’s mind or sense to his words. I am quite pleased to rise today to speak on the Building Legislation Amendment and Other Matters Bill 2024, a bill that is overwhelmingly uncontroversial except for clause 38, which the Nationals, along with the Liberals, oppose. We will seek to amend it to enable this bill to come to a level of decency, unlike the level of contributions we have heard from the Labor members today.
There are some parts that I would really like to pick up on and share with the house. We had Ms Watt provide some context around the SEC. The SEC was an absolute bomb in the coal region of the Latrobe Valley. Even the rusted-on Labor voters did not like it. It was a bomb. What do we have now in the Latrobe Valley? The Premier came and said the SEC is going to revolutionise the universe – apparently – and create 59,000 jobs. How many jobs has it generated in the Latrobe Valley right now? There is one job in the GovHub at the moment for the SEC. This is what we hear in the rhetoric from a tired and rusty old Labor government. This is what the reality is.
Once you work through the spin doctors in the Department of Premier and Cabinet, once you work past those, there is a huge conflict in the Labor government. We have Treasurer Pallas, who is undoubtedly pro hydrogen, with the hydrogen energy supply chain project, being part of that energy mix. We have got Lily D’Ambrosio who is absolutely all over the shop. She is at odds with her federal counterpart in Ms King. Ms King has said she supports gas as part of Australia’s economy. She supports it. Not only that but earlier this week, on Tuesday, we had legislation that was supported by the Nationals and the Liberals. It was about creating a reservoir for the resource of natural gas. Indeed this government pushed that through, and we supported that as a small element of security for a very important resource in terms of gas, not only for electricity and the flexible power source that it can be when times and peaking situations require it to come online but when there is not any wind blowing and the sun has gone to bed, then the gas can come on. It is also used as feed stock and as a source in my patch in the Latrobe Valley for Australian Paper.
In this bill again the Premier is all over the shop. The Premier said recently on radio, ‘Victorians can keep cooking with gas.’ Well, they cannot keep cooking with gas on this clause and this bill.
David Davis: Clause 38.
Melina BATH: That is right – clause 38; it is always in the detail. This bill is about implementing Victoria’s Gas Substitution Roadmap, but it includes a prohibition on new gas connections. The Premier has signalled that Victorians can cook with gas, but clause 38, Regulations, reads:
(fb) prohibiting a person from carrying out plumbing work in connection with installing or replacing a reticulated gas appliance or a reticulated gas appliance in a class of reticulated gas appliance in an existing building or a building under construction or in a building in a class of existing building or a class of building under construction;”.
I thought it was important to actually put on record what this bill does.
Clearly the Premier – and she is good at this – spins something out so that it makes the headlines in the papers, and lo and behold the reality is far from that. My colleague is a working man. He was a plumber all his life in the Latrobe Valley until he came into Parliament. I think it is very important to put his comments in the lower house on record. He said that this legislation wages a war on the plumbing industry and restricts their ability to repair or replace gas appliances, a task critical to maintaining safe and functional gas connections. What this government is doing is taking away choice. This government is taking from Victorians the choice to make their own decisions about what energy they are going to use in their homes.
We heard a very good contribution from Mr Welch in relation to infrastructure. It was also a very good contribution around the lack of choice and the fact that this government is completely directing Victorians – reaching into their homes and directing them on how and with what they will live – but also the cost impost of implementing a new change. When this bill comes in, you will not be able to replace your gas reticulation services. Here it is: it can prohibit a person from carrying out plumbing work. It is going to do that. It is going to create more costs in a cost-of-living crisis, more imposts on Victorians who can ill afford them.
I am interested also in the discussion that we have heard in this place around Gippsland and indeed, as I said, that recent legislation that has gone through. Of course Gippsland has provided essential gas resources for 55 years, with good, high-paying jobs in our regions.
Melina BATH: And cheap gas. We had the cheapest gas around. Exactly. We certainly know that there is no plan for central Gippsland in this transition. We see the demise of the Latrobe Valley Authority, which has put out very little other than some nice glossy brochures and paid for government-loving bureaucrats to paint a picture but with no recommendations and no actions. That is what we see on that side, and that is what Victorians are facing.
As I said, we see the Labor government’s Treasury is at odds with its Minister for Energy and Resources. We also see that households are facing increasing bills under this legislation. It has been reported only recently that households using gas in Victoria could face an additional $138 over three years to implement these hikes in fees. We see AusNet, the supplier, and certainly the supplier in my Eastern Victoria Region, with 688 customers, cite that Victorian government policies are encouraging electrification. We are not against electrification by any stretch. What we are against is the lack of choice and the fact that the government is reaching into homes and putting a throttle on people’s purses and lifestyles. This ban on new connections will increase service costs and infrastructure upgrades.
We also know that the government has come out; we heard from Ms Watt, who wanted to talk about homes. Well, that is not going to serve people, particularly in my patch in Eastern Victoria Region, when you have got inner-city high-rise buildings with one and two bedrooms. Clearly, as we saw in the Westpac Housing Pulse survey back in March, only a quarter of buyers in Melbourne are actually looking for apartments and units.
They are peddling a line. The line does not serve all Victorians. The line is going to compromise people who want to upgrade their own homes, and the Nationals certainly will not be supporting this bill.
Jacinta ERMACORA (Western Victoria) (14:30): I am very pleased to speak on the Building Legislation Amendment and Other Matters Bill 2024. This bill addresses three main issues: firstly, it introduces essential amendments to support Victoria’s Gas Substitution Roadmap; secondly, it clarifies the enforcement powers under the Building Act 1993; and thirdly, it streamlines building legislation and related acts.
Jacinta ERMACORA: I was waiting for you to come in, Mr Davis.
As gas prices continue to rise, the Allan Labor government is helping Victorians reduce their reliance on expensive fossil gas, easing cost-of-living pressures on families and businesses. Switching to electric appliances saves Victorians thousands of dollars each year on energy bills. Converting an existing home from gas to all electric will save the average family $1700 per year. I am sure some of my colleagues have also mentioned this. If you add rooftop solar, you could save $2700 per year.
The Gas Substitution Roadmap outlines how we will use energy efficiency, electrification, renewable hydrogen and biomethane to drive down bills and cut carbon emissions. In December 2023 we updated the road map to outline the next steps in Victoria’s transition from expensive fossil gas to cheaper, more modern electric appliances. At the time we announced that options to progressively electrify all new and existing residential and most commercial buildings would be investigated. We are doing that through a regulatory impact statement process which will enable Victorians to have their say on Victoria’s energy transition. This bill will enable that consultation.
Those across the aisle will tell you that we are banning gas appliances and barbecues. This is the usual scaremongering and nonsense we have come to expect from the Liberal Party. It is a tired old script. Perhaps they are so busy fighting with each other in court that they have not had time to come up with a new scenario.
The Allan Labor government is responding to the threat of global warming by working in consultation with communities and businesses to develop solutions together, and that is what this bill is about. We are enabling the ‘what’ in the Gas Substitution Roadmap and creating a mechanism for deciding the ‘how’ by consulting with Victorians through the regulatory impact statement process. The Gas Substitution Roadmap is a highly credible, deeply researched and detailed pathway for Victoria to manage the transition to a low-carbon economy. It is a tribute to the painstaking work being done by Minister Lily D’Ambrosio and her office and team of staff.
We have some of the most ambitious climate targets in the world. These targets are legislated, providing confidence and security for businesses looking to invest in technologies and approaches that support the transition to a low-carbon economy. Victoria has reached 38 per cent renewable energy, and this bill assists in the next steps to our target of 95 per cent by 2035, with a goal of net zero emissions by 2045. We are decarbonising at the fastest rate in the country. 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. There are some in this chamber that will argue that we are not taking action, that Labor is not, but we are. There are others that would argue that we should not take action at all and that we should stick with fossil fuels.
I just want to apply a little bit of – I googled this a second ago – deductive reasoning to some of the arguments I have heard from those opposite. Basically we know that there is declining use of gas in this state, and that is essentially because of what market forces have done to the prices – nothing to do with government policy – so if we supported in any way the construction of a gas reticulation network into long-term future subdivisions, it is highly unlikely to even be used. I think you opposite us would be saying to us, ‘Why are you doing that?’, and yet that is exactly the opposite of what you are arguing for us to do. It does not make sense to build what would be an asset that is stranded. In accounting terms new gas reticulation would be a stranded asset. The logic of what you are arguing against us really does not make sense. There is no logical infrastructure argument in support of not doing it.
Our pathway, our road map, to decarbonisation, provides incentives; it is not forcing, not Stalinist, not banning and not tearing out perfectly functional systems. It is not any of those things. It is purely an incentive program to support the transition from gas – an expensive fossil fuel – across to electricity, which is renewable and affordable. I really want to state just how illogical the argument is against this strategy, because the cost of not doing this is far higher than the cost of an orderly, government-supported transition process.
Despite what the scaremongers across the aisle will try to tell you, gas cooktops in homes, gas appliances in existing commercial buildings and industrial, agricultural and factory facilities will not be impacted, nor will the use of LPG. There is nothing better than enjoying a barbecue in the backyard with friends and family. Victorians will absolutely continue to do that, and they will continue to do that with LPG gas, with woodfired barbecues and with electric barbecues – whatever you want.
David Davis: Not connected to the reticulated gas. You can’t do that – that is going to banned.
Jacinta ERMACORA: I have already answered that argument.
Jacinta ERMACORA: Google ‘deductive reasoning’. Converting an existing home from gas to all-electric will save the average family, as I said, $1700, and then if you add solar, $2700, so that is a very, very positive thing. The government will release draft regulations for consultation in December 2024, followed by an extended public consultation period. Transitioning from gas to electricity will save Victorians thousands of dollars each year on energy bills. It will slash emissions and maintain the reliability of supply for industries that require gas. That is what this is all about: lower power bills, taking action on climate change and securing Victoria’s energy. And the bonus added value to this strategy is that we are building a renewable net zero economy in this state. Because we are doing it first, we are building that economy in the skill sets at TAFE and universities, in the workplaces, in trades, in the construction industry and in the operational side of many businesses. That will put this state at the forefront of the transition. Everybody else will be coming to us to learn how to do it. The jobs created in this scenario are also very, very important. We are going to continue to work with Victorians to tackle climate change for the benefit of all Victorians, whatever spurious objections the Liberal Party try to throw up.
