Thursday, 30 November 2023
Bills
Constitution Amendment (SEC) Bill 2023
Bills
Constitution Amendment (SEC) Bill 2023
State Electricity Commission Amendment Bill 2023
Concurrent debate
That this house authorises and requires the Speaker to permit the second-reading and subsequent stages of the Constitution Amendment (SEC) Bill 2023 and the State Electricity Commission Amendment Bill 2023 to be moved and debated concurrently.
The Allan Labor government is bringing back the SEC – and aren’t we proud to be doing that. Can I say also that we very much look forward to not only concurrently debating this bill when next we return but also of course welcoming the new member for Mulgrave. And before the Manager of Opposition Business gets on his feet, let me say this: along with a range of other actions and commitments that our government is delivering, of course the member for Mulgrave went to the people of Mulgrave with this fantastic commitment of bringing back the SEC. Not only are we looking to do that through this legislation, which we are seeking the Speaker’s agreement to enable us to debate concurrently, but we are already getting on and delivering the very important components of the SEC. In fact it was great to see that both the Premier and the Minister for the State Electricity Commission were out today turning the sod on Melbourne’s renewable energy hub near Melton. What a fantastic initiative this is.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I remind the Leader of the House that this is a narrow procedural debate on the bringing together of the two bills. It will be of advantage to all of us if we stick to that procedural context.
Mary-Anne THOMAS: Thank you very much for your guidance, Deputy Speaker. Obviously it is important, given the commitments that have been made to the Victorian people and their readiness and willingness to embrace our government’s commitment to bringing back the SEC, that we introduce – well, we have already introduced them – and we debate in this house two bills that are going to enable us to establish the SEC. In fact I might point out to the house that, having sought advice from the clerks, it was recommended to us, or we were advised, that debating the two bills concurrently would enable members to be sure that they did not fall foul of the anticipation of debate rule in the house.
In fact what we are seeking to do is simply common sense. I have already taken the opportunity to advise the Manager of Opposition Business that both bills will be voted on separately, so it is scarcely a big deal. It is all about ensuring that we can get on and give everyone the opportunity. Particularly on this side of the house, I anticipate that there will not be a single member that does not want to get up and speak on these bills concurrently, because we are so excited to be able to deliver this fabulous commitment to the people of Victoria – people who I might say voted for the delivery of the SEC and, what is more, took the opportunity to vote again in the Mulgrave by-election for the SEC. We take this opportunity in this procedural debate to recognise that the new member for Mulgrave came first, not third, in the local by-election, and indeed –
James Newbury: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, the Leader of the House is defying your ruling.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Leader of the House has strayed somewhat, and if she could come back, I would be appreciative.
Mary-Anne THOMAS: Thank you very much again for your advice, Deputy Speaker, which I will endeavour to uphold. As I have already outlined, with these bills it is just common sense to debate them concurrently. There is no plausible reason why those on the other side would not agree with this. But nonetheless, they have done that, may I suggest, to be churlish rather than to work with the Parliament in order to deliver on the commitments that have been endorsed by the people of Victoria. So rather than seeking to obstruct what our government is trying to achieve, I encourage the house to back this very simple procedural motion so that we can get on and deliver the SEC.
James NEWBURY (Brighton) (10:18): I move:
That the words ‘, and that general business, notice of motion 79,’ be inserted after the words ‘State Electricity Commission Amendment Bill 2023’.
Before I speak to the amendment, I note that the government has been so excited and so ready to debate the SEC bills that they gave notice that we would this week and then shelved them. That is how ready the government was. That is how urgent the government was to debate these bills. Notice was given, and that is what is at the heart of what is being proposed to this house – a readiness and a government ready to debate these bills. In fact the government proposed to do so and then shelved them – not for two weeks, for two months. Had the Parliament debated them this week, we would have –
Mary-Anne Thomas: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, as you instructed me, this is a very narrow procedural debate about debating concurrently two bills that are before the house.
James NEWBURY: On the point of order, Deputy Speaker, it goes to the heart of the government’s motion on the SEC bills and the style of debate that will occur – the debate processes around that very matter.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The procedural debate in front of us is regarding the bringing together of the two bills and now your amendment. I would appreciate it if you would keep the procedural debate to that.
