Wednesday, 20 March 2024

Bills

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

Second reading

Debate resumed.

Dylan WIGHT (Tarneit) (14:49): It gives me great pleasure this afternoon to rise to speak on the Energy and Public Land Legislation Amendment (Enabling Offshore Wind Energy) Bill 2024. Those on this side of the house understand how pivotal offshore wind is going to be for Victoria’s energy make-up going forward. Those on this side of the house understand how important it is to move to a clean energy future, and those on this side of the house understand how important it is to drive down energy prices. Offshore wind has perhaps the greatest capacity to generate renewable energy of all of the different sources that will be available to us here in Victoria, so it is incredibly important to get the policy settings right to be able to continue that really important work.

I know it seems like a lifetime ago now – before lunch and before debating a procedural motion – that we were debating this bill last, but I just want to pick up on a couple of points from some contributions by those opposite. The member for South-West Coast spoke at length about issues with a potential offshore wind project down in her seat, just off the town of Portland. It struck me as incredibly interesting. She spoke in opposition to that project just one day after she quite rightly made a contribution in this place and spoke of the fantastic work of a former member for Portland in bringing in and helping establish the Portland smelter. She spoke about it because it was so important at that time, in the late 1980s, to broaden western Victoria’s and indeed Portland’s industrial base. Borthwicks meatworks had just closed. There were people out of work. The smelter was able to come in and create a whole bunch of new skills in that town, and indeed that aluminium smelter has sustained so many families over the last 30 years. Then just one day later she walked into this place and vehemently argued against once again broadening that industrial base there in Portland. The cold, hard fact of the matter is that not only are these offshore wind projects great for people’s energy bills and great for transitioning to a renewable energy future but they are also fantastic for jobs. They create tens of thousands of jobs, and indeed they create a whole new industrial base in the areas that they are constructed in. Just as the aluminium smelter was so important to broaden that industrial base in Portland in the late 1980s, a potential offshore wind project there would be equally important to once again broaden that industrial base and bring brand new skills into a town that absolutely needs them.

I also chuckled a little bit at the fact that the member for Polwarth was speaking about his opposition to offshore wind for a whole bunch of reasons. I will just say I wonder how the member for Polwarth’s constituency there in Anglesea feels about a nuclear reactor in Anglesea, which has been spoken about at length by the federal Liberal leader Peter Dutton. Frankly, I have not heard the member for Polwarth, or anyone else from the Victorian Liberal Party, come out and say it is a bad idea. Whilst you may think that people in your constituency are not too stoked about offshore wind and wind power in general, I tell you what, they are not going to like a nuclear reactor down there in Anglesea either.

A member: My mum’s furious.

Dylan WIGHT: Of course she is – everybody is. Those on this side of the house, as I said, understand that the integration of offshore wind is going to be an absolutely pivotal step for ensuring a sustainable and robust energy mix. Like I said, it is great for a renewable energy target, great for power bills and also great for jobs. The move is not merely a supplementary option but a crucial necessity as coal-fired power stations, once the backbone of electricity generation in this state, are ageing and nearing the end of their operational lives. Indeed we see that those private companies that operate those coal-fired power stations – and not to get into it, but we know why they are private companies instead of the SEC – have made their own minds up, and those coal-fired power stations will be coming to an end in the decades to come. It is complex and the legislation and the policy framework around it is complex, but frankly we need to get as much cheap renewable energy into the system in the decades to come as we possibly can to make sure that Victorians’ power bills continue to come down. With these stations signalling their closure, like I said, it is incredibly important for us to escalate our renewable energy sources to maintain power supply, achieve energy and climate objectives and transition towards a more environmentally friendly landscape.

Offshore wind, as I said, offers unparalleled generation capacity, propelling us towards our goal of achieving 95 per cent renewables by 2035. Offshore wind energy stands out for its massive potential to generate electricity, significantly outpacing the capabilities of onshore renewable sources. Offshore wind is by far the greatest generating tool or generating type of renewable energy that we are going to have available to us here in Victoria. Victoria is leading Australia’s charge into this venture and has cultivated substantial investment interest, setting ambitious targets that underscore its commitment to renewable energy. The state’s pioneering efforts are marked by plans to construct its first offshore wind farm, aiming for an impressive capacity of at least 2 gigawatts by 2032, with further expansion to 4 gigawatts by 2035 and 9 gigawatts by 2040. The initial project is expected to power about 1.5 ‍million homes, highlighting the significant impact offshore wind can have on the energy mix and on reducing our reliance on fossil fuels.

Indeed it is also bringing power prices down at the same time. On that point, everyone would have noticed and read the news about Victoria’s default offer, the VDO, and the fact that it has come down by 7 per cent this week. The reason for that is simple: the more renewable energy we get into the grid and the more renewable energy we get into the mix of our power supply, the more the prices will come down, and that is exactly what has happened this week. We now have 38.5 per cent of our energy being created from renewable sources. What that means is that Victorian households are saving money. They are saving money on their bills every single year. It also means that Victorian small businesses are saving money as well, which is fantastic. But it is also great because it means, as I have said in this place previously, that Victoria is becoming the greatest place in Australia for businesses to invest. There is absolutely no doubt about that – I have said it before – and the reason for that is that we are so ambitious with our renewable energy targets that we will continue to drive power prices down.