The bill also contains important provisions to fill a gap in the Building Act 1993 that hinders municipal building surveyors from addressing hazards to life, health and safety. Recent decisions on the powers of municipal building surveyors in the Supreme Court of Victoria and the Victorian Court of Appeal have highlighted a gap in the regulation of building works under the act. This bill will enable building surveyors to issue orders to require owners to take actions that are necessary to remove or reduce circumstances that pose a danger to life, health and safety. That is gobbledygook for giving the regulators more teeth when it comes to building surveyors. Surveyors will also be given greater clarity as to when they can issue a building order for minor works. The government has also consulted with local government stakeholders on these changes. The Victorian Municipal Building Surveyors Group and the Municipal Association of Victoria are supportive.
Finally, the bill seeks to boost the effectiveness of the Victorian Building Authority (VBA) and the Architects Registration Board. The building reform program is coordinating government action to deliver systemic reform, informed by reports such as the building system review expert panel reports, the Building Confidence report and the red tape commissioner’s report. Building reform programs will make sure that homes are built to the highest standard and that Victorians have stronger protections when building or renovating their homes.
The government has already started work on delivering building reforms recommended by the building system review expert panel, including through the Building Legislation Amendment Act 2023, which commenced on 1 February 2024. The 2024–25 budget builds on this with a $63 million reform package. This includes work to increase access to domestic building insurance, deliver reforms to support the use of modern methods of construction and develop and deliver a new legislative model.
This package will also strengthen the Victorian Building Authority to deliver a regulator that Victorians can trust. The new CEO and now commissioner Anna Cronin has been leading a program of rapid reform at the regulator. The budget funding will boost the VBA’s inspectors and auditors by 50 per cent, funding improved technology and intelligence to better protect consumers. The building regulatory system has not been comprehensively examined since the early 1990s, and hasn’t the world changed since then?
Since that time there have been significant changes in design, in innovation and in community expectations around the sustainability of homes. Several high-profile building failures in Australia and around the world have reduced the public’s confidence in the building regulatory system. That is why the reforms that we are doing in that space are so important. I just want to close by saying how confident and positive I am about the transition and that the conflation of issues and facts by the opposition does not work logically.
Evan MULHOLLAND (Northern Metropolitan) (14:45): I rise to speak on the Building Legislation Amendment and Other Matters Bill 2024. Labor’s war on gas continues today as part of this bill. We know that this is a cost-of-living issue. Do not be fooled by the innocuous name of the bill. This bill is simply not an omnibus or a tidy-up; this is part of their agenda. This bill gives the government the power to implement their attack on the cost of living of all Victorians, particularly those in my electorate who want to build themselves new homes in the growth areas and want to have choice in the energy that they provide. We know that this tired Labor government knows that this is unpopular, so they have to find new ways to sneak in powers that they want to give themselves.
I was interested to read a few months ago, in September, a Herald Sun article with the headline ‘We’re cooking with gas’. It says:
Exclusive: Premier’s major policy reversal as state grapples with dwindling power
Victorians can cook with gas for as long as they like after the state government excluded residential and commercial kitchen stovetops from its net zero road map. And laws will be introduced to parliament to encourage … offshore gas storage projects to boost dwindling supplies …
I could have sworn we just heard from Ms Ermacora and Mr McIntosh that there is no gas available; I could have sworn that they mentioned that. We see this policy reversal. We know this government knows that gas is popular. Why would Jacinta Allan have made the decision that she did? And do not think we do not know the background. We know that the Treasurer rolled Ms D’Ambrosio on this and common sense prevailed, but it still appears that Ms D’Ambrosio is pulling the strings in the background when it comes to legislation and that someone has snuck in a regulatory power that would give the government the power at any time it decides to ban gas connections. This is not something that this government can be trusted with, because we know that their ambition is to ban gas. You do not put together a Gas Substitution Roadmap if your intent is not to ban gas holus-bolus. You do not create regulations in legislation that give you the ability to ban gas if you are not intent on banning gas stovetops in people’s homes. We have got the Premier on one hand saying she is excluding it from the road map so you can still cook with gas and on the other hand you have got legislation that says. ‘We’re giving ourselves the ability to ban gas.’
I was listening intently to some of the contributions. I know Mr Galea knows that you cannot cook many a meal on an electric stove. It is simple: people would like a choice. I know many commercial operators in my electorate, like the Bamboo Cafe Restaurant in Campbellfield, are having massive gas increases. They are quite worried about the government’s anti-gas agenda because you cannot cook Middle Eastern food on an electric stove. On a commercial scale it is next to impossible, and they know that. I would love to invite the Minister for Housing out to Bamboo in Campbellfield so that we can have a conversation. Perhaps we can show the minister over a meal how important gas is.
Members interjecting.
Evan MULHOLLAND: Mr Galea would know that you cannot cook a succulent meal at the Shark Fin Inn on an electric stove. It requires gas. You cannot cook a succulent Chinese meal on an electric stove at a commercial level, and we hear that all over town. This government is intent on banning gas because this government both discriminates against our multicultural communities and discriminates against people living in growth areas. I had a meeting recently up in Kilmore with my good friend and colleague Annabelle Cleeland. We met with a large round table of real estate agents from my electorate and hers, and they reported that many potential buyers were pulling out of new home builds because of the inability to connect to gas. That is directly as a result of this government denying choices to our multicultural communities who want to live in growth areas, who want gas connections.
The government say they are all for gas cookers. Jacinta Allan says she is all for gas stovetops – she is cooking with gas – for everyone except if you live in a growth suburb. They are denying choice for people that live in a growth suburb. The government is not cooking with gas. They are banning connections to new homes, and they have given themselves the power through this legislation to continue to ban gas stovetops in existing homes. That is what the government is doing. It is discriminating against people that live in our growth areas because of its anti-gas agenda.
Members interjecting.
Evan MULHOLLAND: ‘There is no gas in Victoria.’ Well, your federal colleagues disagree with you. Madeleine King disagrees with you. This government is all at sea when it comes to gas policy. We have a Herald Sun article one day saying that we are cooking with gas and the Premier has got a new agenda and is pro gas stovetops, and then literally the next week this legislation is introduced in the lower house, completely undoing the Premier’s policy reversal on this issue. As I said, we know Ms D’Ambrosio was rolled by the Treasurer in regard to this issue. Reality has struck in regard to the gas shortages we are going to face in the future, and Mr Davis has spoken about that as well. But it appears that Ms D’Ambrosio is still sneaking things into legislation to give herself and this government the ability to ban gas in the future.
We did see some stark warnings today:
Households using gas are set to be hit with extra charges worth up to $138 …
And more pain lies ahead, with pipeline operators signalling the need to speed up their cost recovery systems – paid over time through bills – because of declining customer numbers.
The consultation with the industry seems not to have been there. The Housing Industry Association said that the legislation does, however, have the effect of allowing regulations to be made that could implement a complete prohibition on the use of reticulated gas for any type of building. This does mean that a government, without further reference to the Parliament, could in future make regulations which go well beyond the expected measures in the Victorian government’s Gas Substitution Roadmap. The Australian Pipelines and Gas Association chief executive Steve Davies said:
These draconian measures will not have any impact on improving gas supply for Victorians in the short-term, and will instead have the opposite effect through chilling investment in new production …
Why would any energy company invest in delivering much-needed gas supply for Victoria –
as they tried to do on Tuesday with their other bill –
when the state government is openly trying to destroy the business case? It is completely counterproductive.
This Bill creates an economically unviable situation where the state government is essentially telling the 60,000 Victorians businesses on the gas network that they don’t want or need their business anymore.
This is what the gas industry, the pipelines and gas association, think of this government. I was intently listening in to the debate in the lower house, and I took a bit of offence on behalf of my constituents to the second-reading debate in the other place by the member for Laverton. The member for Laverton told a funny story of living in New South Wales and Canberra and not knowing how to use a gas stovetop until she was parachuted into Melbourne’s west. She even talked about her love of a Thermomix, or a ‘Thermie’, as her preferred way of cooking. She clearly does not know much about her own constituents – in the outer north I do not know many that can afford a Thermomix, which retails for over $2000. So that was very interesting. My constituents in the outer north, and I assume those in the western suburbs as well, want access to cheap and affordable energy, which gas provides. They do not want to live on air fryer food, as the member for Laverton suggested and wanted to suggest to us all. I would hazard a guess that the good people of Laverton want choice in their energy mix. If they can afford an air fryer, or a ‘Thermie’, then that is up to them, but they should have that choice, particularly in new estates.
I note that when I go around our multicultural communities – and I do that a lot – this issue is constantly raised with me. People are pulling out of getting a house-and-land package and trying to get into an existing house that has a gas connection. I know that I have colleagues that attend the same functions and hear the same things. If this government wants to go ahead and introduce a bill which gives it the power to ban gas, go for it. I will be letting every single one of our multicultural communities know that it was the Labor Party that introduced this to ban gas, and I have been letting them know that it is the Labor Party that has banned gas connections to new homes. It is the Labor Party that is discriminating against our multicultural communities in growth areas. The Premier is cooking with gas. She is saying that everyone that lives in an existing home can cook with gas, but if you are moving to a new house-and-land package you cannot.
Harriet Shing: On a point of order, Acting President, Mr Mulholland may be relying upon the value and the weight of his words such that he is not able to use a prop. I would also encourage him –
Evan MULHOLLAND: I was reading off the –
Harriet Shing: No, you weren’t. You know you weren’t reading. To that end, Acting President, I would ask that you require him not to rely upon garnishes to add to the value of his contribution.
The ACTING PRESIDENT (Bev McArthur): I will ask the member to read from his props.
Evan MULHOLLAND: I am more than happy to. This is a sneaky ideological attack on the hopes and dreams and household budgets of my constituents in the outer north, many of whom, as I was saying, have pulled out of buying house-and-land packages because they cannot get gas. I was at a community meeting the other day in Beveridge in the outer northern suburbs – I know Mr Erdogan has probably never been there before – with our Liberal candidate for McEwen Jason McClintock, and many people brought up the fact that many of the new houses that are going into Beveridge cannot get a gas connection. Many of the communities are multicultural communities – and to our Indian community and our Hindu community I want to wish a happy Diwali again. They are opting against new home builds because they prefer a gas connection. This Premier is saying to those communities, ‘You don’t have a choice. You don’t have a choice in your power source. You don’t have the choice to get gas; you must get all electric.’
