Wednesday, 20 March 2024

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

Second reading

Debate resumed on motion of Lily D’Ambrosio:

That this bill be now read a second time.

James NEWBURY (Brighton) (10:46): I rise to speak on the Energy and Public Land Legislation Amendment (Enabling Offshore Wind Energy) Bill 2024. Victorians and Australians want to see energy that is reliable, secure, affordable and clean. That is what Australians want. That is what Victorians want. So two weeks ago, when the government brought to the Parliament and considered the Climate Change and Energy Legislation Amendment (Renewable Energy and Storage Targets) Bill 2023, the coalition did not oppose it. Part of that bill was a commitment to introducing offshore wind energy targets of not less than 2 gigawatts by 2032, 4 gigawatts by 2035 and 9 gigawatts by 2040. The bill set out those targets, and that bill passed the Parliament. Yesterday the Parliament considered an amendment that went through the Council, and that bill was passed and now will go for royal assent. So this Parliament has come together and said that we do need to ensure that as Victoria transitions in terms of its energy production we have a plan in place which sets out where our energy generation will go – how much energy we will have in each form of energy production over what period of time – and do it in a responsible way.

The coalition made the point during the debate that as that transition occurs, we need to see energy produced that is, as I said, reliable, secure, affordable and clean. That means we need to make sure that we do not see ongoing blackouts, and many members raised the recent blackout that saw 530,000 ‍Victorians lose power to their homes, the biggest blackout in our state’s history, and blackouts since – not of the same magnitude but blackouts since.

What this bill does is take it an element further in relation to that first bill, as the minister has pointed out herself, as it relates to offshore wind. The bill is quite a simple bill in that it creates a Victorian licence system that enables feasibility of offshore wind projects on Crown land. So this bill creates a system whereby 21-year licences can be provided to allow feasibility and works to be done in the private sector to enable the construction of offshore wind. This is the Victorian licensing component, if you want to put it that way, for offshore wind.

What this bill does not do and what this government has not done is explain the plan for offshore wind. That matters for two reasons: firstly, because we need to ensure that we have enough energy supply, and when offshore wind is a central component to your future energy supply you would want the government to have a plan to ensure that we have it; but secondly, because the bill that I spoke to earlier, which we passed only, finally, yesterday, sets out how quickly we need to generate energy supply more generally and specifically in relation to wind. What we have seen over primarily the last few months is a collapse of the government’s offshore wind policy. The offshore wind policy in Victoria has become, sadly, a national laughing stock, and I will get into the detail of that issue throughout the debate.

I spoke earlier about the recent blackout, and for mums, dads, families and Victorians the idea that we are now in a circumstance where our energy is not secure has been made patently obvious, with more than half a million people recently suffering in that blackout. So Victorians have started to speak very, very strongly about the concerns they have about energy security in this state, as they should. Energy security is a must. But so too have businesses started to be far more outspoken about the government’s net zero target, the offshore wind component and the lack of a plan to get there. Recently the Victorian Chamber of Commerce and Industry held an event on the journey to net zero, and the chamber chief executive Paul Guerra spoke at length about some of these issues. He said:

The fragility of our existing system was exposed. We can’t get to net zero on a hope and a prayer.

And he was talking about that historic blackout. Further:

… the concern lies in how are we actually going to get there?

Further:

We cannot let energy security be the casualty of the transition to net zero.

And finally:

Call out the bullshit and call out the ideology. This isn’t a game. This is our future. Reliable energy at affordable prices must be aligned.

And I do apologise, but that was a direct quote from the chief executive.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Just to pick the member up, unparliamentary language is not excusable because it is in a quote. I caution the member.

James NEWBURY: Thank you, Deputy Speaker. The chief executive was making the point that we need to have more than a target and we need to have more than ideology; we need to have a plan of how to get there, and what this bill does not do is set out that plan.

What this bill does is create a licensing regime, effectively. It does not do any more than that. It creates a licensing regime. It says that companies can come to the government in relation to Crown land and they can be licensed to do feasibility work. That is really what the guts of the bill are about. What it does not do is it does not say how this government is going to ensure that we have the projects that we need, the build we need in terms of energy supply, the wind turbines we need and the offshore wind projects we need. How are we going to do that? That should be a concern to all Victorians.

The chamber has done a power of work on these issues. Paul Guerra further said – and I will refer to a recent survey of 500 of their members – at that event that if the government:

… cannot guarantee that the lights remain on in this state, then I can guarantee that many businesses will find places other than Victoria to set up.

The survey conducted of their members – and I will read in some of the findings of that survey – found that energy policies were the top concern for 65 per cent of Victorian businesses, so two out of three. Eighty-six per cent said they believed the move to renewables would impact their output – concerning: 86 per cent, so five out of six. Seventy-three per cent said Victoria’s February power blackout had forced them to close. Three out of four were forced to close throughout that blackout – extraordinary, with the impact, as we know, of the loss of stock and the loss of capacity. Eighty-one per cent cited cost as a main barrier to switching from gas to electricity. I think that the case is being made very, very strongly. When we speak about the concerns from business about the government’s ideological push over practicality, the government’s gas ban is a deep, deep concern to all Victorians but also all Victorian businesses. It is an ideological ban and a ban that is going to affect all Victorians, both business and otherwise.

Mr Guerra further said:

We want to get behind that –

as in the renewable energy reforms –

… but it relies on having a clear plan to signal to businesses that access for reliable energy will also be affordable.

That is not unreasonable. And finally:

Specifically on gas, if we don’t have a clear plan which also includes affordable pricing, and if we get out of step with the other states in Australia by becoming more expensive for energy, that increases the operational risk for business.

What are some of the themes that industry is talking about? They are recognising the need for a plan, but they are also making it clear that that plan cannot be purely around ideology and that there has to be a practical element, a practical plan, and that is where the government has fallen short and been exposed on a national stage.

You only have to look at the point raised by Mr Guerra in relation to affordability and some of the reported data that the Victorian government has produced on things like wind energy. The government’s estimated cost of offshore wind is $94 a megawatt hour, whereas in Britain the government recently auctioned at $139 and in the US at $230. So the government has set out a plan or an estimate which is in no way in line with what is actually happening in markets around the world where these projects exist, and that should be a concern and goes straight to the affordability question.

We have also seen projects in total disarray in terms of offshore wind. Over the last three months we have seen effectively a total collapse of the government’s offshore wind policy. We see reports of multiple companies making applications that are in dispute – tens of applications with the federal government that are in dispute over borders of where the projects will occur – and concerns as to how those disputes will be resolved. We have not even got to the point of them being built, but the level of disputation, clearly because of the management of the government strategy, both state and federal, has led to, clearly, a collapse of our Victorian offshore wind policy.

We saw that no more clearly than at the start of the year with the Port of Hastings. To remind the house, the Port of Hastings was a project that was reportedly 146 hectares in size, including reclaimed land, the clearing of vegetation and the dredging of 92 hectares for a 600-metre long, 100-metre wide wharf which the federal minister for the environment, as we now all know, rejected because large areas of the bay’s wetland –

… will be destroyed or substantially modified as a result of direct impacts of the proposed action.

The minister further stated it would cause:

… irreversible damage to the habitat of waterbirds and migratory birds and marine invertebrates and fish …

Finally, in terms of impact on the food webs of the mudflats and coastal area, pollution is a significant risk and could result from oil and chemical spills, discharge of ballast water, shipping accidents, marinas and launching ramps, sewage and bilge water and other debris.

When the federal government announced its findings on the project, effectively rejecting the project, it sent a spear through the Victorian government’s offshore wind strategy, this project which was central to early generation in order to meet the government’s targets, but it also exposed the hollowness of the Victorian government’s plan to actually deliver on its targets. As I said earlier, you need more than a target – you need a plan to deliver on it.

We know the federal minister for climate change has said on the record that there is:

… a long lead-up for offshore wind.

He further said:

… we don’t expect much offshore wind to be operating by 2030 in Australia … setting up a new industry from scratch takes time. And we envisage most of the projects will be generating power post-2030.

If I can read that quote again from the minister:

… setting up a new industry from scratch takes time. And we envisage most of the projects will be generating power post-2030.

That is why earlier this year when the federal government knocked down the Port of Hastings proposal, not only Victoria but Australia could see quite clearly that the Victorian government did not have the capacity to deliver on the projects that they needed to, not only because of the supply we need in Victoria but because of now the law which requires them to do it. I should state that should the government not reach that target, there is no penalty. There is simply no penalty. It is a target in law without a single penalty or any downside for the minister who does not achieve it. I mean, the minister can just snub her nose. She can amend the target. She can ignore the target.

What concerns I think business, but also Victorians more broadly, in relation to offshore wind is watching projects like Hastings go down primarily because of a lack of responsible governing in terms of this government and the way they manage projects. We know that that particular project was warned about the risk of proceeding with that proposal. Infrastructure Victoria in 2017 was asked to assess whether Hastings or Bay West in Werribee would be best placed for future projects, and it talked about at that time the wetland risks at the Port of Hastings.

So in 2017 the government was paying one of its own departments to provide advice, which they did, and yet another part of government, which taxpayers are paying for, were proceeding with a project which they had received advice would be of concern. The issues that were raised were all of the issues which ended up being on the table when the federal minister provided her decision on the project. The government could have simply dusted off the report, which taxpayers had paid for, and received the insight several years earlier, but they did not.

What was I think so concerning for Victorians was not only to see the policy of wind unravel but to see the government unravel during press conferences that week on the actual project – unravel before our eyes day by day. It started with the Premier stating multiple times that the Port of Hastings proposal had passed through state government environmental approval processes. Confidently the Premier stepped out and said, ‘No, this has all gone through our environmental work, it’s all been ticked off.’ I recall the Premier saying that the government would start to lobby the federal government to change their mind. The Premier would change their mind. Embarrassingly, later that same day, we found out that the environment minister had not approved the project. Just for anybody who was not listening to the first point: contrary to what the Premier had gone out in the press conference with gusto to say, the environment minister had referred the project off for an environmental effects assessment in October the year before, several months earlier. All of that assessment was noted on the minister’s department’s website, so someone was not reading the government’s website.