James NEWBURY: In relation to the amendment and item 79: item 79, for the house’s refresh, was:
That this house notes the importance of respecting the community and Parliament by transparently dealing with proposed bills and … condemns the Minister for Energy and Resources for blatantly disregarding Victorians in the way she has refused to consult on the …
State Electricity Commission Amendment Bill 2023 and the Constitution Amendment (SEC) Bill 2023. I note, to assist the house, that the government and the minister have refused to provide any briefings on these two bills, despite, to assist the house, the secretary of the department contacting the minister, confirming that the department is ready, willing and able to provide a briefing on those bills. In relation to the amendment that I have moved, going to the very substance of that amendment, the department has provided advice that the minister has been advised by the department that they have been ready, willing and able to provide briefings on these bills, but the minister has chosen not to provide them. It is outrageous that a government would refuse after being advised by their own department that the department wanted to do so. How can the government stand here today and say that not only are they ready to deal with these bills – bills that they have shelved, bills that they are refusing to brief on, with two months delay – we now have to deal with those bills concurrently? Why has the government moved a motion to deal with those bills concurrently? It has nothing to do with anticipation. The government does not want to deal with these bills separately because they do not want to provide two opportunities for the house to deal with these issues and deal with them in their substance. That is why the government does not want to –
Mary-Anne Thomas: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, once again, I think what we are seeing from the Manager of Opposition Business –
James NEWBURY: What is the point of order?
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Without assistance, member for Brighton.
Mary-Anne Thomas: Thank you. Can I get it out, please?
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Through the Chair, Leader of the House. Without assistance, member for Brighton.
Mary-Anne Thomas: The point of order is that the Manager of Opposition Business is misleading the house in the assumptions that he is making about the –
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is not a point of order, Leader of the House.
James NEWBURY: The constant interjections are proof positive of how the government is trying to stop the opposition putting the point in terms of its opposition to what is being proposed. The clerks have not provided advice to the opposition that there is any requirement to debate the bills in this way, and we will be opposing it.
Nick STAIKOS (Bentleigh) (10:23): I would like to make a contribution on the motion of the Leader of the House. I am slightly bemused at all of this outrage that we are seeking to debate two bills concurrently. The fact is: we have debated bills concurrently in the past. Every year when we debate the budget, we are debating bills concurrently. This should not be such a problem for those opposite. But those opposite do like to oppose – it is in their DNA. It is opposition for opposition’s sake. Really, the people of Victoria have endorsed this government’s agenda to bring back the SEC. In that election exactly one year ago, where we were returned in record numbers, the centrepiece of our election platform was reviving the SEC, which those opposite opposed. They are still trying to sabotage, frankly, this government’s efforts to revive the SEC, and I guess, more to the point, this government’s efforts to enshrine the SEC in the constitution so that the future Liberal government cannot get rid of it.
James Newbury: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, this is a procedural debate and the member is going nowhere near it.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member to continue on the procedural debate, please.
Nick STAIKOS: Well, I am on the procedural debate. We are seeking to debate and consider these bills concurrently, and I think, as the Leader of the House also pointed out, no doubt there will be a lot of interest from all 88 members of this house in making a contribution on this legislation. Those on this side of the house are all going to get up to talk about how this government is investing in renewable energy, and no doubt those opposite will get up and talk about how their alternative is nuclear power. There is no doubt we will have that debate. We know that that is their alternative. I will tell you – on election day last year I was standing alongside my Liberal opponent at the largest booth in the Bentleigh electorate, the McKinnon Secondary College booth –
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member is straying.
Nick STAIKOS: No, no – well, I am going to the heart of this debate, Deputy Speaker, and I am laying out the benefits for the opposition of actually considering these two bills concurrently. Certainly my opponent at that booth was talking up the merits of nuclear power that she saw, and she was telling voters as they were coming in that that is where we should be going with this. Labor won 66 per cent of the vote at that booth, I should point out, so that did not work. But this will be a good opportunity for those opposite to talk about their pet issue, and that is their alternative to this government’s renewable energy agenda under the SEC.
It is timely that we consider this motion now, because – I do note the Premier is in the house – the Premier this morning turned the first sod on a fantastic project, the first project invested in by the SEC, and that is the Melbourne renewable energy hub over near Melton, which will store enough energy to power up to 200,000 homes during peak periods. It is a $245 million investment by the SEC in the hub, which is a total project of $1 billion. It will create 155 jobs, and it will also provide 1.6 gigawatts of energy storage, which is certainly leading us to this government’s target of at least 2.6 gigawatts of storage by 2030.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member is debating the bills.
Nick STAIKOS: I am just so excited about this that I just cannot wait to debate it, Deputy Speaker. But, look, there is no problem with debating these bills concurrently.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is now.