That is wrong. It is discrimination, and we on this side of the chamber are calling it out. It is not good enough. It is discrimination against our multicultural communities. It is denying them the choices they want to make. The government is attempting to ram through its new power to ban people from connecting to gas under regulations, and as night follows day, Lily D’Ambrosio is going to use it. She will, because she describes it as fossil gas. All this petulant language from the Minister for Energy and Resources is unbecoming. I know our federal colleagues disagree with her on it. The Treasurer disagrees with her on it. She ought to cease it, and this bill ought to be opposed.
Michael GALEA (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (15:00): I rise to speak on the Building Legislation Amendment and Other Matters Bill 2024 today. Today is Halloween, and what a jumpscare it is that we are hearing from members opposite. It is all doom and gloom and full sirens on full alarm, full panic mode it seems – anything of course to deflect from their own internal machinations. Just as the Liberal member for Brighton was trying to scare people inside a hotel by creepily looking through the windows – I am sure Mr Southwick has a recording of that particular encounter – here we have another scare campaign today by the members opposite, including my good friend Mr Mulholland.
What do we have today? We have a few amendments before us, and I will get to them in just a moment. But it is a jumpscare that is being put forward by members opposite, in the vein that Mr Mulholland’s close ally and fellow NIMBY Mr Newbury likes to partake in. Perhaps you might like to join him outside various hotels in the Southern Metropolitan Region, Mr Mulholland, and you can tell people that they do not deserve the option of living in a part of Melbourne or indeed Victoria where they wish to do so.
We know on this side that these building reforms are one very small but very important part of our broader housing strategy, which is to provide meaningful and affordable housing options to all Victorians, especially those millennials and generation Z Victorians who have for too long been locked out of the housing market. Those opposite will block and block and block – I have yet to hear Mr Mulholland call out Mr Newbury. In fact he is all too keen to bring up statements from Labor members from 10 years ago, but I direct his attention to the comments made by Mr Newbury just last week or indeed the comments made by Mr Pesutto, the Leader of the Opposition, just a few months ago when he said on radio – conceded in fact – that he had no real plan in place of our proposal for activity centres. He basically said they can all live in the outer suburbs.
It is no small wonder then that so many of the outer suburban seats completely rejected what was put on offer by the Liberal Party at the last election. Indeed they will most likely do so yet again. If you continue to say to people in the outer suburbs that they should be taking almost all of Victoria’s housing growth because you want to protect some nice backyards in Camberwell, as Mr Davis suggests, I look forward to seeing what those generation Z Victorians and what those millennial Victorians will have to say back to you, because what counts is your actions in this place. You can talk all you want about supporting development and you can walk out the door when you do not like the uncomfortable truth being told to you, but if you do so, all you are doing is putting your head in the sand and ignoring the genuine aspirations of young Victorians.
Every Victorian has a right to live in the place that they wish to live in, whether that is in the inner city, in the middle suburbs or in fantastic outer electorates such as mine in the south-east, where we have vibrant multicultural communities. Perhaps you want to live in regional Victoria in our booming regional cities. Mr Davis and I have the privilege of being on a committee which has this year been travelling around Victoria hearing firsthand from regional communities and hearing stories of enormous growth, of enormous demand and of oversubscription of Airbnbs and hotels. There is huge demand for housing in regional Victoria, and whether it is in the regions, whether it is in outer metropolitan Melbourne in those new growth areas that I am so proud to represent or whether it is in the inner city, you should have the right to have an affordable house that is not going to break the bank.
We have seen from the Liberal Party the same blocking tactics, indeed the same tactics that we see from the Greens too: ‘All fine for housing, just not here’ – just not in the locations where it actually might be convenient, where we already have three train lines running through, such as at Camberwell Junction, just not in those places where people might be closer to the jobs and services that they need. It is very important. This is not a government that is saying to people, ‘You must live in one particular place.’
We have heard from the opposition today about choice, but the choice that they are offering young Victorians is no choice at all. They are saying to young Victorians, ‘The only choice you have is to live in one part of Melbourne.’ They are not giving young Victorians the choice to live in the inner city unless they are on an extremely high income, and that is completely unfair. It is going to hold our economy and our state back, and it is holding, most importantly of all, young Victorians back. But that is exactly what the Liberal Party stand for. No matter what Mr Mulholland says in this place about supporting yimbyism and development, he has to stand by his contributions in this place and he has to stand by his colleagues, and he has yet to call out the disgraceful antics of those such as Mr Newbury and Mr Pesutto and others in the Liberal Party who shamefully rail against development in their affluent communities because they do not want the wrong sort of people moving in. They do not want, as Ms Lovell said, people that cannot afford the right type of sneakers to live in their neighbourhoods. That is outrageous. This side of the house is a government that supports the aspirations of all Victorians – of all busy working Victorians – especially those millennials and gen Zs who are trying to get into the housing market. That is why I find those remarks by those opposite so incredibly outrageous.
As well, speaking of jump scares, we have heard the rather ridiculous assertion that this is a sneaky bill and that there are sneaky provisions in this bill that we are trying to sneak through today. It is quite bizarre to be here in the state’s great democratic forum openly debating and openly discussing a bill – indeed a bill that was presented following a press conference, and not a secret press conference. Jacinta Allan was not talking to a closed room with a door in front of her but talking to journalists –
Michael GALEA: I am sure David Southwick was recording it too in fact; yes, you are right, Minister Shing. I am sure that many journalists were recording it, and indeed Mr Southwick was no doubt there recording it in the background as well. It was a press conference that was public and that was, believe it or not, broadcast and reported on by the press, who were there, which is what tends to happen in these press conferences. Mr Mulholland may not have many journalists attend his press conferences, but generally when the Premier of Victoria presents at a press conference she does in fact have a large coterie of journalists there to report on that. That is the way in which press conferences work. Indeed the way in which debates in this place work is that a bill is put forward, it is robustly debated and all members have the opportunity to debate on it, all members have the opportunity to engage in questions in the committee of the whole, which I am sure many will in just a matter of minutes, and all members have the opportunity to vote indeed in a way which is not only broadcast online for all of Victoria and, should they wish, the world to see but also broadcast and recorded in history and for posterity in Hansard.
I am sure that in generations to come any perhaps aspiring law student or other person who for whatever reason happens to find themselves reading contributions such as this in Hansard will be looking at those contributions from the likes of Mr Davis, Mr Mulholland, Ms Bath and Mr Welch and of course the ever illuminating Mrs McArthur, and I am sure they will scratch their head and say, ‘What on earth are these people thinking?’ It will be just the same, as Mr McIntosh referred to, as 100 years ago when we were transitioning off whale oil. Really, that will be the exact same impression that these people will have when they read the outrageous contributions of members opposite in this place today.
I understand Mr Mulholland said that you cannot cook Middle Eastern food on electric cooktops.
Harriet Shing: Go to Rumi in Brunswick – entirely electric.
Michael GALEA: Yes, Minister Shing. You have stolen my thunder. I understand that there is a restaurant in Brunswick, which indeed is in Mr Mullholland’s own electorate – it is within the tram tracks; I am not sure if you will find Mrs McArthur there – named Rumi, as I understand, that uses entirely electric induction to cook Lebanese food. I would invite Mr Mulholland to get out into his own electorate and try some places such as that restaurant, Rumi. So again, we have a number of outrageous assertions. This is a bill that is going to provide those regulation-making powers that will enable the regulations to be drafted for public consultation as part of a regulatory impact statement. The whole point of that is to do what we call consultation. I know those opposite do not have much of a sense of what consultation means, but I know other members of this place do. Indeed Mrs Tyrrell, from One Nation, understands what consultation means. She put forward a motion just a few weeks ago in this place for us to do an inquiry on it, and that is going to be looked into quite extensively by the Environment and Planning Committee. But consultation is basically what this bill is set up to do. It is set up to have that engagement, to have that consultation, with Victorians in the inner city, in the regions and in the outer suburbs such as mine, including all of those wonderful, diverse multicultural communities that I know Mr Mulholland and I are very proud to represent in our respective regions. It is absolutely about that consultation process.
What we see here from Mr Davis’s amendment is in fact a delaying tactic. We are seeing an attempt to push this into a committee in order to – well, I am not actually quite sure what Mr Davis intends to do with it, but we may find out in the committee stage. What we really know is that this is about a delay tactic, because if you were genuinely keen to hear from Victorians, if you were genuinely keen to partake in that consultative process, you would partake in the consultative process that is outlined in this bill, not use a committee as a delaying function, like the Liberal Party always does, to push back on any action that achieves meaningful reform on climate change and meaningful cost-of-living benefits for Victorians as well, for that matter. That is what we have seen from the Liberal Party. It is what we saw from a federal Liberal government that had 19 different energy policies. The chaos and dysfunction that was caused in the energy sector as a result of a federal Liberal government has only been superseded by the antics of the current Victorian Liberal Party and whichever backbencher will be putting their hand up for the leadership next. We have seen delay after delay after delay and tactic after tactic after tactic to oppose any meaningful action, as my colleagues Mr Batchelor and Mr McIntosh here in front of me have repeatedly outlined in their contributions. What we see in this delay tactic is more of the same – more of the same old, tired Liberal Party. They have no ideas, they have no drive and they have no ambition. All they know how to do is say no, and that is what they are doing here today.
I also wish to include some time in my contribution to discuss Dr Mansfield’s amendment. As I say, this is a bill that is here to outline a clear regulatory process and to do so in a way that is consultative with the Victorian community. But we do have what is, I am afraid to say, a rather outrageous amendment here –
Members interjecting.
The ACTING PRESIDENT (Jeff Bourman): A little bit of peace-ish and quiet-ish, if you would not mind. We have all had our chance to speak. Can we just let Mr Galea move on without any assistance.