But the Premier was not the only one not reading the government’s website, because then we saw the Minister for Environment come out next – so the Premier came out on Tuesday of that week, then the Minister for Environment came out on Thursday – and, when asked about this project, said, ‘We can’t talk about the federal government’s decision yet.’ ‘Why can’t you?’ the media asked. Fair question – ‘Why can’t you?’ Because the minister had only received a summary. He said:

My understanding is that we have … effectively a summary of the decision. We don’t have the full decision yet, so it’s hard to give you an answer to that question without having the actual details of the reasons the federal government said no

…

Let’s understand what the decision is before we then commit to whether we stay on that site. But your question is, how do we mitigate it? Well, we need to find out what they’re concerned about in detail, before I can give you an answer on how to mitigate it …

It was on the federal government’s website the week before – a week earlier, on Friday the week before. So we have got the Premier saying the state government have approved it on the state website, the state environment minister saying, ‘I can’t speak in detail to the matter, because the decision hasn’t been made public’ – it was on the federal government’s website. Is it any wonder Victorians are saying, ‘What is the government’s offshore wind plan?’ The government needs to do more than come to this place with this bill. It does provide a licensing regime for feasibility work; it does do that. But that is all that it does. In substance it provides a feasibility licensing regime for Crown land; that is the substance of the bill.

What the projects are, where they are – there is no plan. The government has not made it clear to Victorians, and when you are seeing hundreds of thousands of people suffer blackouts, when you are seeing business saying to you in the strongest possible terms, so strongly – you might recall that the Deputy Speaker, who was in the chair earlier, noted a word that they had used and cautioned me when that word was used. That was the head of one of the biggest business organisations in the state, who had used strong language in saying how strong the concerns were.

Finally I should mention the Minister for Energy and Resources in that week in relation to Hastings. Just when you thought the Premier and the Minister for Environment had embarrassed Victoria enough, no, here comes the minister for energy, who had a dummy spit. There is no other way to say it. The minister for energy had a dummy spit and railed against the federal government, just railed against them: ‘It’s not the state government’s fault; it’s not the state government’s fault.’ I presume what actually happened is by the end of that week the entire cabinet, government and Premier were saying, ‘Minister for energy, what’s going on here?’ and so the minister came out and gave one big almighty whack and said, ‘It’s all the feds’ fault.’ I mean, that is the standard go-to line for this government: ‘It’s all the feds’ fault.’ Well, it was. ‘It’s someone else’s fault.’ It is starting –

A member interjected.

James NEWBURY: Well, they are. Everything is the feds’ fault.

Danny O’Brien: Even the Labor feds.

James NEWBURY: That is right, and that is what we saw that week. We saw the minister in a very unedifying dummy spit blame the feds for a project they had been warned years before would be a problem – years before. It is extraordinary. It was very, very unedifying.

We have seen only earlier this week with the Portland decision a project – and I am not in any way reflecting on the decision, but I would note for the record the decision that the energy minister Chris Bowen announced. The Southern Ocean offshore wind zone, which originally was meant to span 5132 ‍square kilometres, is now a fifth of the size. The approval is for a fifth of the size. In no way is the coalition reflecting on the decision; we are just noting that in terms of how we actually deliver offshore wind it has not been made clear to Victorians, because in that project the new size will generate 2.9 gigawatts, from the originally estimated 14.6 gigawatts.

I do note that the coalition will be circulating amendments, and under standing orders I wish to advise the house of amendments to the bill and request that they be circulated.

Amendments circulated under standing orders.

James NEWBURY: Those amendments go to two things. Firstly they go to social licence and ensuring that throughout the processes of this bill there is a social licence component, a consultation with the community component, because we know that the government is not in any way ensuring that communities are part of these decisions. In fact the government is ripping away the rights of the community to have a say over decisions, which is appalling. Only last week the government confirmed that they would extend their planning powers further in the assessment of development facilitation program projects and add renewable energy. Under that program, effectively, the government has absolutely no say, so we will be moving amendments that go to community consultation but also go to ensuring that these projects are undertaken by people who are fit and proper persons. Those two amendments are fair and reasonable: community consultation and the fit and proper person.

In terms of community consultation, I do note the government’s previous report from March 2022, which suggests that up to 70 per cent of agricultural land will need to be renewable. I have spoken to the government about that estimate, and they have set out that that was the, I suppose, ‘impossible scenario’, in their terms, and to produce the most gigawatts possible, whereas their estimate is that to achieve the target we will need to produce just under half of what that scenario was. So that still says that almost 30 per cent of ag land could be covered.

The government needs to ensure that we have reliable, affordable, secure and clean energy, and that is what the coalition has been speaking about. We have been speaking about ensuring that we do. We will not be opposing this bill. We will be moving amendments. But we are calling on the government to do more than set targets. We are calling on the government to set out a plan to achieve them and also let Victorians know that we will have reliable, secure, affordable energy and how that will be delivered, because that is what Victorians deserve and this government has not set out that plan.

Paul EDBROOKE (Frankston) (11:16): Acting Speaker Marchant, it is lovely to see you in the chair. I rise to speak on the Energy and Public Land Legislation Amendment (Enabling Offshore Wind Energy) Bill 2024. I mean, who in their right mind would be against that? But I have been sitting in here for the last half-hour, and we have heard from the Liberals a lack of imagination, a lack of vision, a lack of planning for the future and a lack of a plan to actually oppose – to be the opposition and be an alternate government and actually adapt to and overcome problems like this government does.

Members interjecting.

Paul EDBROOKE: Well, we will get to what Michael Lamb might think of this bill soon, and we will get to the failed Liberal candidate for Dunkley as well. Don’t you worry about that.

Of course this bill is our first piece of legislation in our offshore wind program, which has been happening for years. The lead-up to this has been happening for years. It is simple legislation in a way. It amends the Victorian public land and electricity legislation to allow offshore wind projects to undertake site investigatory activities to determine the design and placement of connection of infrastructure. The connection of infrastructure is required to deliver electricity generated by offshore wind projects in declared Commonwealth waters into the Victorian grid, and the bill provides a clearer pathway for offshore wind proponents awarded feasibility licences in Commonwealth waters under the Offshore Electricity Infrastructure Act 2021 to undertake an aligned related feasibility assessment in Victorian waters and on shore for better project planning. This is done through allowing the Minister for Energy and Resources to declare a licensee under the Offshore Electricity Infrastructure Act 2021 an offshore wind generation company. It also clarifies arrangements under the four main land acts that refer to agreements with electricity companies for the purposes of construction and operation of new electricity infrastructure.

Those who have been listening to the last 25 to 30 minutes of, well, confusing bile from those opposite will be asking themselves a question right now, and that is: why are the Liberals and the opposition so against renewable energy? This argument is not just about offshore wind; it is about renewable energy.

Members interjecting.

Paul EDBROOKE: I hear some laughter across the aisle, and that is fine, but history gives us the best foundation of evidence to actually work from.

Members interjecting.

Paul EDBROOKE: Hang on; I will get there. In 2018 we heard the Leader of the Opposition say:

… anybody who says that having solar at home is going to drop their bills by about $1000 a year, I think they’re dreaming …

That was the member for Bulleen. He would be pleased right now to be corrected. Our Solar Homes program – a hugely popular program – customers save up to $1073 annually off their bills. Further to my point about this kind of holistic optic that is portrayed by those in opposition, even though they will stand here right now and say, ‘No, no, no we’re for renewables,’ there are the opposition leader John Pesutto’s remarks to no less than the Electric Energy Society of Australia. The opposition leader at the time – he is still opposition leader, actually, isn’t he? – outlined a radical agenda on climate and energy that undermined community and investor confidence in his party’s commitment to climate action. He supercharged the climate sceptics by arguing that science is just an ideology – science is just an ideology – and there is nothing wrong with taking the view that climate change is a hoax. I quote the opposition leader:

Even if people have different ideological perspectives on climate change and sustainability, and that is all legitimate in my view, there is nothing wrong with that.

That was stated to industry leaders in the Electric Energy Society of Australia. I might be wrong here, but science is just like magic – except science is real and evidence-based and you can work from it. To encourage sceptics that their views are correct is actually misleading them when you are talking about climate science. Just because one scientist out of 100 says ‘I disagree’ does not mean the other 99 scientists are wrong. It is clear that climate change is not a hoax. It is clear that people arguing that climate change is a hoax are not working from a basis of evidence. For people in this chamber to laugh when government members stand up and say there is opposition to renewables on the other side of the chamber, when they hear quotes like that, is laughable in itself.

Nick Staikos interjected.

Paul EDBROOKE: I will get to Frankston soon, member for Bentleigh, but to reinforce that view and my fear that those opposite do not actually agree with us about a renewable energy evolution or revolution, we had only just recently a local Liberal candidate for Dunkley telling us that we should look at nuclear energy on the peninsula. The candidate refused to answer questions about this. He obviously had grand plans, but he refused to answer any questions that were asked of him by Richard Willingham from the ABC. I see why, but my point is that I do not think there was any consultation with the community at all. I think the mayor might find himself in a spot of bother if he said that in his mayoral capacity, because not one person I know – not one person in Frankston, on the peninsula, in Dunkley – has ever said to me, ‘You know what, Paul? We need to have a beer and talk about nuclear energy, because that is the way the future is going. We need to do that. I watched Chernobyl the other night – what a great documentary. We should do that on the peninsula – we should. We should build a big concrete thing, make a sarcophagus when it goes wrong – we should do that. I also watched the doco on Three Mile Island. Paul, we should have a beer and talk about that. That’s got potential here in Dunkley. I reckon we should do that.’ Not one person has done that.

I do note that these amendments put forward by the opposition to this bill mention ‘adequate community consultation’ about nine times. I think it is pretty inconsistent for your Liberal friends to be talking about nuclear energy without any consultation, putting that up at an election and then having the guts to come in here and talk about community consultation on this bill and offshore wind.