Nick STAIKOS: There is precedent in this house for debating these bills concurrently. It is common sense, and no doubt all 88 of us will be absolutely desperate to speak on these bills, because one way or the other everybody is passionate about the SEC. We are passionate about bringing it back. We are showing the same passion about bringing it back that those opposite showed about selling it.
Mary-Anne Thomas: Selling it off.
Nick STAIKOS: Absolutely. So no doubt we will all bring passion to this debate when it is next comes around. There is absolutely no problem with debating these bills concurrently. Again, I hazard a guess that we are going to win this vote. It is just a waste of about half an hour of the Parliament’s time.
Roma BRITNELL (South-West Coast) (10:28): What arrogance are we hearing from across the chamber. I rise to oppose this motion, and to actually say that it is a waste of time to debate is absolutely extremely insulting to the people of this state. We are elected in this house to debate, to make sure we have looked at the pros and cons, to try and mitigate unintended consequences, and here we have an arrogant government – I do sort of toss up between arrogant and chaotic, but I think it is both. It clearly is both. Last week on the government business program two bills were put up for debate. On Sunday the government pulled those two bills.
Mary-Anne Thomas: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, on the point of relevance – the member for South-West Coast has been very vocal about calling points of order for this side of the house.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point of order is relevance.
Mary-Anne Thomas: My point of order is that –
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no point of order on relevance. The member was straying. Could the member come back to the procedural event.
Roma BRITNELL: I am more than happy to continue to speak about the merging of these two bills and inhibiting the capacity of the opposition to debate. The reality is that we would like to debate these two bills, because that is what was proposed to the house. On Sunday night those two bills were pulled. We as a Victorian community are waiting to see just how this promise is going to be delivered, of the SEC bringing down power bills, because what we are seeing is them rising – by 25 per cent for electricity and 30 per cent for gas – and the community are hurting. So debate should ensue and we should be questioning and making sure we do the scrutiny that is required on this.
We have a government here with all the hubris, conning the community. I think it is absolutely pulling the wool over Victorians’ eyes, because there is no enshrining of any assets that we will actually have control over by the government – it is a concept. When we had the SEC in the past, let us remember who sold it: Joan Kirner was the –
Members interjecting.
Roma BRITNELL: She proposed the sale.
Mary-Anne Thomas: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, it is a narrow procedural debate. The member has strayed from that, and she is misleading the house.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, Leader of the House. The member had strayed into debating the bills. Please come back to the motion or the amendment.
Roma BRITNELL: I will come back to the fact that we had the opportunity taken away from us to debate the two bills, and now the proposal for them to be merged does detract from our capability to really put under the spotlight the actual challenges that Victorians are facing with the higher cost of living and the price of energy under this government.
I think chaos is what is really reigning here. There were five or six attempts, I believe, to ask for a bill briefing, which is normal procedure. When a bill has been put to the house, you ask the minister for an understanding of the detail of the bill so it can be effectively debated. There were five or six requests, and refusal after refusal after refusal. What does that tell me about transparency? What does that tell me about clear and honest debate that should ensue? And now they want to truncate it into one debate so they can just shut it down. They can put all the hubris they like around it – print jackets, put hats on heads and produce jelly beans that say aren’t we wonderful. People are hurting. The cost of living is killing families. The SEC is not bringing down power prices. It is a concept that they want to enshrine in the constitution. How is that going to help Victorians who are struggling to buy nappies, to buy formula, who are really struggling to pay their mortgage?
This is a debate that we should be absolutely having in this house. If the government is so intent on two bills –
Mary-Anne Thomas: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, once again, it is a narrow procedural debate. The member is suggesting that the bills will not be debated. That is not what the motion is about. It is simply –
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you.
Mary-Anne Thomas: concurrently debating –
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Without assistance, member for Ovens Valley. Back to the procedural debate.
Roma BRITNELL: The minister has tried to waste as much time as possible, which is more of the lack of transparency. This government wants to have secrecy prevail and to stop proper discussion, debate and scrutiny. To take the two bills into one does exactly that. It harnesses anyone’s opportunity; it does not help.
Lauren KATHAGE (Yan Yean) (10:33): I am pleased to contribute to this procedural debate. In doing so, I cannot help but comment on how yesterday we celebrated the 50–50 parity of women in this Parliament, and if there is something that women are famous for, it is multitasking. With this side of the chamber full –
Roma Britnell: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, based on what was said for the last number of speakers about this being a narrow procedural debate, I ask the relevance of the comments being made about a totally different subject.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no point of order, but I encourage the member for Yan Yean to get to the procedural nature of the debate.