Michael GALEA: by the Greens party, which is before us today. I understand that this amendment was not moved in the Legislative Assembly but it was foreshadowed there. However, it is being put forward today. It is an amendment which would actually –
Michael GALEA: I am surprised to hear you barracking in favour of this, Mr Davis – an amendment which would actually ban the use of personal woodfired heaters in houses. That is something that is very concerning. Admirable though it may be in terms of a climate goal and for the health reasons that Dr Mansfield outlined in her contribution, it is incredibly concerning to see any attempt by the Greens to make it harder for people to provide their own heating. It may be fine in the inner-city areas that we are in; however, in the outer suburbs and in regional Victoria there are people that rely on their personal woodfired heaters for heating. It is a very, very dangerous thing to be taking that away from people or to be looking to take that away from people. To be including this in the bill would be a troubling thing indeed. Members from across the Labor Party would be quite concerned to have to be saying to their constituents that that would no longer be an option in places like the Dandenong Ranges, in Gippsland and I am sure in other parts of regional Victoria. I am not sure whether any Greens members were actually at the Environment and Planning Committee’s inquiry hearing in Emerald, but they would have heard about the extensive issues of energy resilience that we are seeing with the increased effects of climate change in areas such as that, just as they are seeing in areas such as Mirboo North. I would be very, very concerned to be seeing that pursued as policy as well.
As I said, this is a straightforward bill. It is one that is opening the door to those consultations that are required to take place in order to continue what is this government’s clear agenda of addressing our climate targets, doing as much as we can to tackle the very, very serious and very real issue of climate change and doing so in a way that is taking Victorians with us and ensuring that their cost-of-living needs and their other concerns are listened to as well. Those amendments aside, I do very much support this bill, and I commend it to the house.
Harriet SHING (Eastern Victoria – Minister for Housing, Minister for Water, Minister for Equality) (15:15): Well, it has been a wideranging discussion here today. We have had contributions that have ranged from discussions around Middle Eastern food, succulent Chinese meals, access for people entering the property market to be able to enjoy a range of options as to how they cook and heat their houses and the work that we are doing as part of the Gas Substitution Roadmap and Australia’s most ambitious renewable energy targets. There is a lot in this to unpack.
I am looking forward to a committee stage which will enable us to have some further discussions about what this bill actually does. There appear to be a number of misapprehensions about the bill itself and the process which it enables rather than what is represented as foregone conclusions on the application of regulations down the track as they may be made. Again, this is an opportunity for us perhaps to correct the record for a number of those opposite who seem to be of an understanding which is not reflected in the law, in public statements, in consultation or in the engagement through opposition briefings and other materials that have been provided to date.
There are also a range of other matters around reshaping the building system, around the Victorian Building Authority and around the work for setting up processes and regulations for strengthening consumer protections and oversight of new builds. We will continue this work, and we will continue to do it in consultation and discussion with communities. Again, another misapprehension that we are seeing across the board is that where announcements are made they are presupposed or represented as foregone conclusions when in fact this is, as has occurred in recent announcements around activity centres, the start of discussions and consultations. Peering through a window does not actually support a conclusion that decisions have been taken, and it is unfortunate that we have seen the growth of an approach in fearmongering and in mis- and disinformation that has caused people to receive inaccurate information – information which is perhaps also going to adversely impact the decisions that people are making about matters essential to their own lives, whether that is buying a home, whether that is the location of their choosing, whether that is processes around building permits or whether that is the operation of the law across the state.
With that I would commend the bill to the house, noting of course that we do not support the amendments being proposed and that we are looking forward to a speedy passage following an opportunity to discuss the clauses further.
Council divided on motion:
Ayes (21): Ryan Batchelor, John Berger, Katherine Copsey, Enver Erdogan, Jacinta Ermacora, David Ettershank, Michael Galea, Shaun Leane, Sarah Mansfield, Tom McIntosh, Rachel Payne, Aiv Puglielli, Georgie Purcell, Samantha Ratnam, Harriet Shing, Ingrid Stitt, Jaclyn Symes, Lee Tarlamis, Sonja Terpstra, Gayle Tierney, Sheena Watt
Noes (16): Melina Bath, Jeff Bourman, Gaelle Broad, Georgie Crozier, David Davis, Moira Deeming, Renee Heath, Ann-Marie Hermans, David Limbrick, Wendy Lovell, Trung Luu, Bev McArthur, Joe McCracken, Evan Mulholland, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell, Richard Welch
Motion agreed to.
Read second time.
Referral to committee
David DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan) (15:24): I move:
That this house requires the Environment and Planning Committee to inquire into, consider and report, by 26 November 2024, on the Building Legislation Amendment and Other Matters Bill 2024 and examine the cost impacts of the bill on Victorian households and businesses, its impact on greenhouse gas emissions and its impact on the reliability and security of Victorian energy supplies.
This motion is a straightforward referral for a short sharp inquiry. This is a highly contentious point, and it is our view that hearings and a short inquiry, with a report to the Parliament, would be reasonable. It would not stop the bill passing this year. It would enable proper examination, and it would in that way flush out many of the unsatisfactory assurances we have heard from government.
Harriet SHING (Eastern Victoria – Minister for Housing, Minister for Water, Minister for Equality) (15:25): The government will not be supporting this proposal to refer the matter to a committee inquiry. Mr Davis refers to this as a short, sharp process which might enable the matter to be acquitted and brought before the Parliament again by the end of this year. The challenge that we have is that there is a pattern of proposed referrals that come from the opposition when in fact the purpose appears to be, if nothing else, an attempt to kick the can down the road.
The process which is facilitated by this bill is proposed to commence in December, and that would then enable a process of detailed consultation. This is not about foregone conclusions; it is to establish a basis upon which information can be sought and can be received about a range of scenarios, intentions, impacts and community views. On that basis, the government does not support the referral of this matter to a parliamentary committee.
Council divided on motion:
Ayes (16): Melina Bath, Jeff Bourman, Gaelle Broad, Georgie Crozier, David Davis, Moira Deeming, Renee Heath, Ann-Marie Hermans, David Limbrick, Wendy Lovell, Trung Luu, Bev McArthur, Joe McCracken, Evan Mulholland, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell, Richard Welch
Noes (21): Ryan Batchelor, John Berger, Katherine Copsey, Enver Erdogan, Jacinta Ermacora, David Ettershank, Michael Galea, Shaun Leane, Sarah Mansfield, Tom McIntosh, Rachel Payne, Aiv Puglielli, Georgie Purcell, Samantha Ratnam, Harriet Shing, Ingrid Stitt, Jaclyn Symes, Lee Tarlamis, Sonja Terpstra, Gayle Tierney, Sheena Watt
Motion negatived.
Committed.
Committee
Clause 1 (15:31)
David DAVIS: If it is convenient for the minister, we have a couple of sets of questions, if I can put it that way. They could be asked on clause 1, but we might also have some questions on clause 38. But other than that, it is relatively straightforward.
The first question is with respect to the government’s plans, the Gas Substitution Roadmap on gas and the government’s plan to unwind gas connection numbers: does the government have a set of estimates and some associated modelling as to how many connections will remain and over what period the government will reduce the number of gas connections? Further, what will be the requirements thereby for gas across the Victorian networks?
Harriet SHING: Mr Davis, there is a fair bit in what you have asked. Perhaps we might be able to get some detail for you on the relevant kind of cascading approaches that you have set out in that question and give that to you in the course of this discussion, noting your preliminary remarks about the interaction between clauses 1 and 38, if you are amenable to that.
David DAVIS: It would also be helpful to understand the government’s price estimates for gas and what that will mean for consumers. We have seen gas prices rise according to the St Vincent’s tariff tracker between 2022 and 2023 by 22 per cent, the biggest rise in Australia according to the St Vincent’s tracker material. It would help us if the government was able to give forecasts of gas prices going forward.
Harriet SHING: Modelling of future gas network availability and pricing is actually a highly uncertain process. A better approach is to develop a range of scenarios that could in fact occur – and I referred to this in my sum up – and then have a range of actions that should take place in each scenario. Again, I do not want to perhaps create an expectation that we can provide that detail because of the volatility of modelling, which is not unique to this particular scenario. But when we talk to the pricing and to the changes, and this was referred to in a number of the contributions made by members on their feet in the course of the second-reading debate, we are talking about the typical residential customer in Victoria now paying over $500 more for gas than they did two years ago. That is an increase, as you have heard, of more than 30 per cent. This is a consequence of geology, Mr Davis. We simply do not have the same new gas supplies available to us. You know, Mr Davis, from –
David DAVIS: I don’t think that’s right. You’ve chosen not to develop those.
Harriet SHING: Mr Davis, you know from time that we have spent in a previous parliamentary inquiry on the question of onshore unconventional gas extraction and fracking that there are a range of challenges around the processes to be undertaken, the impact, the lack of social licence and, overall, the quantum. The chief scientist – and I know that you have views about this – has been very clear about the fact that gas supplies here in Victoria are not of a scale that would mean that this proposal around ongoing gas availability is something that stacks up. Rather, it would be irresponsible of government to continue to assume the availability of a resource which, based on expert technical hydrogeological and engineering modelling, is simply not there.
David DAVIS: I can see that we are just going to have to agree to differ on a number of points. Yes, we did enjoy that very large inquiry that looked at unconventional gas approaches, but I am referring to onshore conventional gas and indeed conventional gas potentially available in the 3-mile zone, as seen in fact this week with the bill going through the Parliament. So it is not true to say that there is no conventional gas available.
Perhaps I will expedite things by way of a statement. We do not accept that the riding instructions for the chief scientist were suitable at the time, and we do not think that this actually got to the question of how much conventional gas is available in Victoria. I should record for the chamber that all of my discussions with industry suggest that there is significant conventional gas available onshore in Victoria. As I said, the bill that went through this week is a case study, although offshore in the 3-mile zone of Victoria’s responsibility, that conventional gas is able to be recovered relatively straightforwardly and added to our supplies. The truth of the matter is the government has not sought, encouraged, facilitated and fostered the addition to the gas supplies, but in any event it is also true that there will likely be import terminals. Port Kembla will almost certainly proceed, but it is likely ones here will too. There are, I think it is true to say, cost issues with import terminals, but leaving that aside, there will be additional gas supplies, and some of them in Victoria itself will add usefully to the grid. But probably this is not the time to engage in a long debate on this matter.