A little while ago – I think it was the 2018 election – we actually had someone who proposed that he might have been the opposition leader by now. He was pretty confident, this bloke. He was the Liberal candidate in Frankston, and he is not a bad bloke. But he could not see where renewables fit in. He would not meet with people about it, and he would not meet with any environmental groups. Famously, on David Speers he created the clip that is now being used in media training of what not to do. I think we have all seen that clip – I will not labour the point – but once again for me to be here today and act like the opposition have changed and are embracing renewable energy, indeed offshore wind, would be me lying to myself when I have heard the candidate for Dunkley and the state candidate for Frankston come out and be proponents for building new coal-fired power stations. I do not know how they were going to be run or funded. Apparently there was an issue with privatisation and whatnot that we could not get around. They talked about nuclear only a month ago; I am having a meltdown trying to get it in my mind how those opposite expect us to believe they are not against renewables. They have opposed renewables at almost every turn, and I know they are not opposing this bill; there is an amendment. I think there was one bill previously that I was in here for that was voted for. They cannot tell us what they want to do. While we have spent three years talking about renewable energy, offshore wind and creating the structure to actually make sure that we can implement that – and, I must admit, producing six-monthly implementation plans for the public, unions and international players all to see and be consulted on – those opposite have been talking about fracking, nuclear and coal-fired power stations.

It is quite something to be standing here today, though – on a positive note – and being the first speaker on this bill. It is the first bill that we have brought to this house, which is going to be endorsed hopefully by those opposite as well, to make sure we can enter that new stage of the future – a stage that means we do not leave a legacy of rubbish for our young kids and the next generation to deal with. This is a brave government looking into the future and making plans for the future. I endorse this.

Danny O’BRIEN (Gippsland South) (11:26): I am pleased to rise to speak on the Energy and Public Land Legislation Amendment (Enabling Offshore Wind Energy) Bill 2024 before us today, and I will do so as one of a few, literally only two or three in this chamber, that actually have some skin in the game on this issue. I will come to the member for Frankston in a moment and talk about how many of his constituents are looking forward to offshore wind turbines just off Frankston in Port Phillip Bay, because it is not happening. So it is all very good for everyone over that side to stand up and say, ‘We’re all hairy chested about renewables. We’re going to build heaps of renewables – wind turbines, solar, offshore wind. But we’re not going to do it in any of our electorates. Don’t be ridiculous.’ Indeed as I have pointed out to the member for Albert Park numerous times before, this government has specifically precluded wind farms being built in any of your electorates, with the exception of the member for Ripon. It is just hypocrisy.

I want to talk a little about the bill. The bill basically sets up a process by which the offshore wind developers can get a licence, if you like, to look at their connection points through public land. That particularly, when we are talking about public land, includes the 3 nautical miles of Victorian waters off the coast and then the area up to a connection point and then through transmission, through the grid. It does that by amending a number of different acts with respect to public and Crown land. We do not have an issue with that. I do make the point, though, that it is quite ironic that this government has its offshore wind targets and has a massive offshore wind campaign that we hear about so often, but no-one has ever mentioned that the entirety of those offshore wind farm plans are in Commonwealth waters. If it were not that the Commonwealth actually had set this up, the government’s plans would be completely pointless – unless, as I said, the member for Frankston and the member for Albert Park and the member for Carrum and the member for Mordialloc might like to start saying, ‘Let’s put some offshore wind farms in Port Phillip Bay.’ But we have not heard anyone arguing for that, have we? No-one is suggesting that. That is what I want to talk a little bit about with this issue. It is a symptom of energy policy, and offshore wind is a classic example.

We have had the government come down – we had Chris Bowen come down to Seaspray with the Minister for Energy and Resources and say how this is going to be great for jobs in regional Victoria, in Gippsland in particular. And I actually think there are good opportunities and potentially some really good opportunities for us with offshore wind in Gippsland, but that relies on us having the jobs geographically located in Gippsland. One of the points that are lost on those opposite and many people who are promoting the offshore wind industry and the jobs that will go with it is that all of the Gippsland wind farm zone is off the Ninety Mile Beach, off my electorate and that of the member for Gippsland East. You do not go and put a tinny in at Seaspray and chug out to work on the offshore wind turbines. That is not how it works. These offshore wind farms are serviced and built from a port. We only have one likely port that could do that in Gippsland, Barry Beach, and it is the port that has been used for 50 years or more for the offshore oil and gas sector. It has been the base for constructing offshore platforms, and now it is becoming the base for deconstructing those offshore platforms.

But did the government look at Barry Beach? No, it did not. It went to Hastings. So even the idea that there would be some jobs in this for Gippsland was taken away, because the government said, ‘No, no, no, we’re going to set up the construction port at Hastings.’ As the member for Brighton has pointed out, that did not go terribly well for the government, and they are floundering at the moment because they really do not know where they are going to do it. I would again challenge any of those opposite to give a guarantee that the offshore wind sector in Victoria will in fact be built from Victoria, because I know some of the developers’ proposed locations are actually closer to Tasmania in terms of steaming times than they are to Hastings, Geelong or the Port of Melbourne. The government needs to actually make sure it gets this right.

The fact that the government has just gone straight to Hastings and ignored a Gippsland port for the offshore wind sector is I think a very strong symptom of what happens in the energy debate. In the energy debate the politics and the benefits are all for the city. It is all about members on that side being able to stand up in Footscray, in Glen Waverly or in Box Hill and say, ‘We’re delivering these renewable energy targets.’ But who has to put up with it? We in the country are the ones that have to put up with it.

A member interjected.

Danny O’BRIEN: I have just made the point that we are not getting the jobs. The jobs are going to Hastings. Didn’t you listen to that bit? This is the point. If you do not understand that about offshore wind, then none of you have the right to stand up and talk about this. The member for Frankston was there saying, ‘No-one wants to put a nuclear terminal in on the Mornington Peninsula.’ Well, has he asked anyone in Gippsland if they want wind turbines or solar farms? I know he does not have any in Frankston. I know the member for Polwarth does. I know the member for Narracan does. I know the member for Ovens Valley has got issues with batteries in his area. And I know the member for South-West Coast does. We are not saying that we are opposed to this, but God it riles me when I hear city MPs get up and speak on all these wonderful things they are doing – ‘Aren’t they great? We’re saving the planet’ – and they have to bear none of it on that side. You just get the political benefit, and it is us in the country, whether it is the coal-fired power stations shutting down, whether it is the offshore wind base not going to Barry Beach but going to Hastings, whether it is us having to put up with 250-metre turbines within a kilometre of our homes or whether it is 500 acres of solar panels – who on that side has got 500 acres of solar panels? No-one.

Nina Taylor interjected.

Danny O’BRIEN: Albert Park has got what? Oh, big high-rise buildings. Oh, my Lord!

This issue brings me to the announcement last week by the government that it will remove the rights of Victorians when it comes to renewable energy projects by taking away their ability to appeal to VCAT and by taking away their opportunity to have a planning panel and by forcing them, if they want to object to a decision that has been made, to go to the Supreme Court, which is not the case for any other energy projects in the state. It is only for renewable energy. And not one of those is going to be coming from those opposite in the city electorates; they are all in those members’ electorates on this side that I just talked about. The member for Ripon – did she stand up and argue against this? Not publicly. Did the member for Macedon, the Minister for Health? Is she raising concerns about how her constituents have had their voice taken away on this? Has anyone actually stood up to the government? No, because you just do not care. It does not matter to you that the regional Victorians subject to these will not have the opportunity to go to VCAT. Members opposite will laugh, but in 2018 –

Members interjecting.

Danny O’BRIEN: Grow up, idiot. Listen to the people in my electorate in Alberton. The Alberton wind farm put up a proposal, and the department you are working with ticked off on it: ‘No problem; here’s the permit.’ My people, a small group of farmers, took it to VCAT and found a significant flaw in the legal basis for that permit being approved, to the extent that VCAT withdrew the permit and that project did not go ahead. Under your new laws that is now going to be stopped. So we will still have departments and developers making mistakes like that because this Labor government has taken away the voice of country people with respect to these projects. That is a disgrace, and the government stands condemned for it.

The hypocrisy of the government on this – it is all good for those out there to put up with it, for us to lose the jobs in our coal industry and our timber industry – another renewable that we would like to talk about, but those opposite do not seem to think it is renewable – but we will suffer the consequences of the offshore wind. We want the jobs that will come from offshore wind. I have actually been overseas and had a look at the opportunities that occur in the UK, Denmark and other places. There are potential jobs there, but the government has got to get it right and actually start to focus on making sure those jobs are delivered in places like Gippsland.

We do not want to have to put up with the new transmission lines, the towers on our land and the solar panels taking up good farming land and not see those jobs come to us. That is something this government really does not seem to understand. There are opportunities for us here. I would just like the government to understand that where it is doing all these things is in regional Victoria. We want to capture some of the benefits, not just the negatives. The government needs to actually start to listen.

Jackson TAYLOR (Bayswater) (11:36): It is a great pleasure to rise and speak in support of the Energy and Public Land Legislation Amendment (Enabling Offshore Wind Energy) Bill 2024. I would say to everyone watching online and in the gallery today: do not judge the previous contribution. We normally get along famously in this house. The member for Gippsland South is a great bloke. It is a great privilege to rise after him and to hear his – was it support for renewable energy?

Danny O’Brien interjected.

Jackson TAYLOR: Okay. Excellent. Fantastic. So we are not happy to have renewable energy in electorates apparently, but no issues with coal and –

Danny O’Brien: Well, have it in yours.

Jackson TAYLOR: Unfortunately in Bayswater, while it has the words ‘bay’ and ‘water’ in it, there is no bay and water. So in your references around offshore wind, it is not quite possible, but I appreciate your enthusiasm.

It is a great privilege to rise in this house, and I think those opposite are perhaps jealous of the bold agenda of the Andrews now Allan Labor government. Our bold, progressive agenda – we are leading the nation, and we are leading the world. It is great to follow the member for Frankston. It is always great to hear the member for Frankston regale us about his previous electoral battles with the former Liberal candidate for Frankston. I always enjoy hearing the story about David Speers. I know those opposite would rather he did not regale us with those particular stories, but they are always great to hear.

