Wednesday, 5 March 2025

Motions

Building electrification

Richard WELCH (North-Eastern Metropolitan) (15:53): I move:

That this house notes that:

(1) the Victorian government’s building electrification regulatory impact statement (RIS), if implemented, will have a significant effect on households and businesses;

(2) submissions to the:

(a) building electrification RIS closed on 28 February 2025;

(b) minimum standards for rental properties and rooming houses regulatory impact statement closed on 1 July 2024;

(3) submissions to both paragraph (2)(a) and (b) have not been made public;

(4) the Deloitte modelling which informed and guided the building electrification RIS has not been released publicly, in particular assumptions underlying the modelling;

(5) the Energy Networks Australia submission that has been released lists as its key findings:

(a) Victorians will pay an additional $22 billion over the next 20 years;

(b) no real emissions reduction, as any savings are largely wiped out in the first five years, with minimal long-term impact;

(c) inadequate supply of renewables and storage, and increased demand will push up prices, especially during peak periods when gas traditionally provides reliability;

(d) families will be forced to transition off gas, regardless of their financial situation or market conditions;

(6) a proper and open RIS process would see the release of the submissions and modelling to enable the contest of proposals, ideas and assumptions underlying the submissions to the building electrification RIS;

(7) Infrastructure Victoria’s planning document, including associated appendices, was released on 4 March 2025; and calls on the government to conduct an open and transparent RIS process on its electrification plans which would see a release, at the earliest possible time, of the items outlined in paragraphs (3) and (4).

I rise to speak on this motion. In the best style of Mr Davis, I will say that this is a very simple motion, a very simple and a very reasonable motion that I ask the house to consider. It is a motion that talks to transparency and it talks to enabling the community to make sensible decisions on an informed basis. This is a government with a track record of deciding what it wants and then pretending to consult the community or the industry, gaming the system through information flow where it releases information in salami slices or breaks up the information between different departments so that no-one can get a true universal picture of what the information is, let alone marshal it to understand it properly. We have seen that particularly with the Suburban Rail Loop and the activity centres. They do it by dividing responsibilities so no one person is the voice of the project or the policy, so therefore you cannot get the whole piece. If you ask one group, they will say, ‘That’s not my responsibility. That’s someone else’s responsibility.’ And if you ask them, a little bit of that will be over there as well.

The other one which came up the other day is the sham consultancy, where they will create a website and ask for opinions. I reckon those opinions all get gathered in through the internet, through the website, and go to the bottom drawer. That is where they go. Everything in Labor goes to the bottom drawer if they do not want to have to deal with it. Community consulting is a sham. They then also use taxpayer money to promote their ideas, and we particularly see this with the Suburban Rail Loop – using taxpayer money for advertising on consultancy to buy favour. Then we see the sponsoring of organisations and the requiring of them to have non-disclosure agreements in there.

We also see the now-infamous NDAs. I think if we had a dollar for every NDA this government has forced on the community, we would probably be able to pay our way out of debt – out of $180 billion of debt. There are NDAs on councils, there are NDAs on clubs, there are NDAs on individuals ad nauseum. What this all amounts to and how this is relevant to the motion is that it erodes trust. The community basically does not trust this government. There would be a time when people give governments a benefit of doubt that they are doing the right thing and trying to, but it is a tired government. You have broken too many promises. You have been too economic with the truth too often. Whether it is on rail extensions that you promised or on the Commonwealth Games or on the Maroondah Hospital or on fixing roads or indeed on duck hunting or anything like that, it is economic with the truth, and that erodes trust. Therefore quite naturally when the government comes out and says it is going to do XYZ, people say, ‘Well, actually, we’d like to scrutinise that a little bit closer. We’d like to have a little look at how you reached that decision, because we’re going to see how reliable your policy is – whether your policy will survive or whether it will implode.’

Tom McIntosh: On a point of order, Acting President, I understand – I do this a little bit humbly – that he has stood up and taken one for the team, but he has not actually mentioned anything to do with the motion at this point and we are 4½ minutes in. We are talking about electrification, and relevance to the to the motion would be great.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Gaelle Broad): Mr Welch, as lead speaker you have some lenience with the motion.

Richard WELCH: Thank you, Mr McIntosh, for that guidance. It is relevant to the bill because of why the motion exists in the first place. In the first place it is because we do not trust you. We do not trust you, and in fact the community do not trust you. They do not trust you on electricity, they do not trust you on the transition, and therefore quite reasonably and quite sensibly they would like to know whether this transition and whether these things are built on stone or built on sand. The deep suspicion of the community is it is built on sand, like so many other things that the government does. That is why the motion is being called for.

The things they want to know – it comes from a different perspective, but if you are a business, of course the one thing business needs is certainty. It needs to know, if it is going to invest in Victoria, what the costs are going to be. Is it an environment that they can securely risk their capital in? At the moment they cannot trust the government on that. If you are a manufacturer of course equally it is the same story – you cannot trust. If you do not know what the energy policy is going to be, you do not know how the transition is being managed and you do not trust how the transition is being managed, you are not going to invest either. The doubts around at straitened times, the costs around the transition itself, the estimations under some modelling that it is going to be $22 billion over the next 20 years – well, we would certainly like to understand that a bit closer, and I would like to understand what modelling the government has done around that, because we are a heavily indebted state, indebted to the point of unsustainability. If we are further burdening the state with debt, we would like to know how, when, why and the extent of that and what the ramifications and opportunity costs are of that debt.

Naturally enough the community wants to understand the cost of living, because we heard last year and recently that if we force electrification upon the community the transition from gas in households is not cheap; some put it at around up to $27,000 per household, and you have to just wonder where the government thinks people are going to get that money from. Where do you get $27,000 if you have to rip out your gas cooker and your central heating because you are being forced to under these policies? So, naturally the community are desperate to know why we are doing that, and if you are running a restaurant or have any other reliance on gas, why are we doing this? Why are we being forced down this route with very little opportunity to understand the whys, wherefores, and what the other costs are. So we of course would like to see the modelling released.