Lauren KATHAGE: Thank you, Deputy Speaker, for your guidance. The multitasking that women are capable of is important in this house for being able to debate two bills concurrently. I know that there were some concerns from the member for Brighton. He was concerned about what we were going to be debating and some mysterious backdating of media releases et cetera. What I am concerned about is that they want to take us even further back in time than –
James Newbury: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, just on relevance, this is not an opportunity for the member to reinforce the point that I made – that the minister refused to allow any briefings on the bill.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Your point of order is?
James Newbury: That it is not relevant to what the speaker is speaking on. The minister did not allow any –
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Brighton knows points of order are not an opportunity for debate.
Lauren KATHAGE: The member for Brighton has concern around advice from departments. I would advise him to take advice from the Victorian public, who have resoundingly voted for the SEC to be brought into Victoria. This is confected outrage, and all it seems to be attempting to do is slow up what the opposition are so fearful of, enshrining the SEC into the constitution, which is the subject of one of the bills which we would like to debate concurrently. This was endorsed by the people of Victoria, and there is no need to obstruct. People in workplaces all over Victoria today are going to be doing more than two things at once, and I think the very least they can expect is for their legislators and parliamentarians to be able to do multiple things at once. There is no reduction in the rigor or transparency or process when we are discussing these bills concurrently. It just requires that members maybe put in a little bit more effort.
The member for South-West Coast noted that people in Victoria would expect us to be focused on the cost of living – she referred to the cost of nappies. That is one of the things at the heart of these bills: bringing in the SEC to reduce the cost of power bills, to take us away from our reliance on fossil fuels. That is the purpose of getting these bills done. We absolutely have the back pockets of the Victorian people at heart when we do this.
The going back in time three days for media releases, 50 years for energy production and back to the reliance on fossil fuels – we simply will not stand for it. This back to the future, backward-focused opposition with their confected outrage – all they are doing is holding up our ability to debate and pass these bills. This obsession with the past needs to stop. We have to accept and rejoice in the fact that we are moving towards a renewable energy state. It is something to be incredibly proud of, something to happily talk about in the chamber and to our constituents about.
I look forward to potentially debating the bills concurrently because I want to see in our constitution that the SEC is protected from the greedy hands of those who are not truly interested in the cost-of-living pressures of Victorians, who are not in touch with people who really know what it is like to struggle to put food on the table, but simply are opposing for opposition’s sake. It is totally transparent, and I request the opposition to get on board.
David SOUTHWICK (Caulfield) (10:38): I rise to support the member for Brighton’s amendment to the motion before the house today. We know that we are in a cost-of-living crisis and energy is the key element that is driving up people’s bills. Energy affects just about everything that we deal with. The motion before the house is effectively about looking at the SEC and the issue of effectively consolidating the debate on this very, very important bill. It is something that is going to be enshrined in the constitution, and to enshrine anything in the constitution is a very, very important issue. The problem here, as the member for Brighton has alluded to in his comments, is that there has not been proper consultation. There was not the consultation that anyone would expect for any bill that we debate, let alone one that would enshrine legislation in the constitution. You would think that the government would at the very least allow that consultation to happen, but yet again the government have not done their homework. They, on one hand, have tried to rush some things through the house and on another have pushed this back so we are not going to be able to debate this until sometime next year.
With an energy crisis like we are in, it is important that we actually get on and do something. A shell company, show bags, jelly beans – those are not going to bring down power prices. The government is certainly betting everything on the hope that this SEC is going to change the lives of Victorians when it comes to their power bills. We have seen a 25 per cent increase in power bills in the last 12 months, so it is important that we see action, which we are not seeing by this government.
Colin Brooks: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, I think you can anticipate the point of order I am going to be making, which has been made by previous people in the chamber: there is a very narrow procedural debate at hand.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member has strayed from the procedural context, and if he could come back to it, I would appreciate it.
David SOUTHWICK: As I was saying, what this government is trying to do is effectively steamroll this whole process. It is something that is so important when you are taking a bill and enshrining it into our constitution. This is not just another change of a law, but this is something that will effectively change things for years and years to come. To do that, you would expect that the government would do their homework. As the member for Brighton has quite correctly pointed out, the fact is that this government has not even provided a bill briefing and has not even consulted on this with anyone –
David SOUTHWICK: We know, as the member for Brighton has pointed out, that the department is ready to go. If the department is ready to go, what is the government hiding? Why aren’t they willing to actually provide this information?