It is no surprise to many of us in this place to hear some of the rhetoric coming from those opposite and, sadly, from their partners in Canberra. Again, when it comes to renewable energy, it is now not so much talking them down, though I think there is still an aspect of that, but there are now delaying tactics, which is what the last Liberal federal government was all about – delaying, stopping projects. I am sure those opposite would love to do a bit of that as well, and thankfully we are in the government and we are getting on and we will not be deterred by those opposite.

But now we have got this absurd obsession with nuclear, and we have got the federal opposition leader talking about putting nuclear plants in parts of Victoria. I can tell you now: there is not a single person in my electorate who has said to me they would love a nuclear reactor in their community. So again I put the challenge out there – and I think there have actually been a couple who have taken me up on this – to all those opposite: do you want to have a nuclear power plant in your backyard in your electorate? We have seen some of the tragedies and some of the devastation overseas, the tragic loss of life when it comes to nuclear power plants and what can happen with natural disasters and when they are not managed and run effectively. Do we want to have that in our backyard here in Victoria? So I ask every member opposite: will you support nuclear in your electorate?

Nick Staikos interjected.

Jackson TAYLOR: That is right, member for Bentleigh. I think if we want to talk about it quietly and want to whisper about it, let us call it for what it is. Let us get it out on the record, because I can tell you now, no-one in my community is asking for it, and that is not what I would want to see because we already have the answers here. We have renewable energy. The cheapest form of energy is renewable energy, and we saw that this week with the Victorian default offer. When we talk about energy, it is not just about it being the right thing to do, following private investment. We know what is happening with private investment. They are getting out of fossil fuels, and they are getting into renewable energy. They are leaving. We cannot simply wait and watch. We have got to get on with it, and we actually have to have a plan. That is exactly what we have done, and that is exactly what this piece of legislation is doing – we are continuing our work on delivering the renewable energy that we are going to need to power our state when fossil fuel, when coal, leaves the state.

Of course there is a transition period. I know there are some in this house – I do not think they are here at the moment – who think you can just flick a switch and off you go, straight onto renewable energy. That is not possible. We have got to work with communities, and we have to have an effective transition to make sure that we are generating the power that Victorians need – reliable power – which is exactly what this government is doing. We will continue to do so by being responsible, by listening to the science and by working with industry and working with communities, and that is exactly what we have done.

We know that part of that is absolutely about delivering cheaper energy. I mean, just this week we had the Minister for Energy and Resources share the fantastic news with Victorians and this place about the draft Victorian default offer, which is a Victorian first. Now the federal government have also followed suit, and a lot of other states as well have followed suit in delivering default offers. This shows that bills will be going down by $112 for households and $266 for small businesses. That is money back in the pocket of over half a million Victorian families and 58,000 businesses. We are also a government who have delivered a number of rounds of the power saving bonus. That is real cost-of-living relief – getting money back into the pockets of –

Nick Staikos interjected.

Jackson TAYLOR: Member for Bentleigh, whilst some may interject, I have seen a number of DLs with the power saving bonus, and I say: kudos to you. I think it is fantastic. I would have liked a bit more of a shout-out – ‘The Victorian Labor government is delivering’ – but, you know what, beggars cannot be choosers. I am glad a lot of you are out there talking about the power saving bonus.

Danny O’Brien interjected.

Jackson TAYLOR: Yes, we know how government spending works, member for Gippsland South. I understand that. The next time the Liberals are in government I look forward to them saying, ‘The taxpayer-funded government is delivering’. I do not think it will quite work that way. I think people are very understanding of how government spending works and how expenditure and revenue work. We understand all that. Yes, you can post another one of those Facebook comments on one of my posts going ‘Taxpayer-funded’ – yes, I understand that and I respect it, and we have to be respectful of every single taxpayer dollar we spend. That is exactly why we are investing in renewable energy. So thank you very much, member for Gippsland South, for absolutely clarifying just how government spending works and where we get our money from to pay for all the things we are delivering and all the things that the Victorian people voted for at the last election and in 2018 and in 2014, because we are a government that is about action and getting things done. Thank you very much. I do enjoy some interjections. Some of them are spicy. It is all good stuff, I tell you.

There are some other great things as well that this government is doing. It is not just about enabling offshore wind – a great conversation and a great debate that is taking place in this place today. We also have our container deposit scheme. Reverse vending machines are going gangbusters. I am pretty sure that one at Mitre 10 in Bayswater is the busiest in the state. I am hoping –

Members interjecting.

Jackson TAYLOR: Absolutely, member for Bentleigh. It is also generating business for the Mitre ‍10 in Bayswater. Again, member for Gippsland South – no bay, no water in Bayswater. It is a great place. You should come and check it out, though.

We have got the container deposit scheme, and that is part of the Allan Labor government’s agenda when it comes to our environment and when it comes to renewable energy. That is again putting money back into people’s pockets. It is turning everyone’s attention to the need to do more when it comes to climate change and to our environment locally in Victoria and nationwide. It is very important to bring the community along with you when it comes to these changes, whether it is the CDS or whether it is the new four-bin system that we are rolling out, working with councils. It is the circular economy.

This bill also talks to our net zero emissions. We had a really important conversation at the last election. We have now brought our net zero emissions target forward to 2045 – a really, really important thing that this government is doing, leading the world when it comes to taking action on climate change and getting to net zero emissions. It is good to see the federal government on board as well. We are moving to renewable energy – 95 per cent by 2035, which was subject to some debate yesterday with the amendments passing through. It is very, very important stuff that this government is doing.

We know this bill is of course our first piece of legislation in our offshore wind program. It is very simple legislation in that it will amend Victorian public land and electricity legislation to allow offshore wind projects to undertake site investigatory activities to determine the design and placement of connection infrastructure. The connection infrastructure is absolutely required to deliver electricity generated by offshore wind projects in declared Commonwealth waters into the Victorian grid. The bill provides a clearer pathway for offshore wind proponents awarded feasibility licences in Commonwealth waters under the offshore electricity act of 2021, and it is done through allowing the Minister for Energy and Resources to declare an offshore wind generation company under the Offshore Electricity Infrastructure Act 2021 of the Commonwealth to be a licensee. So it is a very, very important piece of legislation.

Again we are continuing in our leadership when it comes to generating renewable energy. Another thing we are doing is we are getting back into government-owned renewable energy, a significant platform at the last election, one of the most important policies, I believe, that the Allan Labor government is cracking on with. It is absolutely huge. I remember getting out and on the doors talking to locals, and that was the one reason why they voted for us. They remember what the old SEC did, and they know that the Liberals got rid of it. It will never be back to what it was; we all know that. No-one is pretending that, but we are getting back into it to help drive down power prices. They may dislike it, and they will probably privatise it if they ever have a chance to get back into government. But I support this bill.

Roma BRITNELL (South-West Coast) (11:46): I rise to speak on the Energy and Public Land Legislation Amendment (Enabling Offshore Wind Energy) Bill 2024. This is a bill that basically sets up licensing for Victoria’s offshore wind projects, because there is no legislation that covers the licences and the infrastructure. But what this bill does not do is give us the explanation of the plan the state government has. However, there is implication and highlighting that South-West Coast will have wind turbines. This will have tremendous consequences for my electorate of South-West Coast. It will gravely impact an electorate that already is crisscrossed with renewable energy developments, an electorate which has more wind turbines than any other electorate in Victoria. Yet under this Labor government South-West Coast’s world-famous whale nursery is under threat from the proposed offshore wind developments, which are clearly identified as a way forward in this bill.

I simply do not trust the state or federal Labor governments to get the balance right between protecting our whales and developing offshore wind off the coast of Warrnambool and Port Fairy. I do not trust Labor, and I cannot support wind turbines over a whale migration pathway. Let me be clear: I understand the role of renewables in achieving energy targets, but I do not support risking a precious whale migration pathway for an offshore wind farm whose risks are not fully understood. It is that simple: do not risk our whales; do not build an offshore wind farm in Warrnambool and Port Fairy’s whale nursery.

One of the reasons I have such distrust is Labor’s decision last Thursday to change the planning rules, a change which completely erodes the right of the community to object to offshore wind projects as well as onshore renewable energy projects. It is shameful that the supposedly environmentally conscious Labor Party would wilfully put the environment and important areas like the whale nursery off Logans Beach in my electorate at risk for a project we do not understand the impacts of on the environment. I remind Labor that we live in a democracy. As much as they might wish it was, Victoria is not a dictatorship.

This bill will allow offshore wind developers to obtain tenure over public land for the purposes of assessing the feasibility of constructing offshore wind electricity transmission infrastructure, designed to provide certainty to the industry. In addition, it enables the actual transmission of offshore-generated wind energy to the Victorian grid on land. A subsequent easement arrangement over public land says that perhaps Killarney Beach, which is right in the middle of the declared offshore zone, would be required to enable the connection to be made, and this bill facilitates that, as it does not currently exist in legislation. Now, I note that there is commitment to putting the transmission lines underwater, but once it gets to shore, once again, there is no commitment to underground transmission lines. They are prepared to just crisscross them all over the landscape.

I personally hold major concerns over allowing the state Labor government the responsibility of making decisions that will affect our very fragile and pristine marine system. Offshore wind off the coast of Warrnambool and Port Fairy will be located in the whale migratory pathway that has existed for thousands of years. Even worse, it will be placed in a whale nursery to where, after many years of whaling, almost to extinction, the whales are finally returning and building up in numbers as they come to give birth. It is a very protected and valued site for keeping whales safe and ensuring they are not disturbed. You cannot swim in the area, you cannot boat near them, you cannot jet ski near them or windsurf. Everything is planned very carefully, mindful of minimising any disturbance to the valued and greatly popular return of the whales to the south-west coast.

How can we as a community believe the state Labor government care enough not to jeopardise the good work that the community have in place to protect this sanctuary when this bill and this government are purposefully making it harder for local communities to object to offshore wind projects on environmental grounds? Last week we saw the government declare that they had changed the rules around renewable projects so that the community panel process where people can have their say will be removed along with the ability to have an appeals process through VCAT. The Labor government is effectively accelerating the planning pathways for projects so that the community can no longer have any input, steamrolling over communities’ rights. It also means that it is harder for the community to get answers to important questions like where the workers developing the offshore wind farm will be located and how long they will be developing the site for. Is the infrastructure installation project going to take place during the winter months, when whales are migrating past as part of their journey from Antarctica to southern Queensland, and if so, what measures, if any, are in place to stop whales being impacted? It is simply steamrolling over Victorians’ rights.