We will be paying $22 billion over the next 20 years. It does not offer any real emissions reduction. If there is inadequate supply of renewables and storage, increased demand will push up prices, and families will be forced to transition off gas regardless of their financial situation or market conditions. These are things that are worthy of scrutiny. Earlier, even today, we saw the government spend a good hour complaining about changes to sessional orders and for an hour and a half how that would stop them from doing their jobs because they cannot ask the right questions and they cannot do things. I looked; their pupils were dilated, and they were sweating with their best impressions of sincerity, reading out speeches written by somebody else for them. Yet 5 minutes later, here we are with them saying, ‘Well, no, you’re not entitled to know these things. We’ll keep these things close to our chest, probably in our bottom drawer.’ Because when it comes to the community or anyone outside the government having knowledge and being able to scrutinise the government or actually have genuine input into the narrative, the government does not want to know anything about that, because the way this government operates, as I said at the top, is they control the narrative, they control consultation, they do salami cutting of information and as a result we are all the poorer for it.

The motion says, quite sensibly, let us release the information and let us release the modelling that the government relied on for it. The regulatory impact statement is pretty sensible stuff. I think I will conclude my admirable 9.5-minute contribution – I think that is a fine effort – and hand over to my colleagues.

Jacinta ERMACORA (Western Victoria) (16:03): So I speak on Mr Davis’s motion –

Richard Welch: No, it is my motion.

Jacinta ERMACORA: yes, sure – and I really do feel like we are being taken back to the past again. It is really quite a sentimental day when it comes to those opposite, I think. The past, where fossil fuel gas reserves were conveniently cheaper and abundant; the past, where climate change was not an issue; and back when coalmines were not at the end of their productive lives are simply no longer the case. Gas in 2025 is a finite resource in this state, and the reality is that Victoria’s supplies are depleting rapidly, and if we do not act there will not be enough. Any responsible government has to take account of that, because the first thing that a community will do is ask the government: what have you done? That is what I say to those opposite: what have you done? They have done nothing but block and say no and dismiss the reality of fossil fuel shortages, the end of life of coal energy production and climate change. The credibility in this space is so low.

In contrast, on our side there has been an enormous amount of work in this space. As always, less supply versus a growing demand will ultimately lead to higher prices for Victorian families, not to mention that gas use contributes to around 16 per cent of Victoria’s emissions, and we also have climate change targets that we are committed to. This really is a global effort. We are not the only ones doing this.

In fact Victoria, because of its geological nature, did rely on coal and gas historically. It was there, proximate to us and affordable at the time – not any longer. Electrification offers a dual advantage. It lowers harmful emissions and it saves money, and if I could turn it into a triple advantage, it is actually healthier – not just healthier for the climate but healthier for households. We now know that gas is not that good to have floating around your house, so there are benefits there as well.

What this position reminds me of is the tobacco industry, who, like these lobbyists for fossil fuels, have used all these strategies to try and stay alive, to continue to make money out of their companies, knowing full well that tobacco and cigarette smoking are not healthy. We all know that gas is not healthy for our climate and it is not healthy in our households, and of course it is becoming less and less affordable, or more and more expensive, every year.

This transition is inevitable. It is going to happen. The coal-fired power plants are closing down. They are scheduled to close; they are at their end of life. Their owners are making their own decisions – business decisions, market-based decisions – about whether or not they should invest in a brand-new coal-fired energy production plant, and the business case says no. They are not doing that. Irrespective of government policy, it is end of life for this fossil fuel energy production, from a climate perspective and a market perspective.

The difference here is that this Labor government is not going to leave consumers – gas consumers, energy consumers, residents of Victoria and businesses – in the lurch as the transition occurs. We intend to support the transition as it goes – the inevitable transition. We are going to protect not just vulnerable consumers, who do not want to be ripped off, but also businesses who need to remain connected to gas, and that is the role of government in this space. And you can see all of the policy settings that we have in place, such as the reformation of the SEC – again, a government-owned entity who will be retailing and owning renewable energy production.

Then of course you have got our subsidies for solar panels and batteries – and you only need to look at Victorian rooftops. Victorian communities have voted with their rooftops. We have some of the highest take-up of solar energy in the world. And some people argue, ‘Oh, it’s a bit cold down here. We can’t do it down here. That’s why we have got gas.’ That is not true. There is so much successful solar energy. Victorians are already saving millions of dollars in total off their energy bills by government-subsidised investments in solar panels on their rooftops. Now we see batteries coming along, and if you want to buy from the grid, it is cheaper to buy renewable energy from the grid. I do not know really where this data and this modelling is coming from. As I said, it is like the tobacco industry trying to hold on to the last vestiges of cigarette smoking for consumers.

Our Minister for Energy and Resources, Lily D’Ambrosio, is guiding a massive transformation of this state. What would happen if we did not have Lily D’Ambrosio guiding the energy transition in this state? We would have those opposite just letting it go to the marketplace, and what would happen if the marketplace controlled the energy transition? Prices would go up. Some areas would literally lose supply because there is no money in providing every single area with a supply of energy. This is an important role that any government should play to make sure there is energy equality – access to an affordable, essential service. We all need to be able to cook, we all need to be able to use hot water, we all need to be able to cool our homes and we all need to be able to heat our homes. These are unquestionably essential services that our community expects us to navigate. As a state we have been through the trouble of privatisation of our energy grid, the consequent rises in prices from privately owned energy companies and the lack of accountability. Talk about a lack of accountability – people were really left in the lurch in terms of their energy prices.

So I feel very, very proud that we have got a strategy in place and that it is so clearly and confidently guided by Lily D’Ambrosio and supported by my colleague Ms Watt here too. They are guiding this state through the rough waters of the transition and where those waters are rough, smooth the policy to give certainty to private investors and government. What we need is energy policy certainty for this state, and we are providing that.

Sarah MANSFIELD (Western Victoria) (16:13): At the outset I just want to flag that, perhaps unsurprisingly, the Greens will not be supporting the motion before us today. I will keep my comments relatively brief –

Harriet Shing: You must have common ground somewhere.

Sarah MANSFIELD: No. Unfortunately the motion we are debating here is one where I think the coalition are showing us some of their true colours. They go into bat for their fossil fuel industry mates, even if it means the wholesale destruction of our one and only planet.

In actual fact Victorians want to phase out dangerous, expensive fossil fuels. Victorians know gas is bad for our environment, our wallets and our health. We are in a climate crisis and that means we need to get off fossil fuels as fast as humanly possible. Do not listen to the gas lobby spin the coalition is going to be churning out. Whether they want to call it ‘renewable gas’ or ‘low-carbon gas’ or ‘magic gas’, the amount of methane we burn in a year equates to about 15 megatons of carbon dioxide – about 18 per cent of our state’s greenhouse gas emissions. And that is only if you do not count the gas we are exporting up north or leaking from a network built several decades ago.