We have seen many, many occasions where this government have tried to rush things and have not done their homework, and we come back and have to see a bill before the house again. The government just do not get their stuff right. There is a real concern here. The government came at the beginning of this sitting week, in which we were going to debate two bills separately, and now they have changed the game. They want to debate these concurrently, and they do not want to do it this week, but they want to do it sometime next year. Power prices will continue to go up. The government, again, do not seem to see the urgency of getting this right. They have had months and months and months to get this right. This was an election commitment that they made – even though those of us on this side of the house do not think it will do a thing in terms of changing power prices. Nonetheless they have spent 12 months talking about this election commitment. We have not seen anything, and all we hear is more hot wind and hot air. Again, it is going to be adjourned off to sometime next year, while Victorians continue to pay high power prices and pay for the government’s mismanagement and the waste that they continue with.
Assembly divided on amendment:
Ayes (26): Brad Battin, Jade Benham, Roma Britnell, Tim Bull, Martin Cameron, Annabelle Cleeland, Chris Crewther, Wayne Farnham, Sam Groth, Matthew Guy, David Hodgett, Emma Kealy, Tim McCurdy, Cindy McLeish, James Newbury, Danny O’Brien, Michael O’Brien, Kim O’Keeffe, Richard Riordan, Brad Rowswell, David Southwick, Bridget Vallence, Peter Walsh, Kim Wells, Nicole Werner, Jess Wilson
Noes (51): Juliana Addison, Jacinta Allan, Colin Brooks, Josh Bull, Anthony Carbines, Ben Carroll, Darren Cheeseman, Anthony Cianflone, Sarah Connolly, Chris Couzens, Jordan Crugnale, Lily D’Ambrosio, Daniela De Martino, Steve Dimopoulos, Paul Edbrooke, Matt Fregon, Ella George, Luba Grigorovitch, Bronwyn Halfpenny, Katie Hall, Paul Hamer, Martha Haylett, Mathew Hilakari, Melissa Horne, Natalie Hutchins, Lauren Kathage, Sonya Kilkenny, Nathan Lambert, Gary Maas, Alison Marchant, Kathleen Matthews-Ward, Steve McGhie, Paul Mercurio, John Mullahy, Tim Pallas, Danny Pearson, Pauline Richards, Tim Richardson, Michaela Settle, Ros Spence, Nick Staikos, Meng Heang Tak, Nina Taylor, Kat Theophanous, Mary-Anne Thomas, Emma Vulin, Iwan Walters, Vicki Ward, Dylan Wight, Gabrielle Williams, Belinda Wilson
Amendment defeated.
Assembly divided on motion:
Ayes (51): Juliana Addison, Jacinta Allan, Colin Brooks, Josh Bull, Anthony Carbines, Ben Carroll, Darren Cheeseman, Anthony Cianflone, Sarah Connolly, Chris Couzens, Jordan Crugnale, Lily D’Ambrosio, Daniela De Martino, Steve Dimopoulos, Paul Edbrooke, Matt Fregon, Ella George, Luba Grigorovitch, Bronwyn Halfpenny, Katie Hall, Paul Hamer, Martha Haylett, Mathew Hilakari, Melissa Horne, Natalie Hutchins, Lauren Kathage, Sonya Kilkenny, Nathan Lambert, Gary Maas, Alison Marchant, Kathleen Matthews-Ward, Steve McGhie, Paul Mercurio, John Mullahy, Tim Pallas, Danny Pearson, Pauline Richards, Tim Richardson, Michaela Settle, Ros Spence, Nick Staikos, Meng Heang Tak, Nina Taylor, Kat Theophanous, Mary-Anne Thomas, Emma Vulin, Iwan Walters, Vicki Ward, Dylan Wight, Gabrielle Williams, Belinda Wilson
Noes (26): Brad Battin, Jade Benham, Roma Britnell, Tim Bull, Martin Cameron, Annabelle Cleeland, Chris Crewther, Wayne Farnham, Sam Groth, Matthew Guy, David Hodgett, Emma Kealy, Tim McCurdy, Cindy McLeish, James Newbury, Danny O’Brien, Michael O’Brien, Kim O’Keeffe, Richard Riordan, Brad Rowswell, David Southwick, Bridget Vallence, Peter Walsh, Kim Wells, Nicole Werner, Jess Wilson
Motion agreed to.