The community are rightfully not trusting of government processes to ensure the environment has been considered and will not be harmed. The government’s recent actions show just how chaotic the government is when it comes to offshore wind. The example I can use to demonstrate this is Hastings, where there was supposedly going to be a renewable hub for Victoria. Two years earlier Labor Minister for Planning Richard Wynne actually said this area would never be utilised as there is a protected Ramsar wetland nearby and it would not be able to be used in that way. Despite this, the Minister for Ports and Freight went down there and got photos, saying, ‘This is the port we will be using as a renewables hub’, followed by the Minister for Energy and Resources saying, ‘This is the place where the energy hub will be for offshore wind,’ followed by the Minister for Planning, Minister Kilkenny, saying, ‘Everything’s in order.’ Eventually the federal minister for environment had to show some leadership and came out attacking her state colleagues, saying it cannot happen for exactly the same reason that the previous minister had stated two years earlier – the site is too sensitive an area to be developed because of the protected Ramsar wetland. To top it off, the environment minister was exposed as not having not done his homework when he said he was waiting for the federal minister’s full reasonings to block the project when they were already available online.

This bill being introduced so soon after that embarrassment from the Labor members across the chamber has me rightfully concerned that they are going to push ahead and put the wetland, which is protected for a reason, at risk in their crusade to keep their inner-city seats happy. This saga demonstrates that, like when the Premier said, ‘We will find a way. It’s going to happen,’ this government will not stop at anything, not least the risk to the environment, in their crusade to reach their goals. They have made secret deals with coal power plants to keep lights on because they know they cannot reach their renewable targets, and I feel that they are prepared to put our whale migratory path and nursery at risk. The government will risk the environment with transmission infrastructure and development in a fragile marine environment.

Our Liberal policy is to overturn the gas ban by Labor because we will not have enough power to keep the lights on. Gas is required to keep Victorians warm, and it is not environmentally destructive, because we need to have power. We heard the small business advocate saying that if the Victorian government cannot guarantee they will keep the lights on, he can guarantee that Victorian businesses will be leaving. So the Victorian Liberals will repeal the ban on gas and keep the lights on. Labor, on the other hand, is prepared to harm the environment in the name of the environment, saying they want to reach their targets for renewable energy when they know there just is not the ability to do so. There is not enough storage capacity, there is not the capability and wind and solar alone will not do it.

Just as importantly, in the briefing we were very concerned to hear that the state government will just simply be trusting the Commonwealth to do their due diligence, because they will give permits to the ones the Commonwealth have given authority to. I just think we are passing the buck there and not doing the necessary checks that Victorians need to be sure of.

We do not in South-West Coast oppose renewable projects. Our region has over 400 wind turbines already, with hundreds more planned. What we do oppose is having our rights removed and no longer being able to be part of the conversation. The government needs to be finding a balance between renewable energy developments and affordable and reliable energy, and that certainly is not proving to be the case. Power prices have increased over 28 per cent in the last two years, and one shudders to think what will happen when they put up expensive wind towers in 60-metre-deep water off the coast of Warrnambool, which will cost Victorians far more in power because that has to be passed back to the customer. Most planning seems to take years, but this government seems to be able to plan these wind farms and get through processes of bureaucracy within six months. The government is riding roughshod over Victorians, and Victorians in South-West Coast have had enough. We will not allow our whales to be compromised.

Gary MAAS (Narre Warren South) (11:56): It gives me great pleasure to rise and to make a contribution to the Energy and Public Land Legislation Amendment (Enabling Offshore Wind Energy) Bill 2024. As we all know, Victoria has high-quality offshore wind resources with the potential to go in a range of locations, as does the rest of the country. In that regard Australia truly is the lucky country. We are unlocking the power of offshore wind to improve our energy security as coal-fired power stations are gradually being retired. This will improve affordability and sustainability and bring us another step closer to net zero by 2045. The offshore wind industry in Victoria provides just so many opportunities to reduce emissions and, importantly, to fast-track job and economic development opportunities for regional Victoria, particularly in clean energy generation and green manufacturing.

It was with some interest this morning when I was going through my media scroll feed that I saw a headline that piqued my interest. The headline read, ‘Victoria’s renewables fast-track “will lead to terrible decisions”: expert’. As I said, it piqued my interest somewhat. I wondered who this expert might be. I kept reading through. The expert was RMIT’s Emeritus Professor Michael Buxton. I just thought to myself, ‘Buxton. Now, how do I know that name?’ So I did have a little bit of a Google search on this name, Professor Michael Buxton, and I kept reading the rest of the article from that fine beacon of the working class, the Australian newspaper, and it said that Professor Michael Buxton is a billionaire rich-lister who is a donor to the Liberal Party and made his wealth through property development. So these experts who come forward in the advisory wing to the Victorian Liberal Party are actually all about property development.

They have gone very quiet on the other side, because it has actually got nothing to do with planning decisions, it has got nothing to do with fast-tracking renewables but it has everything to do with not being able to develop property and to make money. This mob – they do not care about renewables. All they care about is protecting their mates and making money off property development. That is all they care about. And it is always the member for Brighton who will stand up and interject.

James Newbury: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, on relevance, I do not want to embarrass the member, but there are two Michael Buxtons.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Juliana Addison): Could you please stick to the point of order and tell me what your point of order is? You do not want to embarrass people. What is your point of order? I missed it.

James Newbury: I said, on relevance, there are two Michael Buxtons, and unfortunately the member has mistaken the two of them.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Juliana Addison): I ask the member to continue.

Gary MAAS: Buxton: a very famous name in property development.

Members interjecting.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Juliana Addison): Member for Polwarth, the contributing member will be heard in silence.

Members interjecting.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Juliana Addison): Member for Polwarth, I ask you to listen respectfully to the member, please.

Richard Riordan interjected.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Juliana Addison): Richard Riordan, enough!

Gary MAAS: The Australian government has established the regulatory framework for this offshore wind energy development to occur and the potential for some –

James Newbury: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, as the standing orders provide, members should be referred to by their correct titles, even by Acting Speakers.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Juliana Addison): I will note that, thank you.

Gary MAAS: The Australian Commonwealth government has established a regulatory framework within which this bill will participate. The amendments are intended to work with and not be contrary to existing rights and obligations that apply under the acts being amended by the bill.

The Energy and Public Land Legislation Amendment (Enabling Offshore Wind Energy) Bill is the state government’s first piece of legislation in our offshore wind program. The legislation is simple. Projects will undertake site investigatory activities which will allow the government to determine the design and placement of connection infrastructure. It is necessary legislation to deliver electricity to the Victorian grid that is being generated by offshore wind projects. Legislation is important as it ensures we are moving ahead with our offshore wind development with gusto. It ensures offshore wind development is moving ahead and coal-fired power stations are burning out; we need to ramp up our renewable energy to keep our state running and meet energy and climate targets.

The bill itself makes specific amendments to the Land Act 1958, the Crown Land (Reserves) Act ‍1978, the Forests Act 1958, the National Parks Act 1975 and the Amendment of Electricity Industry Act ‍2000 to enable activities relating to the investigation of connection assets to be approved on public land and clarify arrangements under the four main land acts, those amendments being introducing the concept of offshore wind energy generation company into the electricity industry act; creating a category of licence in the Land Act, Crown act and Forests Act; allowing a maximum licence term of 21 years in alignment with other licences under land legislation; and enabling investigation into connection routes over the National Parks Act with the consent of Parks Victoria or similar agencies.

Importantly, the new licence regime allows the government to have an active role in directing the placement of connection assets. This means that offshore wind projects can be inserted into the existing public land licensing regime and they are not exempt from meeting the existing obligations under Victorian law. It also ensures that environmental risks are mitigated, including consideration of traditional owners and their important connection to land and sea when coordinating placement of infrastructure, forming meaningful partnerships with traditional owners and engaging in genuine consultation. That is of the most importance when it comes to the government to ensure the respect and power that First Nation communities deserve.

Offshore wind is an absolutely critical component of Victoria’s commitment to decarbonisation and fighting the effects that come with climate change. Renewable energy through wind, solar and batteries will all help move Victoria away from fossil fuels and towards our pledge of 95 per cent renewables by 2035. In my electorate of Narre Warren South constituents are certainly on board with the active take-up of renewables and are already making the switch to energy-efficient upgrades in their homes. The City of Casey, which is within the electorate of Narre Warren South, has one of the highest uptakes of solar panels as part of the solar panels program, and that demonstrates the willingness of my constituents to make that transition. They are certainly on board with that.

Offshore wind gives our state unparalleled levels of generation capacity, and the stats prove it, with our first wind farm in Victoria set to power some 1.5 million homes. This government is absolutely serious about ensuring offshore wind projects and the conservation of our environment as well. And there will be plenty of jobs that come from this as well. Some 59,000 jobs are expected to be created as we transition to ambitious and achievable renewable energy targets. We have created over 5100 ‍jobs in large-scale renewable energy since we were elected, and we will continue to do this as the Allan Labor government’s climate action goal of net zero emissions by 2045 continues.

This bill is an excellent bill. It shows the hard and dedicated work and commitment of our Minister for Energy and Resources and of the department, and I commend the bill to the house.

Richard RIORDAN (Polwarth) (12:06): I rise today to contribute on the Energy and Public Land Legislation Amendment (Enabling Offshore Wind Energy) Bill 2024, and this of course is a very, very important piece of legislation for the Polwarth electorate. It is important because the Polwarth electorate, like many opposition members’ electorates in regional Victoria, has borne the brunt of this government’s quest for renewable energy. While the government makes much of the fact that it is soldiering ahead with renewable energy, we have learned today that there is really only one government electorate that is carrying any burden whatsoever in the renewable energy space.