There is simply no comparing the cost of renewable electricity as opposed to fossil gas in Victoria, the latter of which is skyrocketing thanks to the combined impacts of diminishing wells, Australia’s unlimited offshore exports and an economic system that means Russia’s war on Ukraine forces Australians to pay more for gas drilled in Australia. The only reason the Liberals, Nationals and Gina Rineharts of the world will tell you it is cheap is because it is a finite resource the fossil fuel cartels can make billions in profit from, while solar and wind are not. This regulatory impact statement is welcome, but it does not go far enough. Labor still want to exempt existing commercial buildings and not even include gas cooktops – a depressing sign that they too succumb to fossil fuel lobbying.

An ABC report last week noted an organisation called InfluenceMap, which found that the global gas lobby has tailored pro-gas messages for different contexts, including here in Victoria, especially fearmongering about household costs. We know many Victorians are struggling with the cost of living imposed on them by profit-seeking corporations. In late 2024 the Climate Council found that two in three families have cut back on heating and cooling their homes. Meanwhile, energy companies are raking it in. The Australia Institute found that $755 of an average AGL customer’s yearly energy bill goes directly to company profit. The gas industry death spiral means that as more affluent people disconnect from gas to save themselves money, gas companies will raise their prices for those customers who are left, meaning that households who are already struggling the most with the cost of living will be the ones who end up paying the most because they have been left behind. Why is the government allowing the fossil fuel lobby to dictate outdated and expensive policy in Victoria when we could be saving money for households by getting them fully off gas?

In 2023 the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis calculated that an average household would save about $1200 each year if it replaced gas appliances with efficient electrical alternatives at the end of their lives. Helping households get off gas entirely would be a much more effective and long-term cost-of-living measure than the government’s previous $250 power saving bonus, which effectively served as a subsidy to private power companies. Of the four electrification options identified by the government in their public engagement survey, we urge them to choose option 2 – ‘electrification of all new and existing residential buildings and all new and existing commercial buildings, excluding existing commercial kitchens’ – and to go further by including all gas cooktops. In short, we cannot delay the rollout of electrification if we are going to have any chance of mitigating the worst impacts of global warming, so the Greens cannot support the motion before us today.

David DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan) (16:17): I am pleased to rise and talk to this motion directly, and I am going to step through the clauses. Despite what Dr Mansfield had to say today, she may not disagree with everything I am going to say. It is a fact that the Victorian government’s building electrification regulatory impact statement, if implemented, will have a significant impact and effect on households and businesses – there is no question of that. There is no question that even if you are the most stringent person wanting the fastest transition, the transition process still needs to be transparent and still needs to reduce the impact on households and families to the greatest extent possible.

The second point I make here is submissions to the building electrification RIS, the regulatory impact statement, closed last Friday.

Sheena Watt interjected.

David DAVIS: Yes, that is right. They closed.

Members interjecting.

David DAVIS: I am just saying that is a fact. The minimum standards for rental properties and rooming houses closed on 1 July. People may not understand that a number of the key points in the rental proposals have now been kicked into this larger set of proposals at (2)(a) of the motion. A key point here is submissions in relation to both (2)(a) and (2)(b) have not been made public.

Sheena Watt interjected.

David DAVIS: They should be just put up as time goes by, as they are submitted. Some of the submitters have made their own submissions public, and I will quote one of them a bit later, but the government to date has not released these and they ought to. If you are a strong believer in fast action in this area, you would want to see this information made public so that the people can actually see it, so industries and others can contest points, so those who are going to be impacted are able to be assisted and those who are going to be unfairly impacted can be even more greatly assisted. You would not be wanting to actually make this secret. You would not be wanting to hold this stuff internally. That is where the government is at the moment. They have not released all of the information on the rental RIS that I have referred to here, and that is a pointer. They have not released these submissions as they have come forward into the main regulatory impact statement.

Further, the Deloitte modelling – the building electrification RIS has deep in it a whole set of presumptions that have been made by the Deloitte consulting group. I have nothing against the Deloitte consulting group. I think they are generally quite a professional group, and I make that point quite clearly. But the government and Deloitte will not release the underpinnings, the modelling and the assumptions that have been made by Deloitte. How can anyone – a business, for example, or an industry group or those in a different area – actually examine this properly if the modelling and assumptions are not in the public domain? This is meant to be a public process, a regulatory impact statement.

The bill has gone through the Parliament – and I pick up a point made by Dr Mansfield before about cooking. When confronted with a vote on cooking, the government members took the power to ban cooking. This is cooktops. They took that power even though the Premier said, ‘We’re not going to do cookers. We’re not going to ban reinstatement of cookers.’ That is what the Premier and others said. However, when confronted with a vote in this chamber to protect cooktops and the choice of families, including migrant families, on cooktops, the government voted that amendment down. You can work out what the government’s intention is here. They hate gas, they want to ban gas and they are going for bans of every type. Banning is what they are wanting to do. It is a gas ban.

The Deloitte modelling is not public, and it should be public. That is the point I make in point 4 in this motion. How can it be that you have got a supposedly open process where you can contest and argue about points if the modelling is not made public? The government has refused FOIs on this and it is now deep into the VCAT process, but none of that will be quick enough to help people see what assumptions and presumptions the government and Deloitte have made in this RIS.

Richard Welch: What’s there to fear?

David DAVIS: What is there to fear? If you have got nothing to hide there, you should have nothing to fear in releasing that material. If you have got something to hide as a government, if the impact is greater than you are saying – many industry groups have told me that the modelling makes it more glossy on the upside – then when it comes to the negatives they minimise those. I think that is what is going on. I think this is not a truthful RIS. I think it is a flawed RIS.

Ms Watt, you are shaking your head, but actually you should support transparency here. I have listened to your views on these sorts of topics, these sorts of energy issues, before in the chamber. If you support a faster transition, which I think you do, then you should support honesty, openness and transparency on this. You should not support secret modelling. You should not support the closure of these RIS documents so that people cannot see them and challenge them.

A member interjected.

David DAVIS: I am hoping that that is not what she supports.