With over 30 projects expressing interest since the announcement of our targets, the state has attracted global investors looking for long-term commitments. This burgeoning interest is supported by the establishment of two prime zones of development in Gippsland and the Great Southern Ocean, making Victoria a hub for offshore wind development. Additionally, the state’s strategy includes comprehensive implementation statements that update stakeholders on progress, outline time lines for competitive auction processes and project the creation of thousands of jobs, further cementing Victoria’s role as a key player in the global transition to renewable energy.

As I said at the beginning of my contribution, this policy is obviously a fantastic environmental policy. It will drive down energy prices, and it will supercharge our transition to 95 per cent renewable energy by 2035, but it is also fantastic for jobs and local communities and our skills base as well.

Tim BULL (Gippsland East) (14:59): I rise to make a contribution on the Energy and Public Land Legislation Amendment (Enabling Offshore Wind Energy) Bill 2024. As we have heard from those who have made contributions before me, this bill is to allow offshore wind developers to obtain tenure over public land for the construction of transmission infrastructure. We are not opposed to offshore wind development being explored, but there are a number of considerations that we think need to be taken into account. I just want to head down a slightly different path to some of the areas that previous speakers have covered off on. Rather than repeating the concerns that have been raised, I want to in particular talk about some concerns that are held by the commercial and recreational fishing industries and also communities around tourism.

This bill talks about the construction of transmission infrastructure, and we are well aware that that will obviously have implications on land, but state waters exist to 3 nautical miles offshore before we then move into federal waters. So apart from land tenure responsibilities around building infrastructure and the like on land, this becomes a significant issue for both our commercial and our recreational fishing fleets. When the federal government announced the zone off the Gippsland coast for wind farm development it seemed to give very little consideration to either the commercial or recreational fishing industries or some tourist towns like Lakes Entrance. The reason that I say that is the eastern end of that zone finishes right off Lakes Entrance. They are key commercial fishing grounds, both inside the 3 nautical miles of state waters and outside into federal waters. The predicament we face here is that whilst the majority of wind farm developments are off the coast of the electorate of the member for Gippsland South, who is here, the commercial impacts are on a sector that operates out of my electorate, that being the fishing fleet out of Lakes Entrance.

Our commercial fisher men and women out of Lakes Entrance have had enormous pressure applied over recent years around loss of fishing ground. That has included obviously the development of the oil and gas fields in Bass Strait, but there have also been exclusion zones for wildlife and there have been exclusion zones because of decisions made around alleged overfishing of some species and the like. What it has resulted in is the footprint diminishing. Whilst the wind farms will have the capacity to do that again, the wind farm infrastructure where these cables will be coming ashore from the different wind farms, I am assuming, will likely have exclusion zones placed around it, because some of these fishing practices are fishing on the ocean floor.

As a nation, we are a net importer of seafood. Members will be very surprised to know an island nation like Australia imports 70 per cent of our seafood, which is just phenomenal. We import 70 per cent of it. So we need to protect our fishing industry, our sea farmers if you like, and we need to be producing more of our own seafood. To import 70 per cent for an island nation is disgraceful. We need to grow the sector, and we will not grow the sector by diminishing commercial fishing grounds in key areas. That is what this federal government wind farm zone does. The port of Lakes Entrance, which I referred to earlier, has the biggest throughput of seafood of any port in Victoria, and it has one of the biggest throughputs of seafood of any port in the nation. So we have got to be very careful in decisions we make off the coast of Gippsland to further reduce those fishing areas, because not only are they critical to the economy of my electorate but they are critical to the state’s economy and the nation’s economy. It is a big industry.

Also sitting there are more threats of extended and expanded marine park areas that, again, have the possibility of excluding more fishermen from these zones. We cannot continue to put impediments in front of this sector. That is why I raise this issue – because this bill goes to land tenure, and for up to 3 ‍nautical miles offshore, I can imagine if get wind farms being developed in Bass Strait, we will have these tentacles of cables coming in. I believe there is some talk about them linking up with the Basslink infrastructure on land in Gippsland, but we will have cables coming in from the different wind farms. And when we get inside those 3 nautical miles, that impacts our inshore trawl fishery, that impacts some of our Danish seine fisheries that operate in the state waters. It is also an issue for the federal waters, but these are the state waters. I would hope that the minister of the day or the ministers in charge of their respective portfolios are going to take this into consideration. We do not know if these cables are going to be trenched. If they are going to be trenched, come out and tell us, and the fishermen can still go over the ocean floor. But if they are not going to be trenched, it will impact on key fishing grounds.

The other option that the government might talk about is compensating fishermen: ‘We’re going to take some ground off you; we will compensate the fishermen for those easements that we have where this infrastructure’s going to come ashore.’ That is a pretty quick sugar hit for some of the existing licence-holders, but we have got to be better than that. We have got to protect our food producers both on land and on the water. To continue to take ground away and just say ‘We’ll compensate’ is just going to drive up more imports, and that 70 per cent of imported seafood that we have will get greater and the amount that we are producing locally will continue to reduce.