The concern about this legislation is the government continues its way of, when there is any community upset or community concerns, changing the rules so that you cannot contest these basic ideas, and we have seen that time and time again. We have seen it so much with onshore energy that pesky things like brolgas or wetlands or proximity to people’s homes are no longer reasons why we should not be building up to 300-metre-high towers next door to people. It is an interesting juxtaposition that this government will very much carry the can for any sorts of industrial developments in their own neighbourhoods, but when it comes to opposition members’ neighbourhoods they are very, very happy to turn a blind eye.

What the government has not made clear to Victorians is, as we roll out renewable energy, of course we need a brand new transmission network that is going to be required to move all this electricity from one part of the state to another at the times that Victorians need it. We have had quite a lot of debate in recent times about whether that transmission infrastructure should be high voltage or DC – direct current – transmission, and clearly there is a very, very big difference. I am sure many of the government members sitting opposite will be completely unaware of the difference between HV or DC distribution, because they have a very, very big cost difference but they also have a marked difference on the environment and the way they are shared.

The concern in this legislation for the people of Polwarth is the fact that we are giving a relatively new authority, the Great Ocean Road Coast and Parks Authority (GORCAPA), extra permission to grant permits to allow the cabling that is going to be required. That is going to allow it to come onshore, so they have now clarified that the Great Ocean Road Coast and Parks Authority will enable the trenches. They will be the ones issuing the permits that enable the trenches that will need to be dug from 3 ‍kilometres offshore all the way inland. Along the Great Ocean Road’s coast and parks, of course, most of the land that you are going to have to cross is either inside the national park, near townships or a long, long way from the nearest distribution line. For example, anywhere along the Great Ocean Road to the nearest transmission point that an offshore wind farm can connect into will be somewhere between a 70-kilometre and a 150-kilometre drive. That is through the Otway Ranges – so the Otway Forest – it is through the Heytesbury farming district and it is through the backblocks of Torquay, Jan Juc, across from Winchelsea and that quite heavily populated rural community.

So the question that this bill does not really facilitate – it does not give a pathway or a direction to what that would actually mean. If the government continues with its desire to have high-voltage AC distribution lines, we are talking needing trenches 50 metres wide and some many, many metres deep that have to be backfilled with sand, concrete and all sorts of materials that would have to travail from 3 kilometres out at sea to right across our pristine landscapes in the Otway Ranges, the Heytesbury farming area and other areas. This government has not made it clear how that will work.

Now, there are alternatives to the trenches once the electricity comes onshore from Bass Strait and out at sea, and they would require the building of a large interconnector that would be essentially like a giant power board that the transmission lines from out at sea would connect into, and then it could be above ground. The government has a propensity to support above-ground transmission distribution, which might be cheaper on one hand but has huge environmental consequences as well. So the question that this government need to clarify for the community when they talk about this is: with that offshore electricity that GORCAPA is going to approve the transmission lines for, where is that going to connect in, and where is that infrastructure going to go? Because about a $500 million industrial structure will need to be built somewhere close to the shoreline for the powerlines to connect into, and then there can be further distribution across, most probably, to the Portland interconnector, which is some 50 kilometres north of Colac, running east to west across the landscape there. It is a huge amount of extra infrastructure and facilities that will need to be taken into account, and the community will quite rightly ask questions: how will that come onshore, what will it look like and what other cost burdens will the community have to bear? Unfortunately, with the changes that this government has made in just the last couple of weeks, the communities that will be potentially affected by these decisions will not be able to go to VCAT to lodge complaints and protest about it or to raise their concerns. In fact they will be basically ignored, and this will be essentially a fait accompli.

What we also know about this legislation is that it essentially allows for offshore wind speculators. We have seen the effect of onshore speculators over the last 20 years now in Victoria. They are essentially people that are not going to be the builders or owners of the infrastructure but rather are investors who go about trying to get the permits in place. These people do not necessarily have an incentive for the project to go ahead, but they can cause great angst and anxiety in communities as they undergo the investigation. Sometimes, with all the effort, concern and heartache that communities can go through – I have certainly seen that in my own community recently, with, say, the Mumblin wind farm, which has consumed a lot of time, effort and energy of the local community, and at this stage it looks like that project, for example, will not go ahead.

But this legislation is all about the government racing to try and figure out how it is going to replace the massive input into our energy system from existing infrastructure and methods, such as the Latrobe Valley’s coal plants. But this legislation also does not make mention of or refer to the extra shoring up and firming up of electrical supply that we will need in the state of Victoria. The Australian Energy Market Operator, the national regulator of electricity demand and supply and planning, points out that if we get to the figure of 95 per cent, we are also going to need to move our reliance on gas from around 2 per cent to about 23 per cent. That is because, despite previous government speakers talking about powering 1.5 million homes, anyone who knows anything about a wind farm knows that it is actually not powering the 1.5 million homes all day, every day like traditional energy generators may. It in fact peaks, ebbs and flows – peaks and wallows. It goes up and down, and the gaps have to be filled in. The gaps in that energy supply can only be filled in by rapid peak generators such as the Mortlake gas peaking plant, which is an essential element in the Victorian energy grid today, or through batteries, both of which we will need a lot, lot more of, and those facilities will need to be built or constructed or provided somewhere where this extra transmission infrastructure is going.

The government needs to be more transparent and honest with regional communities. We are putting legislation through today that is not only going to allow serious changes to our foreshores and our national parks along the Great Ocean Road, it is also going to necessitate the building and construction of much more and much larger infrastructure that does not currently exist anywhere along that road network or across those communities. So I think it is reasonable as the member for Polwarth that I would be raising this with the government and seeking their feedback on how they plan to manage that, because these are obvious questions the community will have.

Existing legislation such as the Marine and Coastal Act 2018 of course influences how we prune trees and how we look after the environment immediately around our surf clubs – it goes into that much fine detail – and to think that massive trenches and pieces of infrastructure will be able to go across the same parcels of land without that same community input and feedback should be a worry to local communities and a concern.

Paul HAMER (Box Hill) (12:16): I also rise to talk about the Energy and Public Land Legislation Amendment (Enabling Offshore Wind Energy) Bill 2024. It is a really important bill because the government has set targets for renewable energy across a number of different energy sources but particularly in offshore wind power – 2 gigawatts by 2032, 4 gigawatts by 2035 and 9 gigawatts by 2040. This is a really important bill on the pathway to achieving those targets because we need the policy and the regulatory reform to support any changes to that industry.

Our energy future in Victoria does stand at a crossroads, and I think this bill demonstrates that the Allan Labor government are fully committed to expanding the renewables mix in Victoria – wind, solar, renewable hydrogen – and then going down to community batteries as well. We have already achieved so much, and the transition can be seen all around us. We have got nation-leading renewable and energy storage targets and our renewable energy target of 25 per cent by 2020 has been met. Obviously, we have got quite ambitious targets for 2030 and 2035, but we are determined to meet those targets because we know the energy requirements of the state but also the environmental impacts that necessitate taking this action.

I just want to reflect a little bit on what has been debated today. There seems to have been a lot of criticism of offshore wind energy, particularly in terms of the source from which this offshore energy generation will be occurring. Obviously by its very nature and by its very wording offshore energy is sourced from offshore, which means that there is only part of the state where this can be generated. I know the member for Gippsland South was trying to promote the idea that maybe it should be set up in Port Phillip Bay, but the reality is that the resource does not exist in Port Phillip Bay. The resource exists through Bass Strait because –

Wayne Farnham interjected.

Paul HAMER: Exactly right, member for Narracan. That is where the wind is. I mean, you have got the roaring forties, which do not hit a single parcel of land from South America all the way through to Bass Strait, roaring through Bass Strait and providing a generally very reliable energy source.

Offshore wind generation is not a new technology. It has been used in many other parts of the world, and it is well established. Putting it in Victoria makes a lot of sense, and Victoria is well placed in terms of where its existing energy generation is located and its transmission is located to actually take real advantage of this resource. That is not a resource that we can simply locate in my electorate of Box Hill or along Port Phillip Bay. Regardless of what residents along the bay might think of having an offshore generator tower, you simply have to put it where the resource is. In exactly the same way, when we set up the original SEC and when we originally set up coal-fired power stations, they were not located in Melbourne; they were located in the Latrobe Valley, because that is where the resource is. It is the same with our gas plants.

A lot of members on the other side have also raised environmental concerns.

James Newbury interjected.

Paul HAMER: As the member for Brighton knows, that is an important concern that is also considered by the Allan Labor government. In any consideration of these assessments, we will always look to balance environmental impact for generating the new energy resource. But if you were to believe the opposition, these environmental concerns only exist when you are looking at renewable energy facilities.

The member for South-West Coast mentioned further exploration of gas. The member for South-West Coast said that it was Liberal policy to overturn the gas ban, which indicates that they will want further exploration of gas. There were no riders or environmental concerns or anything related to further exploration of gas –

Roma Britnell interjected.

Paul HAMER: Or any of the fracking. If the member wants to talk about fracking, it is as if fracking does not have any environmental impacts whatsoever. Then you have got the federal coalition, who are talking about a nuclear energy revival, and again there is not a single discussion about what the environmental impacts are of having a nuclear energy industry. It is all very well to say that this is our energy future and we going to be pushing all of this energy mix, but you cannot just say, ‘Look at the renewable energy generating plants,’ and then say, ‘Well, no, we can’t do that because this has got an environmental impact,’ and then ignore all of the environmental impacts that are going to come with further gas exploration and nuclear energy and further coal plants probably as well. I am sure that that would be on the agenda for the coalition as well.

The member for Polwarth was also talking about speculators and how we should be banning speculators from the renewable energy industry and the offshore wind industry. This is how a lot of the mining industry works as well. If it is for coal or oil or gas, a lot of that starts as speculators looking for product to see if there is a large enough resource for them to then sell that licence to a larger producer who can actually then generate it. I really feel that it is disingenuous for the coalition to be arguing that it is only these renewable energy sources that somehow have these environmental and economic and financial problems yet somehow the non-renewable sources are just plain sailing and there are no impacts whatsoever on their communities at all or on the broader community.