I want to make another point here. At point 7, Infrastructure Victoria released its documents yesterday, its 30-year plan – they are very important documents – and the associated appendices. I think it is instructive reading, and I draw the chamber’s attention to this. This is the Aurora document. This is deep in the appendices. Squirrelled away deep at the back of the appendixes is this Aurora material from November 2024, the energy transition analysis. If you read this, this is chilling – if you read page 18 and you look at the eight scenarios that have been examined by the Labor government. This is November last year that this work was done. The Allan Labor government’s eight scenarios all show that the energy costs move from 2025 at around 50 megawatts per hour electricity up to 2030 – this is the government’s own document released yesterday. You can go online and look at it. Look for the Aurora modelling. You will see that it ranges between about $120 and $140 per megawatt hour in 2030. That is a 120 to 140 per cent increase in the wholesale cost of electricity. This does not include additional costs for transmission and all of those key points, but it does have the very large increases in energy costs that are going to hit households and businesses. If you read further, at page 29 for those who are interested to go and follow my references up, they say on the closure of coal plants:

The closure of coal plants in Victoria, beginning with Yallourn, is expected to significantly increase prices due to a reduced supply of reliable electricity –

That is what the government’s own document says, Ms Watt –

forcing a greater reliance on more expensive generation sources; this is exacerbated by the market’s increased volatility …

It goes on to talk about fluctuations and weather and so forth. But that chart on page 29 is instructive reading. We are going to see a massive increase in costs. We have got a war on gas going on now. The government wants to ban gas. They want to stop gas being used. Gas has got an important role in delivering peaking electricity. In the recent Griffith study –

Tom McIntosh: You’re a genius, Mr Davis.

David DAVIS: Well, you should go and read this study, if you would like to.

Tom McIntosh: Have you read it?

David DAVIS: I have read it, and I can provide it to you later if you would like.

Tom McIntosh: Have you read a page, or have you read the whole thing, Mr Davis?

David DAVIS: I actually enjoyed it; it was very interesting. The Griffith study made it clear that moving to an electrification agenda will actually increase the demand for gas, because you will need peaking power at the times when the electricity supply is lower. Actually, there is a perverse set of points there, and I think they are very important.

The essence of this motion, though, is calling on the government to conduct an open and transparent RIS process on its electrification plans, and that would see it release those items (3) and (4), which are the submissions to the RIS process and the Deloitte modelling and its underpinnings. I do not think that that is too much to ask. We know from what Energy Networks Australia have told us that we will pay an extra $22 billion over the next 20 years. That has not been put up on the government website; that has been left off the government website. It is only because Energy Networks Australia released it themselves, and they say the emissions reductions are illusory as well.

Sheena WATT (Northern Metropolitan) (16:28): I am sure Mr Davis would have more to contribute. Had he been in the chamber for his slot, he would have been able to fully take advantage of all the remarks that I assume he had prepared.

I just want to draw the chamber’s attention to some notices of motion that have been moved by me and sit on the notice paper which do in fact speak to electrification and all our efforts to reduce electricity bills, including notice of motion 806, which talks about us having the lowest wholesale energy prices in the country, and notice of motion 822, which also talks about all of our efforts to support those vulnerable energy consumers. I include the notice of motion moved today, which also speaks to that. But I am not going to go into that, because I know that what you really want to hear is the position of the government on the notice of motion brought forward by Mr Davis and spoken about so passionately by Mr Welch earlier.

It will be no secret that the government and I strongly oppose the motion. It is not only misleading, but it really, to my mind, seeks to obstruct a necessary and well-considered transition towards a sustainable and of course, I have got to tell you, affordable energy future for all Victorians. The building electrification regulatory impact statement (RIS) is part of our broader commitment to ensuring that households and businesses can benefit from the economic and environmental advantages of electrification. The transition is not about making life harder for Victorians but about securing a better future – one that is cleaner, one that is more cost effective and one that is less reliant on fossil fuels. Let me be clear, because I think it has been lost on those opposite: gas reserves in Victoria are depleting. This is not a matter of ideology but a reality that we must confront.

Who is telling us this? That would be the scientists and those folks that are out there looking for it, and they are telling us it is absolutely depleting. The cost of gas will continue to rise as reserves diminish. Make no mistake, this will put undue financial strain on families and businesses that absolutely rely on it. Doing nothing is not an option, and nor should it ever be considered an option, because pretending that delaying the transition will somehow make the problem disappear is a deep fantasy. We must act decisively and responsibly. That is why the Allan Labor government is working to ensure an orderly transition, one that prioritises affordability, reliability and sustainability and supports households in switching to electricity. We are actively reducing the cost of that transition while ensuring that our industry sector that needs the gas supply, and we do acknowledge that, does not go short.

This motion argues that the RIS process has lacked transparency, and that was additionally supported in the remarks by Mr Davis. Let me set the record straight. We have followed standard procedure in managing regulatory impact statement submissions. They closed recently. Yes, that was on Friday, and as I understand it, because some folks have reached out to me, they are still very keen to make a submission. It is fantastic and exciting that this is being taken up with so much gusto right across the state, and as with every RIS process, they will be made public in due course. It has only been three business days. ‘Hold your horses,’ I say to those opposite. The suggestion that we are in fact hiding it is simply false. The motion that speaks to Deloitte modelling is before VCAT. I am not going to make any comments on that; it is before VCAT. Frankly, I do not have anything to say. I am not going to be the one fronting up to VCAT, so I will leave it with them.

But I will go to the remarks made about Energy Networks Australia and the report released by them that alleges that Victorians will pay an additional $22 billion over the next 20 years. I have got to tell you, to my mind, this is a deeply flawed analysis from an organisation that has vested interests in maintaining gas consumption in our state. There are independent reports from organisations that are considered incredibly credible, such as Monash University and the CSIRO and the Grattan Institute, for example, and even Energy Consumers Australia, that tell us a very different story, one that shows time and time again that electrification will save householders thousands of dollars in the long run. In fact it is saving some in the short run, let me tell you. I have met those folks recently.