Harriet SHING: Mr Davis, as I know you are a fan of market-led economic movement I will perhaps put it in these terms: if we did have commercial quantities of gas that were not reliant upon government subsidy, we would have a far greater level of industry interest, engagement and activation than we have. The market is sending very strong signals to us that, notwithstanding the fact that there may well be gas – there is gas – it is simply not of a quantity to deliver a commercially viable enterprise.
Mr Davis, to take us back to that unconventional gas extraction inquiry, the minority report which I issued alongside my colleague Mr Leane actually began with a quote from Tony Wood of the Grattan Institute:
The question is not have we got gas, but, at what price?
The market is telling us, Mr Davis, that the cost of the gas, as you and I know from discussions that we have had around onshore gas, is simply not there in a way that creates the right circumstances for industry to set up, because it knows or has reached a conclusion that a long-term investment in the necessary infrastructure will not stack up.
Mr Davis, if in the alternative you are suggesting that there should be government subsidy for the delivery of gas in commercial quantities, then that is something perhaps that you might wish to flesh out a little more. But as a standalone private enterprise we are not seeing those market signals that indicate the level of interest which perhaps you might be representing here.
David DAVIS: I will make one further comment and just say that the reason there is no interest from the private sector is because it has had a clear and negative signal from government for a number of years, and the government has laid out the fact that it sees no future for gas. It has not facilitated. In fact it was not available to be done until 2021, but even beyond that the government has made it very clear it is not interested. Whatever the signals from the market, there is a regulatory and political hurdle when you talk to resources firms in this state. This is actually a broader thing than gas; I might even say Victoria is not a welcoming place for firms to do business. They have options, and they have choices around the world and around the country. Victoria has made itself very inhospitable for energy firms, and they say that quite openly. Whatever the market signals the minister refers to, there are government and regulatory signals which say, ‘Stop, wrong way, go back,’ and that is what they do.
Harriet SHING: If you are talking about signals and about creating market conditions, as you just have in relation to gas, what I would say in response to that is the level of interest around renewable energy from industry and from business is extraordinary. We are seeing record investment into renewables. That is being led by the signals, which we have talked about already, created by the market, by regulation, by ongoing investment and by the work around transition. When you talk about market interest, when you talk about appetite from within the market and industry and the representations that you have made around Victoria being a place to do business, I would suggest to you that you would be well served by talking with developers and with businesses that are associated with renewable energy, because they will tell you a very, very different story about the economic, financial and profit-driven principles that underscore their decisions to do business in Victoria.
David DAVIS: With vast subsidies.
Harriet SHING: Mr Davis, I will take you up on what you have just said: ‘With vast subsidies.’ If you are going to represent that it is subsidies that pave the way for the delivery of energy, then by extension you are saying that there should be subsidies made available for the delivery of gas. If the market is not telling us that gas is an attractive option here in Victoria for the delivery of this energy source into the network, then you are relying upon subsidy to create those conditions. It strikes me that we have a situation where your reasoning is applied to one scenario but not to another, and on that basis I will leave the rest to you as editorial.
David DAVIS: I do feel duty-bound at this point to say that there are vast subsidies for low-emission technologies. There is no question of that. They are very available to be seen if you go and read the papers of the national regulators. But leaving that aside, it is about the regulatory signals beyond that, and the resources sector is punished by this government, including the gas sector. It is not welcome in Victoria under this government, subsidy or otherwise.
Harriet SHING: I think we have probably reached the end, but we do have banter and a history of banter, Mr Davis. I would like to think that we can cover off some useful ground with this opportunity that we have to talk about the renewable energy road map, gas substitution and our work to transition from one form of energy to another.
Mr Davis, I think for you to create the narrative that you have almost infantilises the gas industry, and I would suggest that the sector is well equipped to advocate for the sort of investment that it is seeking, but it is not advocating for the investment. We are not seeing the market-driven interest that you are saying is the basis for your argument that the Gas Substitution Roadmap is built on faulty ground. The market is not telling us this because the market is not coming forward for the purpose of transition.
Mr Davis, you and I could spend at least 15 dinner parties on this conversation. We might be better served continuing to other parts of the bill.
David DAVIS: I will move on to the next part but note that under a different government the regulatory hurdles would not be so steep and the signals coming from government would be very different. Embracing an industry and encouraging it is not necessarily about subsidies. Sometimes it is about removing roadblocks, and that is what many would do.
I did want to ask the minister some questions here specifically about what will happen under this set of proposals. The government has some policy documents, as we have referred to: the Gas Substitution Roadmap, an Orwellian name for a document when it is actually about banning gas. But leaving that aside, my question is: can the Victorian government promise Victorian industry that it will not incur additional costs as a result of the decision to force homes off the gas network?
Harriet SHING: Mr Davis, this is about establishing a process for engagement and for consultation, and this was covered in the second-reading debate. It is really important that, in correcting mis- and disinformation, people are in a position to understand what it is that this legislation does. It creates the basis upon which a regulatory impact process can be undertaken. That is being undertaken not with foregone conclusions, because then it would not be genuine consultation. It is being undertaken under the overarching process of the Gas Substitution Roadmap, as part of navigating the path to net zero emissions. It is about those scenarios and the changes that are geared towards cutting energy bills and ensuring reliability.
There has been a wide range of discussion and consultation with major users, who support getting households off gas. We do see market demand for other sources of energy. Solar, for example, is the cheapest form of renewable energy, and in Victoria we know that there is enormous appetite in the domestic market for solar energy, including as that relates to ongoing challenges around connection and around access to electricity supplies in areas that might be impacted, for example, by storms.
Major users support us getting households off gas. We have got a really significant and careful dual-focus approach to reduce household demand on gas and to increase transitional supply, so we are really working very hard on reducing that demand in a way that benefits Victoria’s large gas users. But for you to suggest that this is about effecting a ban is not correct. We want Victorians to have their say on transition, and that is where the regulatory impact statement with options for electrification for Victorian buildings will be prepared for public consultation.
David DAVIS: With respect, the minister did not respond to the question that I asked, which was: can the government promise Victorian industry they will not incur additional costs as a result of the decision to force homes off the gas network? The minister tried to use different words than ‘force them off’, but she did concede that there would be less homes connected. As that occurs, will businesses pay more? That is the question I am asking.
Harriet SHING: Mr Davis, I will restate what I said in my closing and the sum up and also to an earlier question. This bill provides those regulation-making powers that enable regulations to be drafted for public consultation. This is about making sure that a regulatory impact statement is developed with options for electrification of Victorian buildings. It is also important to make it clear that no decision is being made on how we will phase out our reliance on gas. The mandate is there in terms of the Gas Substitution Roadmap and the work that we are doing, and we recognise that it is really important to provide adequate opportunities for industry and for the public to have their say on this process as part of the transition that will save Victorians thousands of dollars each year on energy bills.
Mr Davis, again, I just want to talk about the global impact of transition and electrification. I think HSBC produced a report that refers to around $3 trillion every year being spent on electrification. This is what is happening. We are seeing global market movements toward renewable energy at a scale and at a pace that is indicative of market appetite and the growing nature of interest in renewable energy industries.
We are about to commence a process, pending passage of this bill, that will enable us to investigate the ways that we can put downward pressure on prices, and because we will reduce demand we will also be in a position to support those large gas users who must use gas. There are a few elements to this, but it is very much about making sure that when we deliver those lower power bills and we take that action on climate change and we secure our energy future, we are doing so in a way that has enabled Victorians to have their say on this transition through the regulatory impact statement process and options from there.
David DAVIS: We had a long-winded way of the minister –
David DAVIS: Well, the minister did not actually give us any guarantee that the Victorian gas industry will not incur additional costs in this way. That is the first point I would make. I have a further question in this particular theme: has the government assessed the potential cost implications for different industries, including manufacturing, that rely on gas as a critical energy source?
Harriet SHING: Mr Davis, again I will come back to a point that I made earlier. This is a bill which creates, in this part of the bill, a process for the transition and a regulatory impact statement engagement that has the effect, as we talked about earlier, of reducing demand and therefore putting downward pressure on prices.
We are not banning gas for industrial users, nor does this bill effect any ban. We need to be clear about that. When we are talking about certain users – that is, high-heat users – gas is an important part of their functions, and those users need to be able to continue to utilise gas for an extended period. Not every part of the economy, Mr Davis, is going to electrify at the same pace or to the same scale. We want to make sure we are focused on getting households not only using less gas but also having access to other forms of energy that put downward pressure on household bills and improve reliability. If we think about gas-powered generation, for example, it would be ridiculous to tell those high gas users that they cannot use gas right now. What we are undertaking, however, Mr Davis, through this bill, is that regulatory impact statement process, which would be enabled by this bill to conduct that consultation and to enable those conversations to continue.
This is not, Mr Davis, an opportunity, I would hope, for you to misrepresent what I am saying as being about effecting a ban – it is not. Mr Davis, should you seek to misrepresent this, I will correct you, because this is purely a process to enable a regulatory impact statement with options for electrification to be developed and prepared for public consultation, and regulation-making powers that enable those draft exposure regulations to be published. This is about Victorians being in a position to have their say about energy transition. This is the process, Mr Davis.
David DAVIS: I just note that the minister did not answer the question of whether they had undertaken assessments of the potential cost implications for different industries. Now if they have, I am happy for her to come back and say they have, and I would be interested in the detail of those. If they have not, that is just a fact and we understand where we are. My further question is: what support mechanisms, if any, does the government plan to implement for industries that may face increased costs?
Harriet SHING: Mr Davis, the whole point of a consultation and an exposure draft of regulations is that you do not go into it with foregone conclusions. Again, for you to represent that the absence of foregone conclusions effects a ban is not accurate, and for you to do that misrepresents what this bill is doing. If this is how you might propose to conduct consultation, then that might be a reflection on your understanding of the term, but consultation and discussion, the work of regulatory impact statements and the process whereby those regulation-making powers are developed as draft exposure documents is about making sure that we have feedback and input from industry and from the community. I mean, we have also just funded $1.6 million, Mr Davis, to industry for feasibility studies to electrify.
They are two points that I would like to make, but for you to talk about an absence of pricing information giving rise to a conclusion that a ban will operate as a consequence of this bill is misleading, and I would absolutely refute it because, as I said, this bill is purely about developing a regulatory impact statement with options for electrification and then to enable draft exposure regulations to be published to have an opportunity for Victorians to have their say on transition. Again, we can spend all afternoon this, Mr Davis, but I would like to perhaps get into the bill as it actually applies and not perhaps as you may want it to apply.