We do need to be looking at our energy mix, and we do need to be transitioning to a renewable future. The legislation that is proposed under this amendment and the regulatory changes that will occur as a result of it will certainly put the steps in place that will enable more studies to be done and more assessments to be done of how we are actually going to deliver this renewable energy in the future. It is a critical component of our future mix, offshore wind. We will be able to provide incomparable levels of generation capacity with the resource that is available. Victoria is a leader in offshore wind, and it should remain that way because of the natural resource that we have. We do not have some of the other resources that some of the other states have, but we do have offshore wind and a reliable area where there will always be no land – between South America and Bass Strait. So I commend the bill to the house.

John PESUTTO (Hawthorn – Leader of the Opposition) (12:26): I move:

That debate be adjourned.

I move that debate be adjourned to discuss one of the most damning independent reports we have seen tabled in this Parliament in years. We all knew for many months that the government were struggling to deliver the Commonwealth Games, and when they finally got mugged by reality and realised they could not deliver them for that pathetic lie of a $2.6 billion envelope, we called on Victoria’s Auditor-General. Yes, it was my colleagues and I on this side of the house that not only worked to establish an inquiry in the other place, which has produced some very revealing facts about the biggest debacle in Victorian sport and a big debacle that has hurt our state’s reputation, we also asked Victoria’s Auditor-General, one of the independent integrity agencies in this state, to look into this debacle. They have looked into this debacle, and we now know things that this government tried to hide from the Victorian people. Let me tell you what the biggest lie was. On 20 April –

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition knows that term is unparliamentary. I ask you not to repeat it.

John PESUTTO: The biggest con was that on 20 April 2023 cabinet met and secretly decided to increase the funding envelope for the Commonwealth Games from $2.6 billion to $3.6 billion. Now, for those who do not recall, the figure of $2.6 billion was a line item in the 2022–23 budget, but, guess what, when cabinet secretly met and lifted that funding envelope by $1 billion – which may not mean a lot to people who are experts in spending other people’s money – they hid that figure. They hid the blowout in general contingencies. Why did they do that? Because they did not want the Victorian people to know about this lie, to know about the blowout and to know that the now Premier, Premier Allan, could not confidently manage the Commonwealth Games.

And then do you know what else happened? In this chamber on 16 May 2023, when my good friend the member for Nepean asked the Premier about the funding for the Commonwealth Games, the Premier affirmed the figure of $2.6 billion – a serious breach of the standing orders of this house.

Colin Brooks: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, as members well know, a procedural motion it is not an opportunity to debate the substance of the matter that the Leader of the Opposition wants to debate. This is a procedural motion, and he should come back to the adjournment motion that he has put forward.

John PESUTTO: On the point of order, Deputy Speaker, the reason why this matter is so urgent is that, as everybody in this house now knows, we are not opposing the enabling offshore wind energy bill. We are not opposing. There have been a number of speakers and there will be more. But this is an urgent matter. It is urgent because the Auditor-General –

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am overruling the point of order. The ruling, as the minister said, is correct, and I uphold the point of order. The procedural matter you are putting forward is on the urgency of the debate, not the debate, and if the Leader of the Opposition could come to that, I would appreciate it.

John PESUTTO: Excellent. Thank you, Deputy Speaker. This matter is urgent because the Victorian people need to know that they can believe their Premier. They need to know that they can trust and rely on their Premier and the government she is supposed to lead.

Colin Brooks: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, the member is now reflecting on a member of this house. He knows he should not do that.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is a matter for debate, Minister.

John PESUTTO: Make no mistake, we have never seen such a damning report from an independent integrity agency into any political leader in this state. I have never seen a report like it. You cannot avoid the conclusion; the conclusions are irrefutable. The dates stand as unmistakable evidence of deceit, of hiding important facts. Imagine covering up for a blowout of a billion dollars, and instead of updating the line item that had existed in the last financial year’s budget, actually burying it in contingencies, thinking we are never going to find out.

Colin Brooks: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is defying your earlier ruling.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member’s time has expired.

Iwan WALTERS (Greenvale) (12:32): I would like to say it is a pleasure to rise to speak on this procedural debate, but it really is a deep disappointment to not be continuing to speak on the government business program.

Members interjecting.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Greenvale is entitled to be heard.

Iwan WALTERS: Deputy Speaker, I do note that there was a lot more volume when I was speaking than when the for-now opposition leader was speaking and making his contribution. The Leader of the Opposition, who I am glad referenced his good friend at the table the member for Nepean ‍– the Borg and McEnroe of Victorian politics –

James Newbury: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, on relevance, this is a procedural debate. I understand that the government has refused to let any ministers defend this motion, but the backbench member should know better than the way he is debating this motion.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I encourage all members to adhere to the previous ruling that this is on the urgency of the debate or lack thereof. I ask the member to come back to the procedural motion, without assistance. Members are warned.

Iwan WALTERS: The urgency of the debate and the merits of the Leader of the Opposition are not strengthened by his shouting and the carry-on of the members behind him now. This is not an appropriate use of the Parliament’s time. We have an important government business program that we have been discussing, which was agreed to yesterday. The residents in Greenvale care deeply about sport. They care about the $10.5 million cricket facility that is being built in Greenvale at the moment by this government. They care about the new changing rooms that are being built at Roxburgh Park football and cricket clubs by this government. In all of the conversations I have with members of my community on the doors, at railway stations and at street stalls, they talk to me about the things that matter: the cost-of-living measures that this government has been bringing in, energy and housing, improving the conditions that renters have in Victoria – which are the issues that are on the government business program this week. The Leader of the Opposition continues to shout, continues to carry on, continues to be completely disconnected from those behind him. His points are not rendered any stronger by shouting.

James Newbury: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, it is not appropriate or relevant for the member to be reflecting on the Auditor-General and the report they have provided.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

Iwan WALTERS: The procedural motion is seeking to interrupt the government business program, which has two important bills – one of which is being debated – relating to energy in this place and the distribution and the generation of renewable energy that we have heard about in the Bass Strait, ensuring that that energy can get onshore and be distributed around the state through an upgraded transmission network that is regulated properly and that has a legal framework to ensure that the transition that is underway in Victoria can be managed as efficiently and as effectively as possible. Also, as I said, we are going to be talking about housing and the rights of renters, ensuring that the tenure and the dignity and the security of renters in Victoria are protected. That is what the residents of Greenvale that I speak to regarding the issues that matter to them want to see debated in this place. That is why it is I think an egregious shame that every week we have these attempts to railroad the government business program, to cut across the important issues that residents in my constituency tell me they want to see debated and actioned in this place: housing, energy, education, projects like the $22.38 million stage 2 development of Greenvale Secondary College –

Members interjecting.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for South Barwon is warned.

Iwan WALTERS: and the $10.5 million upgrade of Bethal Primary School. These are the issues which are central to residents in my community. And the Leader of the Opposition is regularly in my community. It is very interesting that he is not spending more time in his and tending to his own backbench and the relationships he has with his own party room.

Members interjecting.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for South Barwon can leave the chamber for half an hour.

Member for South Barwon withdrew from chamber.

Iwan WALTERS: It is always lovely to see him, in a way that I suspect his colleagues do not quite welcome. I oppose this motion, and I want to see us get back to the issues that matter.

Sam GROTH (Nepean) (12:37): It is my pleasure to rise to support the motion to adjourn the debate by the Leader of the Opposition, because it is a dark day for Victoria when the Premier of this state can mislead the people of Victoria. The Commonwealth Games was a clear hoax to deliver votes in regional Victoria by the previous government, and Premier Allan was a part of every part of that process. The Victorian people deserve to know and deserve to have that debated in this chamber so that it is made clear –

Mary-Anne Thomas: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, as you have already ruled, this is a narrow procedural debate. As yet the member on his feet has not mentioned the procedural debate, so I ask you to bring him back to making the case –

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I encourage the member for Nepean to debate the urgency of the matter on the procedural motion.

Sam GROTH: An hour ago the Premier faced the press, and when asked about who should be held accountable for what is in this report, she said no-one should be held accountable because those responsible are already gone. The Premier was the minister in charge of Commonwealth Games delivery.

Mary-Anne Thomas: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, the member is obviously unable to abide by your ruling, so I ask you make it very clear that he is to speak to the procedural motion.

Sam GROTH: On the point of order, Deputy Speaker, I think if we are going to move to adjourn the debate, it is important to note why we are moving to adjourn it. We cannot just adjourn debate without putting forward the argument as to why we are doing so.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: If you can bring it to why it is important, then I will understand.

Sam GROTH: It is important that we move to adjourn the debate because, as the Leader of the Opposition stated, in the 2022–23 budget there was a line item for the Commonwealth Games of $2.6 billion. I note the Minister for Tourism, Sport and Major Events is across the table right now. He sat in on the cabinet meeting, and I note he has not got to his feet yet. He sat in on the cabinet meeting that on 20 April approved an extra billion dollars to fund the Commonwealth Games, which was never going to go ahead, based on what we read. He sat in that meeting to approve an extra billion dollars, which was then hidden in general contingency in last year’s budget. The Premier herself stood in this chamber –

Steve Dimopoulos: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, the member on his feet shows a complete lack of understanding of budgetary processes. Contingencies are pretty normal across all of government, and it is a poor excuse. May they never hold public office or executive office. They have got no idea about how budgets work.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no point of order. The member for Nepean to resume on the procedural motion.

Sam GROTH: It is important we note these matters so we know why we are going to adjourn the debate and why this motion has been moved. On 14 July, four days before the Commonwealth Games was cancelled, the Premier put to cabinet, to this government, a submission asking for $4.2 billion. Four days before the Premier came out and announced –

Paul Edbrooke: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, as a fellow national medal winner, I see where the member is coming from, but this is a narrow procedural debate and the member is defying your ruling.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Nepean to continue.

Sam GROTH: $4.2 billion the now Premier put to cabinet, and the then Premier Daniel Andrews came out four days later and that cost had gone from $4.2 billion to over $7 billion in four days. How can this government, as incompetent as they are, find a $3 billion blowout in four days?