It is not just a policy choice to electrify your home and electrify the state, is also an economic win, one that has been enjoyed by many thousands of Victorians right across the state. Let me tell you, there is research that goes to that. Independent research has demonstrated that moving away from gas in your home will save you money on your household energy bills. There is the fact that a new all-electric home can save you 1800 bucks per year if solar is installed. In fact an existing all-electric home with solar can save just over 2000 bucks a year, which I know makes a great difference. And I have got to tell you, it is tough, and I do acknowledge that, to find the time and effort to find somebody out there that can install it. But do you know what, the SEC is working with consumers to make that possible. We know that switching to energy-efficient electric heating and cooling can save you over 1000 bucks a year. Upgrading to electric energy-efficient heat pumps – they are very popular right across the state for your hot water – can reduce your bills by $300 per year. There are real tangible savings everyone is taking advantage of.

In fact last week I had the good fortune to meet an aged pensioner with the wonderful member for Broadmeadows Kathleen Matthews-Ward. She and I popped in to see the solar panels that had been installed, the induction cooktop that was happening and out the back the heat pump. I have got to tell you, that home owner was absolutely pumped about it. He spoke about all the differences in his bills and all the savings he was reaping, and he was loving it. In fact he was putting that money towards getting his grannies on a good holiday coming up in wintertime. I have got to tell you he was very, very excited indeed.

I want to know why those opposite are standing in the way of Victorians enjoying these benefits, because so many of them are. In fact supported by the Victorian energy upgrades program, there are significant discounts on energy-efficient electric appliances, helping households save thousands of dollars. The Solar Homes program – I have spoken about it many, many times before – has helped over 300,000 Victorians to install solar panels. Everywhere in the state they are taking up the good fortune of the Solar Homes program to install solar panels, batteries and electric hot-water systems. I have got to tell you, we know that committing to a fair, affordable and reasonable transition is absolutely good for everyone. The scaremongering that is happening from those opposite, I have got to tell you, is only delaying progress, and it harms those wanting to benefit from cheaper and cleaner energy.

I also want to go into the credibility of the Energy Networks Australia report that was spoken about so enthusiastically by Mr Davis. Unlike the rigorous independent studies from those organisations I mentioned, like the CSIRO and the university there, the analysis by Energy Networks Australia fails to account for the long-term downward trend in electricity costs as more and more Victorians take on renewable energy. There is an assumption there of flat gas prices, ignoring the inevitable supply shortages and what they will do for prices – they will drive them higher, make no doubt about it. This report misrepresents the electricity market trends to artificially inflate the cost of electrification. There are flaws and flaws and flaws in this report. I am happy to call them out, and I know that others on this side will be too. These are fundamental and they undermine the work being done. The reality is that staying on gas will only become more expensive while electrification offers very real long-term financial relief, enjoyed by pensioners in Broady and right across the state.

I have got to tell you, you have got to look at history. It is clear who has been fighting for lower energy prices and who has been working against them. I will give you a hint: they are right over the other side of the chamber. Whilst the previous Liberal government refused to invest in renewable energy and did everything possible to hinder progress, it is no surprise that those of us on this side are very proud to stand up for policies that lower bills and reduce emissions for each and every Victorian. We have delivered projects, including 4.5 gigawatts of new renewable capacity. There are nine projects under construction. There are households right across the state taking advantage to get off costly gas dependence. This motion is not about transparency, it is not about affordability, it is about fearmongering and delaying real action that is in the best interests of Victorians. Our plan for electrification is responsible, it is fair and it economically benefits the back pockets of Victorians. It will cut energy costs for families. It will reduce reliance on expensive gas and position Victoria as a leader in sustainable energy. I urge my colleagues to reject this motion and stand in support of a smarter, more affordable and more sustainable future for all Victorians.

Bev McARTHUR (Western Victoria) (16:38): I rise to support Mr Davis’s motion. This is again about transparency. You people are running a secret state here. For goodness sake, give us the information. What are you trying to hide? All we are asking for is the work you have done to come to the conclusion that everybody has got to shift over from gas. We need a cocktail of energy.

Harriet Shing interjected.

Bev McARTHUR: The minister needs a cocktail. Help her out, Mr McIntosh, will you? I just happened to look at where the energy is being supplied from at the moment. Have you got your PocketNEM app, Mr McIntosh? It will tell you that at the moment Victoria’s energy generation is coming from brown coal. The vast majority is coming from brown coal. It is not coming from renewables. You have got an ideological objection to gas, to coal, to nuclear. You want Victorians to pay more for electricity. There is no doubt we are going to be paying more, because this Infrastructure Victoria energy transition analysis report does show us that at the moment we are being charged $50 per megawatt hour, and that will move up to $120 to $140 per megawatt hour in 2030. That is not reducing the cost of energy, that is increasing the cost of energy. But you also seem to have an objection to Victorians being able to choose how they might like to heat or cool their homes or how they might like to cook their food. Why are you such scrooges on that side of the fence? You do not like choice. Let Victorians choose whether they want gas or electricity. What is so hard about that? Really, what is so hard about being able to choose whether you want gas or electricity?

What is more, you are moving into the commercial sector as well. I do not know whether you know, because most of you do not really move outside the tram tracks, but out there in the real world, out there in the country, we need gas. You cannot process the milk and you cannot process the milk powder without electricity. You cannot kiln-dry timber. You have done away with native hardwood forests. We have to kiln-dry timber, and you need gas for that. There are a lot of commercial industries that you are now forcing to move over to electricity.

Sheena Watt: We’re not forcing them.

Bev McARTHUR: You are. There are commercial enterprises that are having to replace their existing gas boilers or whatever and they are being forced, at huge expense, to move to electricity. It is just unsustainable.

But apart from that, to get this vast amount of renewable energy that you need, you need vast tracts of transmission lines criss-crossing this country like a spider web, ruining pristine farmland and environmental areas, charging through biolinks and wrecking the environment. We just talked, in Dr Mansfield’s motion, about what you are doing to the environment to ensure that you will have all this renewable energy. You have got to transmit it somehow, and that is your problem. Last year, in 2024, you were meant to have completed the Western Renewables Link transmission line. There is not a spade in the ground. You cannot connect all this renewable energy because it is just unsustainable to be charging through farmland and environmental areas with transmission lines 88 metres high, as high as the MCG lights. They are an obscene obstruction, but apart from that they are wrecking the environment and they are wrecking farming opportunities.