David DAVIS: Just let us record that the minister did not answer about support mechanisms. Let me ask this further question: if costs do increase for some of these sectors, will the government offer compensation or financial relief to the affected sectors? It is a very legitimate question, Minister.
Harriet SHING: Mr Davis, I do not want to underestimate for a second the impact of transition on industry. Electrification is a significant challenge for industry – nobody is disagreeing with that proposition – but this bill does not go into that. Industrial facilities, Mr Davis, are carved out. This is a process of engagement with Victorians around the regulatory impact statement and options to be developed for electrification for public consultation.
David DAVIS: I will just record again that the minister has not fully or adequately answered this, but I do not want to take all day.
I will ask a further question on a slightly different topic: does the Victorian government stand by its cost for electrification modelling as illustrated in the SEC electric home planner given the real doubts that have been raised by industry, or by the sector, on these matters?
Harriet SHING: Which clause are you referring to?
David DAVIS: This is an overarching point in clause 1, in the objectives. The government has electrification modelling out there for an SEC electric home, which clearly is relevant to this bill in the sense that you are trying to move people from gas to electric.
Harriet SHING: Mr Davis, we stand by our modelling.
David DAVIS: How has the government accounted for potential increases in electricity demand and corresponding impacts on supply costs?
Harriet SHING: Well, Mr Davis, the gas industry has said that all new electric homes actually cost less to run than gas homes. That is information from the gas industry, Mr Davis.
David DAVIS: If you think of a street and you think of removing gas from some of those homes and an increase in electrical usage in that street – people moving their hot water or their heating or other appliances from gas to electricity – there will be an increase in electricity demand and a corresponding impact on the supply costs. Has that been examined and accounted for? When I look at the government’s modelling for the SEC electric planner material, there is nothing in there about the supply increases.
Harriet SHING: It has been accounted for, Mr Davis. On the earlier point around the cost of running an all-electric home being cheaper than a gas home, you may be well served to look at the Boston Consulting Group report.
David DAVIS: I’ve read that.
Harriet SHING: You have read it? Terrific. All right, so you will know the reference that I am talking about. Our maximum electricity demand capacity is 10 gig, Mr Davis, and in winter it is 8 gig. So electrifying Victoria’s gas load actually increases winter demand.
David DAVIS: In a particular street there will need to be increased capacity to get the electricity to the homes. What steps has the government taken to look at these supply costs?
Harriet SHING: Are you talking about three-phase power and that sort of thing?
David DAVIS: Could be three-phase, could be just increased capacity.
Harriet SHING: If I do this under the umbrella of a three-phase power situation, that might assist. We know that all-electric homes, including those with EVs, do not need upgrades to three-phase power. That is again something which has been put as a claim by the gas industry, and that is something which has had as a claim the effect of falsely overestimating the costs of getting off gas. Some Victorians, if they can afford it, may very well upgrade to three-phase power, and that is a matter that is entirely up to them and their choice. As you have often said, choice is important. But for a typical Victorian home it is not actually necessary, and we should be really clear about that if we are concerned about keeping costs low. We want to make sure that we can provide information which assists people to make good decisions but also to help them to understand what will not change and what will not be required as a consequence of a move to being an all-electric home.
David DAVIS: Again I am just going to, on some of these, agree to differ in the sense that the material I have seen does not support many of those points that the minister made.
I am not going to drag this out. I am going to ask another question: is there independent verification of the SEC electric home planner’s assumptions and conclusions, and if so, who has conducted it?
Harriet SHING: Mr Davis, again, this bill is about creating a framework for a regulatory impact statement. It is not about forgone conclusions, it is about the putting of a range of scenarios that can then be assessed by reference to how we can transition away from our reliance on gas. We can provide information as a consequence of legal process which you may wish to avail yourself of. You have done so in the past. We stand by our analysis of the founding principles of this process around the Gas Substitution Roadmap, and we will continue to do this work, which will be guided by, informed by and improved by that input that we will receive when Victorians have their say on the transition. But importantly, Mr Davis, no decision has been taken on how we will phase out our reliance on gas, so we need to provide really ample opportunity for industry and the public to have their say on this process, and that is exactly what this bill does.
David DAVIS: Again, I am not going to drag this out, but I take that to mean that there is no independent verification of the SEC electric home planner’s assumptions and conclusions.
I will just stop there and ask the next question: can the Victorian government guarantee that total emissions will decrease as a result of this policy?
Harriet SHING: That is our objective, and the objective is underpinned by the emissions targets that we have set – nation-leading emissions targets. They are the things that have underpinned all the work being undertaken by the Minister for Energy and Resources and Minister for Climate Action in the other place. We know a few things about transition and substitution as they relate to the process set out in this bill. We know, for example, that all electric homes reduce emissions from day one compared to dual-fuel homes. So, Mr Davis, we will continue with the work to apply an evidence-based approach to a reduction in emissions over time, which is consistent with the work set out in our energy and emissions reduction targets and in the policies for which we have a mandate.
David DAVIS: I thank the minister for her answer but note that she did not provide that guarantee. I will ask a further question on this: given that Victoria’s electricity grid currently relies on coal, what assurances does the government offer that electrification will not inadvertently increase coal use?
Harriet SHING: Mr Davis, we know that all-electric homes reduce emissions. We also know, Mr Davis, that the proportion of energy derived from coal-fired power across the grid – and it is a grid across the eastern states – is decreasing. We know also that the transition away from coal-fired power is complemented by a range of measures developed in and based in renewable energy. In an existing home, 22 per cent lower emissions than the equivalent dual-fuel home in 2025, for all-electric; and 37 per cent lower emissions than the equivalent dual-fuel home over 10 years, from 2025 to 2034. But, Mr Davis, this is not what the bill is about. The bill is about creating the framework by which a regulatory impact statement can be developed, by which consultation can occur, by which scenarios can be investigated and tested and by which draft regulations can then be informed.
David DAVIS: I thank the minister, but I notice that she did not provide that guarantee. Can the government guarantee that carbon dioxide emissions linked to coal will decrease, because last financial year emissions from brown coal fired power increased, not decreased?
Harriet SHING: Again, Mr Davis, I am really struggling with the question of how this is relevant to the bill. What I would say, though, is that when we are talking about coal-fired power generation and we are talking about emissions, it is the older coal-fired power stations which are significant contributors to emissions. The dirtiest coal-fired power stations in Australia are the oldest. A transition away from coal-fired power generation and the development of renewable energy and battery storage within coal-fired power environments such as the Latrobe Valley are about reducing emissions over time. We also know that this is something we need to continue to do in partnership with the industry, including as that industry embraces renewable energy.
David DAVIS: Again, we are not quite there, but how will the government ensure that increased electricity demand is met with renewable or low-emission technologies rather than fossil fuels?
Harriet SHING: Mr Davis, the answer to that question is set out in every policy framework, objective and underpinning basis for the targets, which Minister D’Ambrosio in the other place has gone to in extensive detail not just with the Victorian community and with industry but with other jurisdictions. This is about a mix of energy sources being able to meet demand, complementing that with storage and increased capacity, and then increased development of domestic supply and battery storage to ensure that homes can effectively look toward, if they so choose, being entirely reliant upon rooftop solar.
Mr Davis, I know from my own experience that installing rooftop solar and installing a battery puts me in a position to not just provide my household with energy certainty, particularly when that relates to storms and to power outages, but it is also able to deliver energy back into the grid. That is why Solar Victoria has been such a big part of the work that we are doing. The energy efficiency programs which have been about bringing down household costs whilst at the same time delivering healthier environments for households, whilst at the same time reducing the emissions produced as a consequence of fossil fuels, are having an impact. Mine is not the only household, this is happening across hundreds of thousands of households, and we are continuing to create the conditions whereby that is an option which people are overwhelmingly preferring.
You are in a position, Mr Davis, where the work that you are doing to block and to oppose transmission infrastructure to deliver these renewables might be seen as a greater fetter to the delivery of renewables than to any of the other matters that you have referred to. Again, that is possibly a reflection on you and on the process of questions here for the purposes of this bill.
David DAVIS: I can see that the minister does not really want to answer these questions and is going around the block on every occasion. Perhaps the minister might be able to provide some clarity to the chamber that Yallourn will close in 2028 and Loy Yang A by 2035.
Harriet SHING: This is completely irrelevant to the bill, Mr Davis – completely irrelevant.
David DAVIS: With respect, it is not, because if those power sources are our majority sources in those times and we have moved to an all-electric model and closed off our gas network, actually at that point we will be generating more carbon dioxide emissions, but I will let the minister’s answer stand.
Will the Victorian government admit that its gas policy over the past decade has actually added to the state’s supply crisis and that that has resulted in higher prices for households – families, that is – and industry?
Harriet SHING: Mr Davis, I am not going to entertain a narrative of and an afternoon of gotchas. We are going to continue with the work that we are doing to deliver on the most ambitious renewable energy targets, emissions reduction frameworks, support for renewable energy and support for the uptake of domestic consumption of renewable energy, including through rooftop PV. We are going to do that carefully, we are going to do it thoroughly and we are going to do it through processes like the regulatory impact statement and draft regulations development process which are foreshadowed and sought to be established in this bill.
David DAVIS: Returning to an earlier matter that I raised about the electricity into local grids and networks, what measures has the government taken to ensure that the electrical grid, particularly local grids, can handle the increased demand from households moving off gas?
Harriet SHING: When we talk about structural upgrades of electrification for homes and what the costs are of this, there will be costs associated with getting off gas. However, this is where the programs, initiatives, rebates and supports that we have in place are intended to reduce emissions, to reduce the requirement for electrical upgrades, because we are helping people to select the mode of delivery that is right for them, and to make sure that we have a framework that is easy for us to understand as consumers, as households, as tradespeople and as home owners and a regulatory perspective that is consistent. We want to make sure that Victorians have the opportunity to save money, because we are reducing the state’s dependence upon gas, which you acknowledge has gone up by about $500 for Victorian households.
David Davis: Because you haven’t got the supply for it.