Steve Dimopoulos: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, there is somewhere in the standing orders where occupational health and safety matters. I am going slowly deaf listening to the high-pitched voice of the member for Nepean, because he has no basis in reality and therefore he raises his voice –

Members interjecting.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is not a point of order. The member’s time has expired. Before I call the next member, if I cannot hear points of order, it is going to take a lot longer.

Lauren KATHAGE (Yan Yean) (12:42): The sound and the fury, the noise obscuring the lack of substance – because all this is is a stunt, and it is a distraction. What could they possibly be looking to distract us from? What could it be? Could it be their leadership troubles? Potentially they are buying ‍–

James Newbury: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, this is a tight procedural debate, and I am very concerned about the ongoing reflections on the Auditor-General by the government.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is a tight procedural debate and I encourage the member to debate the procedural motion, not other things.

Lauren KATHAGE: We are a party that has got a massive agenda to get through, and they are trying to stop us, distract us and slow us down. They are wanting to distract from their own problems, they are wanting to stop us moving forward with improving renters rights. Do you know why I know that? Yesterday in this house we heard from the member for South-West Coast how troubled she was by the improvements for renters that we made in our 2018 changes for renters. She was troubled.

James Newbury: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, on relevance.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Back to the procedural motion, member for Yan Yean.

Lauren KATHAGE: The reason I oppose this is because we are working to improve renters rights and they are worried and are trying to distract us from that, from continuing with our program for the day. We heard from the member for South-West Coast why: basically anything to stop renewables. Perhaps they need more time. They are looking for time, maybe to read all the reports that tell us that nuclear does not make sense for Australia. Maybe they need time to run a fundraiser for their leader. Maybe the member for Nepean needs time to go and get his suits measured –

James Newbury: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, the member is defying your ruling.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Yan Yean to continue on the procedural motion in front of us.

Lauren KATHAGE: Thank you for your guidance, Deputy Speaker. We have a lot to get through this week, and we want to continue to deliver renewable energy for our communities. We want to make this renewable energy change because we know that offshore wind is going to be a powerhouse of our future electricity grid, and we know that, with our targets, offshore wind will be an important component of that. We want to talk about that. We want to pass the legislation that will enable that, because we know that renewable energy will produce cheaper power, and that is why it is urgent – because our communities want cheaper power bills, and that is what we are delivering. We are delivering it now. We saw the Victorian default offer is already cheaper for families from July. We are delivering cheaper energy through making a renewable energy system, and we know that those –

Sam Groth: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, I am sure the $600 million the government wasted on cancelling the Commonwealth Games could have got a long way to helping Victorians with the cost of living.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no point of order. Frivolous points of order are not only annoying but against the standing orders.

Lauren KATHAGE: I am offended on behalf of my constituents that he would make light of the difficulties that people have with their power bills. This is a real concern for our communities, and that is why we are acting to improve that for them. We know the proof is in the pudding with the Victorian default offer information that came out this week. They are running scared because they know that what we are doing works, that what we are doing is popular and that what –

James Newbury: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, on relevance – ‘running scared’? The government has not sent out a frontbencher to –

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member to continue.

Lauren KATHAGE: I thank the member for Brighton for his confidence in me as a backbencher. I am sure that the frontbenchers are proud to have behind them an amazing team, always willing to speak for the government.

David SOUTHWICK (Caulfield) (12:47): I rise to support the Leader of the Opposition’s call to adjourn the government business program and talk about something that is more important than anything else at the moment, and that is waste and mismanagement. We have a cost-of-living crisis. Victorians cannot afford to put food on the table at the moment, and we have a government that has wasted money. In a report today $1 billion has completely gone – vanished. Where has it gone? We need to understand today: where is that $1 billion? Where is that $1 billion of taxpayers money? We heard the Premier today say that there is nothing more to see in this report.

Pauline Richards: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, this is a tight procedural debate. I would ask you to bring the member back to the procedural debate in front of us.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member to continue. He was on the procedural debate.

David SOUTHWICK: As I was saying, the Premier has come out today and said there is nothing to see in this report, a report that is so important that we need to discuss it today. The Premier has said everything has been accounted for. We know that the Premier was up to her eyeballs in this debt – the Premier, who was responsible for the Commonwealth Games and who led the hoax for votes in the lead-up to the Commonwealth Games. We know how important it is to get to the bottom of this, because Victorians are suffering at the moment. That is why we need to bring on this debate today. That is why it is so important for the Premier to face the music and tell us how involved she was, where the $1 billion is that is still missing in action and why $600 million was also –

Juliana Addison: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, it is a very narrow procedural debate. If the member could be instructed –

Members interjecting.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Members on my left, if they wish to hear the member for Caulfield, will stop interjecting. The member for Caulfield to continue on the procedural motion, which he was on.

David SOUTHWICK: As I was saying, there is no more appropriate time than now to debate what the Victorian Auditor-General has put in front of us right this very minute. He has put into our hands a whole lot of questions that this government need to answer now. How involved was the Premier? Where is the $1 billion – gone, finished.

Pauline Richards: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, he is defying your ruling. I ask you to bring him back to the procedural debate.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Cranbourne, frivolous points of order are out of order. The member was on the procedural motion and will continue. I counsel other members, wherever you are: if you are going to make a point of order, make it useful.

David SOUTHWICK: It is clear that the government cannot handle the truth. They are trying to cover up what is already one of the biggest cover-ups that we have seen. This is a massive cover-up. This is a hoax on the 2022 election. Quite frankly, we should have a re-election based on this. A whole lot of people went to the election in regional Victoria, including in Bendigo, the Premier’s seat, to be able to talk and vote on this – a Commonwealth Games that was never going to be delivered. And we know about the blowouts, which have already been spoken about in here. This report talks about the fact that even the $6.9 billion cost that caused the cancellation of the games was overinflated. We know in a cost-of-living crisis we need to debate this now. That is why we need –

Juliana Addison: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, referencing the member for Bendigo East is not a part of this procedural debate, and I ask you to call the member on his feet –

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is not a point of order; it is a matter of debate.

David SOUTHWICK: We know the Deputy Premier is up to her eyeballs in all of this. She should be the one that has questions to answer about how involved she was. Where is the waste, where is the mismanagement? Where is the minister? We know today not one of the frontbench have come forward ‍– not one of the frontbench. The Minister for Tourism, Sport and Major Events is sitting there hiding his head in shame.

Paul Edbrooke: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, the member should be using proper titles. The Premier is not the Deputy Premier.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Under the noise, I did not hear it. You have got 9 seconds.

David SOUTHWICK: The Minister for Tourism, Sport and Major Events is gutless. He will not even defend this report that shows that they cannot handle the truth of a massive cover-up.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member’s time has expired. The member for Tarneit has the call.

James Newbury: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, if I can seek your clarity, I thought I saw the minister for sport go to speak. I think you have accidentally given the call to one of the backbenchers over the minister for sport.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is not a point of order. The call has been given.

Dylan WIGHT (Tarneit) (12:53): I wish I could say it was a pleasure to rise to speak on this procedural motion this afternoon.

Members interjecting.

Dylan WIGHT: I am glad to see you have all had your Weet-Bix this morning, guys. I will tell you what we do love: we love it when we come in here and we see the Leader of the Opposition a little bit animated. He gets up with his little head wobble and starts looking at the cameras. I tell you what, it would be cute if it was not so sad, mate. But at least there has been one positive to come from this procedural motion. We have seen the member for Nepean and the Leader of the Opposition work hand in glove this afternoon, and that has been absolutely fantastic.

James Newbury: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, on relevance, I appreciate that keeping to this motion will be a challenge for this member, but I would ask you to bring him back to it.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: What is a challenge is the Chair hearing the members on their feet. It is very hard to decide on that if I cannot hear it. The member for Tarneit to continue on the procedural motion.

Dylan WIGHT: Just to finish my thought, it is great to see them work so closely together. I will tell you what, it had Scott Morrison vibes about it, though, didn’t it: ‘This is my leader, and I’m ambitious for him.’ Hugging with the one hand –

Sam Groth: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, the member is defying your ruling.

Members interjecting.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Bentleigh can leave the chamber for a quarter of an hour.

Member for Bentleigh withdrew from chamber.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Tarneit on the procedural motion, without assistance.

Dylan WIGHT: Like I said, to get to the procedural motion, obviously we on this side of the house oppose this, because we come in here week after week after week after week to do what matters for all Victorians, and just about every single week we come in here we face a frivolous procedural motion to do nothing more than distract Victorians from the rabble that is the opposition. We are in here this week with an incredibly important government business program. In fact we were –

Sam Groth: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, if four motions are an important, full government business program, instead of debating a billion-dollar blowout that is the Commonwealth Games and the Premier having her fingers all over it –

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The point of order is frivolous – seriously.

Dylan WIGHT: I understand it is hard for the member for Nepean to keep up every now and then, but as I was about to say, we were just in the middle of debating incredibly important legislation that is going to drive our renewable energy targets right here in Victoria, some of the most ambitious renewable energy targets anywhere in the world – 95 per cent by 2035. It is going to drive down energy prices in doing that as well. We are here to debate the matters that matter to all Victorians, not to pull cheap political stunts.

Assembly divided on John Pesutto’s motion:

Ayes (27): 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, John Pesutto, Richard Riordan, Brad Rowswell, David Southwick, Bridget Vallence, Peter Walsh, Kim Wells, Nicole Werner, Jess Wilson

Noes (53): 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, Eden Foster, 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, Natalie Suleyman, Meng Heang Tak, Jackson Taylor, Nina Taylor, Kat Theophanous, Mary-Anne Thomas, Emma Vulin, Iwan Walters, Dylan Wight, Gabrielle Williams, Belinda Wilson

Motion defeated.

The SPEAKER: I acknowledge in the gallery the former member for Lowan and minister the Honourable Hugh Delahunty.

Sitting suspended 1:02 pm until 2:02 pm.

The SPEAKER: I acknowledge in the gallery former Speaker the Honourable Judy Maddigan, former Speaker the Honourable Alex Andrianopoulos and former minister and member for Bundoora and Greensborough the Honourable Sherryl Garbutt.