We are calling on the government to conduct an open and transparent regulatory impact statement process on its electrification plans which would see a release, at the earliest possible time, of the items outlined in paragraphs (3) and (4), which are to do with the submissions to both the things that you have not made public, including the Deloitte modelling which informed and guided the building electrification RIS. It has not been released. Why can’t you release these things? What is the problem? Why are you trying to be secretive here in this place? We need the information so we can properly decide whether your whole electrification operation is legitimate. It is clearly not. At the moment you are saying that somebody has just got new rooftop solar panels. Well, did you tell them that they are not actually going to be able to get a cent out of them if they put any power back into the grid? At the moment you cannot get any rebates out of your solar panels on your roof. Did you also tell them that they are going to have to clean them every few years or else they will not be viable? Have you told them that? We do not want people going up on their roofs. Your pensioner friend will be falling off –

Members interjecting.

Bev McARTHUR: Well, were you suggesting that the lovely pensioner lady that Ms Watt met is going up on the roof to clean the solar panel?

Tom McIntosh: Do you service your car?

Bev McARTHUR: I am sure she does not. I certainly do not service my own car. So that is another huge expense for people.

You said it was chilling. We will all be frozen here or we will be overheated, because not everybody can afford to totally transition their whole house to electricity. I had a case out in the electorate where they were building a new house. It was only a two-bedroom, modest house out in a country town, but it was going to cost an extra $100,000 to upgrade the power into the Powercor transformer to actually become an all-electric household. And that was without being able to plug the Tesla in. It is extremely expensive to get enough power to build the house, Minister. You cannot –

Harriet Shing: Hang on, you love Elon.

Bev McARTHUR: I love air conditioning, but you cannot –

Harriet Shing: You love Elon Musk.

Bev McARTHUR: Excuse me, what has Elon got to do with solar panels?

Harriet Shing: The Tesla.

Bev McARTHUR: A Tesla – the problem is you cannot afford to charge a Tesla out in the country if you have got to spend $100,000 to upgrade the power to your house – that is what it costs to increase the energy supply into a house to make it all electric. That is before you buy the all-electric imported appliances. We had an industry in this state which produced gas appliances. They are probably all going out of business because you have basically killed them off, but we need to have a mixture. We need to have gas, we need to have renewables, and down the track we certainly should lift the moratorium – well, you have lifted the moratorium; no, you have not. You need to lift the moratorium on nuclear energy so that we can all investigate whether that is feasible as well.

Tom McIntosh: Investigate, right.

Bev McARTHUR: Yes. Why wouldn’t you do that? Let us have a mixture. Let us have a cocktail of energy so we can make sure we have got baseload power when we need it. I have still got farmers using diesel generators because there is not enough power to run the rotary dairy, the milling of the gain and everything else. This is a very sensible motion for you to release the information but also to have a proper process so we can all investigate how good your policy is.

Tom McINTOSH (Eastern Victoria) (16:47): I rise to speak against this motion. I am really glad that the gallery is full, because this is an incredibly important conversation. We are talking about two things that are important to us as a state, as a nation and indeed as an entire world: we are talking about energy, which is so important to be able to power our businesses and to be able to power our homes, and we need affordable energy, but what we also need to do is ensure that each and every one of us is not being impacted by climate change. There has been a lot of talk about farmers – farmers and their crops get smashed by climate change. Residents’ homes get smashed by climate change, and what that does is cause an increase in our insurance bills. Last year there was a 16 per cent increase in our insurance bills.

We see coastal erosion, we see floods. We see these events as increases in temperature – it is pretty simple science that I think it was identified, I do not know, 150 to 200 years ago, the impacts of carbon being trapped in the atmosphere and the increase in temperature. That is seeing more and more erratic weather events. We have seen it with wind storms. We have seen it in Eastern Victoria. In the electorate that I represent we have seen wind storms, we have seen erosion, we have seen so much just in the last 12 months. If we look at Australia and the world more broadly, it is happening more and more. Let us be very clear that there are two things we need to do: we need to provide that energy, as we said, with reliability and affordability, but we also need to decarbonise our economy.

Victoria has traditionally had a very heavily carbon intensive economy. Tasmania has hydro, you know, and others around the world, Canada and other places, have used that technology; we have used coal. I am really proud to be part of a government, a Labor government, that has prioritised reducing our emissions, and the first cab off the rank is to reduce our emissions in energy. It does not mean that is the only thing we have got to deal with. We have to deal with transport emissions. We have got to look at agriculture. We have got to look at sequestration – keeping carbon in place. There are a variety of things we need to do if we are going to keep global temperatures down. And those global temperatures – I do not know if the opposition have even mentioned the words ‘climate change’ – are already 1.5 degrees above the pre-industrial levels of 150, 160 years ago. I talked about the impacts that has.

We know that we need to reduce the carbon going into our atmosphere, and to do that, a sustained plan has been made in renewables. Mr Welch in his contribution talked about how business needs certainty, business needs certainty. What did not give business certainty was when the Liberals and Nationals were in government federally having something like 16 to 20 different energy policies. Seriously, it was almost to the point where the energy minister would be walking out and the media adviser would give them the release for the day and that is what their energy policy was. We need clear, consistent energy policies, and I am proud that the government has done that. In doing so, you give certainty to investment. It is really interesting, the full circle that goes on in the political spectrum.

I do not want to talk too much about nuclear. However, we should, because as an alternative government, their answer to energy is a nuclear reactor. There are a lot of problems with nuclear: one, where is the investment going to come from? The lovers of the free market cannot find anyone in the free market who wants to invest in it. The technology is not here. We know there are so many problems. Where is the water going to come from? The cost is astronomical, all of these sorts of things. But the other major problem is it will see a gap in supply. We just simply are not going to have a nuclear reactor up and running when we do not have the expertise, when we do not have anyone who wants to invest in it, when we do not have consensus within this country about going forward with that technology. When you talk about business certainty, Labor, business and indeed voters have a very clear policy – it is that we will invest through renewables to provide electricity.

People often come up to me and say, ‘Oh, yeah, but we cannot do it, we cannot do it. It is all a fairytale or a fantasy.’ I say, ‘How much do you think our renewable supply currently is?’ ‘Oh, 5 per cent.’ No. Forty per cent of our power is coming from renewables, and by 2035, it will be 95 per cent. Mr Davis stands over there saying, ‘Oh, yeah, but what about peaking gas?’ Yes, we understand there is a role for peaking gas, Mr Davis. And Mrs McArthur stands over there saying, ‘Oh, what about gas?’ There is a dwindling supply of gas, Mrs McArthur. We need to face up to realities that these are not –

Bev McArthur: No, you have got it wrong. There is plenty of gas.