Harriet SHING: Well, Mr Davis, you are talking about supply and demand, but supply is not able to be delivered when the gas is not there, and industry’s lack of appetite is telling us that the gas is not there in a way that makes it viable. If, for example, you are actually now saying that you back the initiatives around delivery of renewables, then I would welcome an opportunity to hear it here first. Rather than telling us, for example, why we cannot do this and why it should not happen and the things that you here say – that industry should be supported to continue with gas, including with subsidy, for example – we would like to be able to deliver this in a way that does not happen despite you but happens with you.
David DAVIS: I will just make the point that we will ask the questions. The opposition will ask the questions of the minister on the government’s bill, rather than the government suggesting what questions we might ask. If I can just continue on this point about local infrastructure, is there an estimated cost for infrastructure upgrades of local networks, and if so, what is that cost?
Harriet SHING: Mr Davis, the regulatory impact statement that is being proposed to be developed will consider the costs and benefits of requiring existing gas appliances in homes and relevant commercial buildings to be replaced with electric appliances when the current appliance reaches end of life, and today we are debating legislation to enable that consultation to occur.
Harriet SHING: If you had actually read the Gas Substitution Roadmap, Mr Davis, you would know all about this.
Harriet SHING: Feel free to quote from the Gas Substitution Roadmap then, which you have read. If you actually wanted to join with us in this work and to stop blocking, it would be really wonderful to welcome you on board this process for community engagement and discussion rather than presupposing an outcome, which again may be the way that you do consultation but which is not the way that it is being undertaken by this government.
Minister D’Ambrosio has been tireless in her advocacy and effort to do the hard work that will secure our energy future. Today’s bill is another example of that work, but today’s bill, for avoidance of any doubt, is about creating the process whereby that consultation can occur, and today’s bill is about making sure that we are providing the best possible options for transition to renewable energy.
David DAVIS: Again, I could press on these matters, but I do not think it will serve any useful purpose. In that circumstance I will just record that there is no serious information being provided on these local infrastructure upgrade costs – none at all. That is a concern, but let us move on.
I also ask: what safeguards will be in place to ensure that electrification will not lead to higher carbon emissions in regions outside of Victoria?
Harriet SHING: Mr Davis, I am not sure whether I heard you correctly or not. Did you say outside Victoria? So you are asking about what would happen in other jurisdictions?
David DAVIS: No. I am asking about the impact of what we do and what the impact would be in that respect.
Harriet SHING: Mr Davis, if I have understood you correctly, you are asking about other jurisdictions beyond Victoria as affected by Victorian legislation.
David DAVIS: Yes.
Harriet SHING: So that is a yes. The last time I looked, Mr Davis, you were a Victorian member of Parliament and I am too, and we are in the Victorian Parliament debating Victorian legislation.
David DAVIS: Indeed. In this context I ask: has the government considered the potential for increased electricity imports from coal-reliant states during peak demand? If you look at your NEM, you will see exactly – I will show you and you will see exactly what I am explaining.
Harriet SHING: Mr Davis, we could go around in circles around spot pricing and the way in which the grid operates. I do not need to see what you are showing me on your internet of things. Spot pricing and the work that the Australian Energy Market Operator has undertaken is a driving force behind Minister D’Ambrosio’s work on pursuing our targets, reducing our emissions and transitioning Victoria to renewable energy.
Mr Davis, I would like to talk about what this bill enables, which is a process for consultation around the development of a regulatory impact statement – a process which is intended to be guided by Victorian input. So if you are suggesting to me that we should be using a process established under Victorian law to hear what it is that someone in Queensland has to say, then I think that that is possibly something that ignores the application of this law to the state that you were elected to represent.
David DAVIS: Let me ask in another way. Noting that carbon dioxide emissions are a national and international challenge – it is not just here – what collaboration exists with other states to coordinate renewables use and manage cross-border emissions impacts, if any?
Harriet SHING: Well, it is a national energy grid, Mr Davis. There is ongoing work that the Minister for Energy and Resources and Minister for Climate Action does all the time. That is the portfolio. Mr Davis, that has nothing to do with this bill.
David DAVIS: I will ask a further question in this pattern. How will the government respond if it becomes evident that electrification is leading to carbon leakage into other states?
Harriet SHING: Mr Davis, again, if you are talking about impact on other states and you are not interested in proceeding with a consultation process with Victorians about a regulatory impact statement process and a range of scenarios as that will relate to Victoria, then that is revelatory because, again, you are here to represent Victorians. You are here to make sure that communities are engaged in the processes that are of relevance to them – in this instance the transition away from coal-fired power fossil fuel to renewable energy as part of our targets, our goals and our objectives and the mandate for those things. It would be great to have you on board, Mr Davis. This might be something that you are assisted by in formulating a cross-party position on, because what we are doing is working. Minister D’Ambrosio has put in years of effort to lead the way for a transition to renewable energy. This is part of that work. This bill enables that work to continue.
David DAVIS: Let me be clear. Again, I am not going to press on. I could continue with many questions in this vein, but if the end result of forced gas network closures and forced removal from the gas network is that more electricity is sourced interstate from coal-fired sources, that will not achieve the objectives that are being discussed and the objectives that the government, and the chamber understands that the government, might want to achieve. But it is legitimate to ask questions about whether the government has considered unintended consequences of some of its actions here. I will leave it with that at this point and allow others to respond with questions.
Harriet SHING: This is a process of consultation, Mr Davis. This is not about foregone conclusions, it is about how we might transition under the mandate that we have, the targets that we have set and the goals that are clearly understood as part of leading Australia to a renewable energy future. We are going to continue that work, and the consultation process is about understanding a range of impacts. That is why it is called a regulatory impact statement, Mr Davis. We will go on with that work, and this planning bill – it is a planning bill – will be part of that work and part of the planning for engagement and consultation in good faith with Victorians.
David DAVIS: I will desist, but I will just ask one further question. Will the so-called consultation process contain examination of these potential unintended consequences?
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Minister? No?
Sarah MANSFIELD: I just have a few questions on clause 1. These new powers are a necessary tool to phase out gas, but the Premier a few weeks ago promised not to use them on gas cooktops. I am just wondering if you can provide some context for making that announcement.
Harriet SHING: This is about providing people with more time. The process which has been proposed to be established is about making sure that we can understand what impact looks like, and the information that we have is that cooking accounts for only about 1 per cent of Victoria’s gas usage. It will not make any difference to emissions, particularly where there is work happening to further reduce emissions through other means. We want to see that there are those incentives to reduce overall gas usage, for example, where a space heater is replaced, because that is a far more gas-intensive, gas-hungry appliance. A hot-water unit is another example. Even where you might have an electric fan within that or an ignition within that, they are still really, really energy intensive because they heat up all the water whether it is used or not, and that happens time and time again.
Sarah MANSFIELD: I certainly understand that cooktops are not necessarily the most substantial contributor to our emissions, but they have other impacts like impacts on health. The childhood asthma risk in particular is well documented. It also means that households may still need to maintain a gas connection for one appliance – a missed opportunity, but I will move on. How exactly do these regulatory powers to ban new gas connections differ to the existing ban on new gas connections to buildings requiring planning permits? There is an existing ban on new connections to buildings requiring planning permits. How do these regulatory powers differ?
Harriet SHING: This is about two different provisions. The existing regulations are in the planning provisions and these are in the Building Act 1993, so there are two processes involved in that. Both of them sit under the Minister for Planning’s remit, and also there is a distinction. Not all development requires a planning permit. That is where the building planning permit distinction has come in, and this is about providing some clarity in that space.
Sarah MANSFIELD: It has been almost a year since Victoria introduced that ban on new gas connections that we were just referring to. What impact has this had on gas levels, and how has the building industry responded to this reform?
Harriet SHING: The building industry does support this work. The Property Council of Australia has backed it. We have got a boom in all-electric developments. Where we do provide those incentives for people, for example, to move into induction cooking, that is something which is helping to prompt that change. We want to make sure we are creating the conditions for households, including through subsidy, to make that move and to do so with the time that they need to be able to adjust to it.
David DAVIS: I move:
1. Clause 1, page 3, line 17, after “appliances” insert “except for gas cook tops, gas cookers or other gas cooking appliances”.
This is an objectives clause amendment, and I intend to move this now but also to further test the matters around clause 11 later.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: This amendment does test all your other amendments, Mr Davis, but you are still entitled to move them.
Harriet SHING: We do not support this amendment. The purpose of this legislation, as I have taken you through, Mr Davis, is to have a conversation with Victorians through a consultation process about the future of gas use in the state. That is what we are doing. The Premier and the energy minister have been really clear around what we are doing and what this round of reforms will do, to go to Dr Mansfield’s questions earlier. We will also be making sure that we continue to implement our policies in a way that stays resolute to our commitments – the commitments which have been endorsed by Victorians – as our transition to renewable energy continues.
David DAVIS: Just to fully explain for the benefit of government members in particular, this amendment 1 that is being tested here says:
Clause 1, page 3, line 17, after “appliances” insert “except for gas cook tops, gas cookers or other gas cooking appliances”.
The government sets up a broad regulatory head of power in clause 38 and the objectives that match it in the front of the bill. The broad regulatory head of power enables them to do anything at all in Victoria with reticulated gas – absolutely anything they want – in an established property, in a new property. Reticulated gas – knock your socks off: ‘We can pass any regulation we like whatsoever.’ It is an extraordinary, a draconian and an undemocratic power. It is extreme. If the government wanted to use a modest step, it could do that, and this softens it in line with the government’s own statements. The minister, the Premier and the planning minister have said that gas cookers and gas appliances will not be banned. They have said that. So our amendment is faithful to the government’s published and stated announcements.
If the government is serious about protecting gas appliances, it will vote for our amendment. I understand the Greens will not vote for it because they have a different view. That is fair enough. But the government’s own stated view is: ‘We will not ban gas cooktops and appliances.’ That is what they have said. Well, we have put it into words to test their bona fides on it, because I think the government speaks with a forked tongue on this. I do not think they are being honest. I think they want to ban gas cooktops and gas appliances. I think they want to ban the choices of people – that is what they want to do. The Greens think that is a good idea, and that is their policy principle. We have a different view. The government is in an entirely different position. They are untruthful and sneaky and not to be trusted on this. That is my view, and the Greens might even agree with me on this. If they are true to their word that they are not going to ban gas appliances and cookers, let them vote for it. If they are not true to that, we will see, and we will know that what they are doing is deceitful.