Tom McINTOSH: Unless the sun is going to implode, we have an endless supply of solar, and we have wind moving around the globe on a pretty consistent basis. Mrs McArthur talked about ideological opposition. When you look at a form of technology that has no cost inputs to generate electricity, when you look at a form of generation that gives owners independence to generate, consume and store their own electricity, that is a wonderful thing, and that is why in Victoria, through Solar Homes Victoria, we have two gigawatts of solar on Victorians’ roofs, because Victorians have said ‘Yes, we want to be able to generate our own power.’ Mrs McArthur and those opposite might like people to be trapped in and only have one way to go, and that is to buy it all in, but Victorians are more and more taking the opportunity to generate and consume their own electricity.

On the energy efficiency side, we have seen the energy efficiency measures, which dropped consumption within this state, which saves people money. We have seen PV, we are seeing hot water, we are seeing electrification of transport. It is technology. The technology is moving out and it is better. For us to stand in the way of technology that is cleaner and more cost-effective, just does not make any sense to me. We hear Mr Davis and Mrs McArthur scaremongering people, absolutely fearmongering, and they do not bring a plan. We have these debates probably every second week, and I almost plead with Mr Davis as the shadow energy spokesperson, who was not even here to start this debate – he has had a pretty bad few weeks since he became leader of the opposition, when you take in this morning and now not being here – where are the policies? What do you want to put forward?

Because the only conclusion you can draw if we are going to have 20 years without any new energy generation coming on board and you are not going to build a new coal plant – where is the energy going to come from? You are going to have to frack. To get the gas, you are going to have to rip up farms. Rather than seeing the opportunity for diversity of income, you would rather see fracking going into waterways, ripping gas out of farmers’ lands. I think you need to come clean with landholders about where you going to get your energy from. Come clean about where you are going to get your energy from. It is either going to be nuclear, which we know is too expensive and will not happen, or it is going to be gas, which is going to come from fracking.

While you have got your fearmongering, while you have got effectively no values in this area and no interest in the policy, which is why we have this sort of chaotic semblance of policies that roll out one after another every six to 12 months, I am proud to be in a party that has a clear vision, both state and federal. It sees affordable and reliable energy for all Victorians, and indeed all Australians, while at the same time decarbonising our economy and giving us energy security. I for one, Mrs McArthur, do not want to be reliant on other countries regarding the energy needs of our state. I want the jobs to be here, I want the income and the profits to stay here, and I want the energy reliability to be right here. So whenever a Victorian turns on a light or a business is using power, they know that it is generated here, the workforce is here and the profits are here, and whatever may come in the decades to come, when they need that power that power will flow from right here in Victoria.

Trung LUU (Western Metropolitan) (16:57): I rise today to speak on Mr Davis’s motion 858 noting that the Victorian government’s building electrification regulatory impact statement, if implemented, will have significant effects on households and businesses. I will go further. Since coming to this place I have witnessed the Andrews and Allan Labor governments’ complete failure to understand the issues Victorians are facing right now with secrecy and lack of transparency. As my colleagues and Mr Davis mentioned earlier, if you have such strong support for electrification, what have you got to hide?

The modelling and the submissions to the regulatory impact statement process have yet to be released to the public. In the middle of a cost-of-living crisis the Allan Labor government has been tinkering at the edges of so-called cost-of-living relief while at the same time promoting the crisis by forcing Victorians to rely solely on electrical appliances in their houses. This Allan Labor government wants every appliance in your home to be powered by electricity. Think of that. In the middle of a cost-of-living crisis, at a time when the state is not ready to have the storage capacity or fully provide renewable energy to our residents, they want every appliance in households to be electrified.

We are a nation blessed with an abundance of natural resources and yet our energy costs are one of the biggest concerns raised by our constituents. They are genuinely concerned about how this plan will work, not because our gas resources are exhausted but because of persistent radical and illogical policies and legislation. It has been said before, and I say it again: forcing households to electrify their appliances at the end of the cycle of an appliance will drive up the cost of electricity for all Victorians, forcing them to pay more at a time they can least afford it. Electrifying a household costs money – money that households simply cannot afford – and those in my constituency in the outer west are bearing the brunt of it. Especially in a state like Victoria, which has the highest reliance on gas for heating homes, more than any other state or territory, how can this government think that a policy like this will work for Victorians at this stage in time? In the near future or in the distant future, we can consider it, but not at this very moment. To rely on utilising only electrical appliances might be fine for the member for Mill Park, Minister D’Ambrosio in the other place, but it is not fine for the people in the suburbs in my electorate of Western Metropolitan Region, who I represent and who are struggling to pay their gas bills and their power bills every month. Whether it is in Werribee, Williamstown, Footscray or Point Cook, the cost of living is a massive issue. I speak to my constituents regularly about energy costs. They want cheap, reliable, efficient energy sources.

Throwing all natural resources, like gas, out the window is a recklessly short-sighted policy. This crazy decision by the Allan Labor government will also strain an already stretched energy grid and will fail to deliver the emissions reductions this government thinks it will. As Mr Davis has already eloquently detailed, the recent findings of the 2025 report Victoria’s Power Shift: The Hidden Cost of Forced Electrification in Victoria show dire consequences, but it is necessary to repeat it to reinforce it to those opposite, who have failed to understand what would happen if this policy were implemented. Firstly, as I already said, it would drive up costs for all Victorians – $22 billion in extra costs imposed on every Victorian over the next two decades, to be precise. Your power bills will increase every year for the next 20 years under this Labor policy to phase out gas before households have the renewable energy or storage capacity that can be relied on. This is going to create a massive spike in wholesale electricity prices, and every Victorian will pay the price. Just imagine your power bill every year for the next 20 years and seeing your amount increase again and again. No doubt those opposite are trying to bandage the problem with gimmicks, power relief bonuses and now this one bill, but it will not cut down the costs over a length of time. This is the legacy of those opposite for future generations.

How can Victorians pay for higher energy bills? Some of them will tell you that they will not be able to at all. The Allan Labor government love to gaslight Victorians with their plan to reduce emissions. The irony of this gaslighting is that the policy does not exactly do that. They are gaslighting Victorians into thinking they are doing something about reducing emissions when in fact they are doing exactly the opposite. The policy of forcing consumers to electrify their households could only have the opposite effect. This is a really concerning policy and will lead to increasing emissions by relying on high-emission backups during peak periods – for heating during the winter months, especially during peak periods, like the early mornings or those cold evenings. The problem with the government’s plan is it will increase pressure on an already strained energy system that we have further stretched due to an inadequate supply of renewable energy and storage capacity.

This side of the chamber is supportive of giving Victorians a say in what appliances they use in their households. We support choice. We support bringing down the cost of your energy bills. We a support voluntary approach to electrification. We do not oppose it. We support a voluntary approach of letting households transition on their own terms if they wish to do so or when they can afford to do it. This policy by the government is yet another example of Victorians having their choices and freedom stripped away by an ideological left-wing government. I thank Mr Davis for bringing this motion about. It is an important motion to place for debate, and I stand with him and my colleagues supporting this motion. I sincerely hope the government revisits this policy before it is too late, because it is about transparency and choice. When you are doing a transition from gas to electricity, make sure it is open and transparent for everybody to see, for the public to see. If you strongly support it, make it available for the public.

Ryan BATCHELOR (Southern Metropolitan) (17:05): I am pleased to rise and speak on the motion in Mr Davis’s name, moved by Mr Welch, about electrification.

David Davis interjected.

Ryan BATCHELOR: He did an admirable job given he was left in the lurch by his leader with no notes. Substantively, rather than being distracted by a discussion of what happened when the motion was moved earlier, I want to get into a brief contribution today about the substance of the issues that are before us and the contrast that exists between the approach that the government is taking, which is about setting this state and Victorians up for the future, and an opposition that is living in the past.

We know Victoria has had cheap and plentiful supplies of gas that were easy to access and exploit. On the back of that supply Victorians, and particularly Victorian households, were better supplied with gas than many of our interstate counterparts. But the thing about gas is that it is a finite resource. Once the gas fields that have helped warm the homes of our state are exhausted, they will not replenish. I know some people criticise this statement, but fossil fuels do not just regenerate. They are not renewable, unlike other sources of electricity that we might suggest would be a better part of our future energy mix.

You have got a choice between thinking that we can just live in the past or actually confronting the challenges that exist today and planning for the future, and that is the contrast that exists in this debate. The crux of Mr Davis’s motion today is it seeks to entrench the Liberal Party in the past. If we do not act with the sort of electrification agenda that Minister Lily D’Ambrosio has been determinedly pursuing for this state, there is not going to be enough gas to go around. If we do not move those who can move from gas to electricity in their homes or indeed in their businesses, then gas prices, due to lower supply, will keep rising and rising, putting increasing pressure on households as bills rise. What we have got to do is bring on, where we can, new transitional gas supply and storage as the first thing – we are working on that – and secondly help those Victorians who can get off gas to do so so there is more gas for those who cannot. What that transition will do is lower power bills for Victorians and set them up for a renewable future, and that is the heart of what we are trying to achieve with this policy.

Briefly, before I conclude my remarks – we have had a long day of contributions – I just want to pass on a story of a couple of constituents of mine who have been on this electrification journey and reflect on their experience of the benefits. They are an elderly couple – I will not go into just how old, but an elderly, retiree couple living in Hampton – Pat and Bob, who Minister D’Ambrosio and I visited last year in July to see how their electrification journey was going and the support they were receiving from the Victorian government through Victorian energy upgrades program. A couple of years ago Pat and Bob shifted from their old gas cooktop to an induction stove.

Sheena Watt: Great choice.

Ryan BATCHELOR: They loved it. This time, when their gas boiler for their heating broke, what did they decide to do? They decided to install a heat pump, and with support from the Victorian energy upgrades program they put a new heat pump in, they got new, better insulated ducting and they are set to save hundreds of dollars on their household energy bills. The feedback we got was that they were loving the transition. Pat and Bob spoke very clearly about the benefits that electrification was bringing to their household. They loved it, and they wanted other people to know just how successful their transition had been so that others could achieve it too. I should also point out that all the work was being done by Coldflow Heating and Cooling, based in Clayton South – local businesses creating jobs. I do not have time to go into that here and now.

The crux of this debate is about whether Victoria’s energy policy should live in the past with the Liberal Party or in a renewable future, which is where Labor thinks our energy policy should go. The choice is very clear: a renewable future with cheaper power or a Liberal Party stuck in the past.

David DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan) (17:11): This is a very, very simple motion. This motion lays out the details of the government’s regulatory impact statement and its electrification approach. But what the government has not done is make the submissions public and what the government has not done is make the Deloitte modelling that underpins its whole regulatory impact statement public. In essence, whether you support electrification or whether you do not support forced electrification, in either case you would want to see the underpinnings and the submissions that have been made to this regulatory impact statement process. This is simply, at the end of the day, about transparency and openness.

If you want to accelerate the electrification, you would want to understand how you are doing it and the impact on the community. If you wanted to make sure that people are not injured or hurt, as businesses and families, by the rising costs, by the surging costs that we have seen – and I went through the Aurora modelling earlier, which shows a lift in the megawatt hours of wholesale power from $50 to $120, $130 and $140 by 2030; that is what the government’s own document released yesterday shows – you would want to understand all of this modelling before you went headlong into a particular direction. Otherwise you are just seeking to put your head in the sand and cover up the government’s and the minister’s mismanagement. This is transparency, pure and simple.

Council divided on motion:

Ayes (15): Melina Bath, Jeff Bourman, Gaelle Broad, Georgie Crozier, David Davis, Moira Deeming, Renee Heath, David Limbrick, Wendy Lovell, Trung Luu, Bev McArthur, Joe McCracken, Evan Mulholland, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell, Richard Welch

Noes (19): Ryan Batchelor, John Berger, Lizzie Blandthorn, Katherine Copsey, Enver Erdogan, Jacinta Ermacora, David Ettershank, Anasina Gray-Barberio, Shaun Leane, Sarah Mansfield, Tom McIntosh, Rachel Payne, Aiv Puglielli, Harriet Shing, Ingrid Stitt, Jaclyn Symes, Lee Tarlamis, Gayle Tierney, Sheena Watt

Motion negatived.