Council divided on amendment:
Ayes (15): Melina Bath, Gaelle Broad, Georgie Crozier, David Davis, Moira Deeming, Renee Heath, Ann-Marie Hermans, David Limbrick, Wendy Lovell, Trung Luu, Bev McArthur, Joe McCracken, Evan Mulholland, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell, Richard Welch
Noes (21): Ryan Batchelor, John Berger, Katherine Copsey, Enver Erdogan, Jacinta Ermacora, David Ettershank, Michael Galea, Shaun Leane, Sarah Mansfield, Tom McIntosh, Rachel Payne, Aiv Puglielli, Georgie Purcell, Samantha Ratnam, Harriet Shing, Ingrid Stitt, Jaclyn Symes, Lee Tarlamis, Sonja Terpstra, Gayle Tierney, Sheena Watt
Amendment negatived.
Sarah MANSFIELD: I move:
1. Clause 1, page 3, line 17, after “appliances” insert “or prohibiting the installation or building of solid fuel burning appliances”.
I explained during my second-reading contribution why these amendments are a sensible idea and the background to solid fuel burning appliances. They contribute to emissions and have significant health impacts. I will not repeat the statistics and those reasons, but I do feel I need to explain this amendment and correct some misinformation that was promulgated by Mr Galea earlier, which is a bit disappointing because it suggests that this amendment was not fully read or understood. It is also particularly ironic given that Labor MPs have just spent the best part of this day criticising the opposition for spreading exactly the same type of misinformation about this bill, so I will explain it.
Our amendments perform exactly the same function as this legislation does for gas. They just add solid fuel burning appliances like wood heaters. This is enabling legislation that would allow regulations to be made. In and of itself our amendments do not ban anything. Our amendments do not ban a single thing. They would enable regulations to be made so that, for example, if you were building a new estate on a greenfield site, those houses maybe could not have an indoor wood heater. You could maybe have that as a regulation. You could potentially ban the highest emitting types of wood heaters being installed in new buildings. That is the sort of thing that this legislation would enable. It would enable regulations to be made. It does not ban anyone with a current wood heater from using it. It does not impact anyone’s energy security. It does not prevent people from having an outdoor fire pit or anything else. I just wanted to make that really clear.
Bev McArthur: What about a smoking ceremony?
Sarah MANSFIELD: That is disgraceful. The amendments do not do anything the government of the day does not want to do. All this does is create the ability for the government to regulate solid fuel burning appliances just as they are seeking to do for gas appliances. It is the same concept. We think this is a really sensible amendment. It is surprising that the government has not thought of it itself, but we really encourage the government to consider accepting this amendment. Solid fuel burning appliances contribute to emissions. They have health impacts just as gas appliances can. This is really just an identical function applied to another type of appliance that we think should be potentially phased out, but in and of itself it does not do anything. It just allows for regulations to be made.
Harriet SHING: This amendment is not enforceable or implementable as far as the process goes that you have outlined, for the very fact that it does not involve plumbing. Plumbing is the nexus here for gas and the Gas Substitution Roadmap. That is what has underpinned the work here, and solid fuel burning or woodfired heaters, which are the subject of your amendment, are not covered by the contemplation of the bill because they do not have that plumbing interface, so the government will not be supporting this amendment.
Sarah MANSFIELD: It is my understanding that plumbers are often involved in installing flues, for example, for wood-burning appliances. I understand that the government will not be supporting this amendment. I just thought I would point out that it does relate to plumbing.
David LIMBRICK: The Libertarian Party do not seek to limit the uses of renewable energy, including wood.
David DAVIS: The Liberals and the Nationals will oppose this amendment. We understand the Greens bring this in good faith, and we understand their ideological position on this, but I also pick up Mr Limbrick’s point. Wood is a renewable source of energy. This seems to me a bridge too far.
Council divided on amendment:
Ayes (6): Katherine Copsey, David Ettershank, Sarah Mansfield, Rachel Payne, Aiv Puglielli, Samantha Ratnam
Noes (30): Ryan Batchelor, Melina Bath, John Berger, Gaelle Broad, Georgie Crozier, David Davis, Moira Deeming, Enver Erdogan, Jacinta Ermacora, Michael Galea, Renee Heath, Ann-Marie Hermans, Shaun Leane, David Limbrick, Wendy Lovell, Trung Luu, Bev McArthur, Joe McCracken, Tom McIntosh, Evan Mulholland, Georgie Purcell, Harriet Shing, Ingrid Stitt, Jaclyn Symes, Lee Tarlamis, Sonja Terpstra, Gayle Tierney, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell, Sheena Watt, Richard Welch
Amendment negatived.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: That tested all of the Greens amendments. Mr Davis’s amendments have been tested, but he does still intend to move his amendments to clause 38.
David DAVIS: I ask the minister: will she confirm that when the matters around this bill came to cabinet, cabinet was not informed about the gas-specific clauses?
Harriet SHING: Mr Davis, it will not surprise you to hear today, not for the first time, that I do not intend to talk about cabinet matters. That is something that, no matter how much you try to cajole a response from me, you are not going to get.
Clause agreed to; clauses 2 to 37 agreed to.
Clause 38 (16:54)
David DAVIS: I move:
2. Clause 38, line 24, before “prohibiting” insert “except for connecting reticulated gas for the purposes of a gas cook top, gas cooker or other gas cooking appliance,”.
3. Clause 38, line 31, before “prohibiting” insert “except for the installation or replacement of a reticulated gas appliance or class of reticulated gas appliance that is a gas cook top, gas cooker or other gas cooking appliance or class of gas cook top, gas cooker or other gas cooking appliance,”.
Clause 38 is a very broad clause. It gives huge powers, as I have said, to regulate anything around reticulated gas. Again, this implements the Premier’s statement that gas cookers and appliances will be protected. If the Labor Party members agree with the Premier, they should vote with this clause, which will entrench the protections she says will apply. If you do not vote with this, it will indicate that your intention is not to support the protection of gas appliances.
Harriet SHING: Mr Davis, that is a spectacular example on a Thursday afternoon of specious reasoning. We will not, as you well understand from our discussion of these matters on clause 1, be agreeing to your amendments.
Council divided on amendments:
Ayes (15): Melina Bath, Gaelle Broad, Georgie Crozier, David Davis, Moira Deeming, Renee Heath, Ann-Marie Hermans, David Limbrick, Wendy Lovell, Trung Luu, Bev McArthur, Joe McCracken, Evan Mulholland, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell, Richard Welch
Noes (21): Ryan Batchelor, John Berger, Katherine Copsey, Enver Erdogan, Jacinta Ermacora, David Ettershank, Michael Galea, Shaun Leane, Sarah Mansfield, Tom McIntosh, Rachel Payne, Aiv Puglielli, Georgie Purcell, Samantha Ratnam, Harriet Shing, Ingrid Stitt, Jaclyn Symes, Lee Tarlamis, Sonja Terpstra, Gayle Tierney, Sheena Watt
Amendments negatived.
David DAVIS: Clause 38 establishes regulations. It is a very broad head of power. It says:
prohibiting a person from connecting reticulated gas, or extending the capacity of an existing reticulated gas connection, to an existing building or a building under construction or to a building in a class of existing building or a class of building under construction;
It says further:
prohibiting a person from carrying out plumbing work in connection with installing or replacing a reticulated gas appliance or a reticulated gas appliance in a class of reticulated gas appliance in an existing building or a building under construction …
As you can see, this is a very, very broad clause. This gives a huge head of power to the minister. I have little trust that the regulatory impact statement process will fairly or reasonably ensure that industries are not overrun with this and that the choices of households both who wish to construct and who wish to do something to an established premises will be protected, and for that reason we will vote against this clause. We think it is excessively wide.
Harriet SHING: Thanks, Mr Davis, for that. If you have little faith or trust in a regulatory impact statement process which is facilitated by passage of this bill, then you may wish yourself to get involved. In addition to that, going back to the points about the market and market signals, just for avoidance of any doubt, Mr Davis, last year gas demand from households fell by 13 per cent, so we are actually seeing significant change. It is about providing people with the opportunity to be part of the work that we are doing and the work that we will continue with our mandate to do from here.
Council divided on clause:
Ayes (21): Ryan Batchelor, John Berger, Katherine Copsey, Enver Erdogan, Jacinta Ermacora, David Ettershank, Michael Galea, Shaun Leane, Sarah Mansfield, Tom McIntosh, Rachel Payne, Aiv Puglielli, Georgie Purcell, Samantha Ratnam, Harriet Shing, Ingrid Stitt, Jaclyn Symes, Lee Tarlamis, Sonja Terpstra, Gayle Tierney, Sheena Watt
Noes (16): Melina Bath, Jeff Bourman, Gaelle Broad, Georgie Crozier, David Davis, Moira Deeming, Renee Heath, Ann-Marie Hermans, David Limbrick, Wendy Lovell, Trung Luu, Bev McArthur, Joe McCracken, Evan Mulholland, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell, Richard Welch
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 39 to 63 agreed to.
Reported to house without amendment.
That the report be now adopted.
Motion agreed to.
Report adopted.
Third reading
That the bill be now read a third time and do pass.
I want to thank all of the advisers and staff who have contributed to providing advice, information, consultation and engagement on this process.
Council divided on motion:
Ayes (21): Ryan Batchelor, John Berger, Katherine Copsey, Enver Erdogan, Jacinta Ermacora, David Ettershank, Michael Galea, Shaun Leane, Sarah Mansfield, Tom McIntosh, Rachel Payne, Aiv Puglielli, Georgie Purcell, Samantha Ratnam, Harriet Shing, Ingrid Stitt, Jaclyn Symes, Lee Tarlamis, Sonja Terpstra, Gayle Tierney, Sheena Watt
Noes (16): Melina Bath, Jeff Bourman, Gaelle Broad, Georgie Crozier, David Davis, Moira Deeming, Renee Heath, Ann-Marie Hermans, David Limbrick, Wendy Lovell, Trung Luu, Bev McArthur, Joe McCracken, Evan Mulholland, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell, Richard Welch
Motion agreed to.
Read third time.
The PRESIDENT: Pursuant to standing order 14.28, a message will be sent to the Assembly informing them that the bill has been agreed to without amendment.