I also noted, as has been discussed in this chamber before – I think the member for Gippsland South may have mentioned it in his contribution – that the government announced that it is going to fast-track a lot of these proposals, these renewables projects, through the bureaucracy system to avoid any hold-ups. Many property holders on land have expressed concerns that they are just going to be pushed to the side while decisions are made. We also need to make sure we are not only consulting with people who have landholdings; we need to be consulting with the fishing fleet, both commercial and recreational, that uses these waters within the 3-nautical-mile zone. To ignore their concerns or not to consult with them could have significant impacts on their ability to catch their quota and maintain their business viability.

The other one I want to touch on before I finish is the need to be able to consult with communities. As I mentioned, the eastern end of the federal wind zone is right off the coast of Lakes Entrance. I am assuming, Acting Speaker, like most members in this chamber, you would have been to Lakes Entrance at some time. Do you know that sight when you are driving down the Jemmys Point hill, when you are coming over the hill and you are looking out to sea you can see the entrance to the Gippsland Lakes there? You can see Bullock Island in the foreground; you have got Lake Reeve, Fraser Island and Flannagan Island. It is a people stop. There is a lookout there for very good reason. What we do not want is wind farms on the horizon. There is a lot of area of coastline where there is no development. I think of the area from about Ocean Grange right down to Manns Beach and McLoughlins Beach, down that way. There is a lot of area in between those two locations where there is no development, and in fact it is pretty marshy mosquito-infested swampland, some of it. We need to be able to make sure that we do not refuse the right of communities in tourism areas to have input into these processes.

We have got to get this right. We are only going to get one chance, and we have got to get it right that first time. So, please, I urge the government to not wave through the approvals processes without engaging with the communities, because input from the communities and people like the commercial fishing industry and the recreational fishing industry will help us get this right in the first place so that we do not end up with legal challenges and we do not end up having to revisit legislation in the Parliament. I can understand that there is a need to streamline the process, but streamlining the process should not come at the expense of talking to those very, very important industry representative groups. I will finish my contribution by urging the government to please open the lines of communication.

Nina TAYLOR (Albert Park) (15:09): I am very pleased to speak to this bill, and I should say it is the first piece of legislation in our offshore wind program. It is simple legislation, and just in a nutshell, 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, which is obviously vital to this overall project – or multiple projects, I should say, incorporated – in getting to our very strong emission reduction targets that we have put in place for good reason, for the future of all Victorians.

Now, I did first want to tackle the issue – there have been many issues raised, and that is why we have these solid debates in the Parliament – as to why, for instance, Gippsland has been chosen. I would like to go contrary to the proposition that perhaps it is a punitive measure or otherwise, which seems to have been the general tenor or tone that has been associated with the choice of this particular location. Not so, and why? Well, we know more broadly that our state has the best offshore wind resources in the country and amongst the best in the world – so that is the overview as to why Victoria, and it is certainly a government decision that we are leading on this – but also we know that Gippsland, this area, has optimal wind resources. It is actually geography. It is science. Science is directing why when we look at the strength of those wind resources in Gippsland. That is why, for instance, Albert Park perhaps is not featured in this discussion today. It is not about ‘Oh, let’s do harm to Gippsland’ or otherwise; it is simply ‘Where are the best resources for the offshore wind project?’ It is science; that is it. So I do not know what more to say on that, except I hope that that may allay some of the concerns and perhaps the offence taken that we are pursuing offshore wind in that location. It is just common sense.

Let me tell you, in Albert Park, theoretically, if they did have the strength of wind et cetera, I am sure they would much prefer that than nukes any day of the week. This thought, this proposition as I understand it – and I am happy to have a contrary argument put forward – that Peter Dutton wants to put nukes purportedly in the Latrobe Valley I do not think is a very nice thing to do to the people down there. So if we are talking about sensitivities and the –

A member: Where are the Nationals standing up for the Latrobe Valley?

Nina TAYLOR: Exactly. What about them? What about the people down there? They have already had coal, and it seems like the opposition is quite happy to perpetuate coal down there for eons to come regardless of the impact on the environment and the atmosphere. But oh, no, we cannot have wind turbines! I mean, you never see them so animated as when we discuss renewables. It is like striking a match, and bang, off they go because their opposition is so strident to this concept. But anyway, we will lead the way in spite of their attitude to this.

There are members of the opposition who have been suggesting, ‘Where is the plan? Where is the plan? It is a mystery. We don’t know where it is.’ Well, I am happy to clarify that for the chamber, because our government actually releases implementation statements – they are on the Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action website – every six months, and, guess what, they go into issues such as procurement and transmission. Oh, my goodness, there it is. So for the opposition: if you want to know where the plan is, have a look at the implementation statements. I heartily welcome you to look at them there, because we are not hiding this information. We actually want people to know about it. It is really important. Energy is a very, very high priority for good reason.

Another aspect that is obviously really important, because we were touching on elements of local concerns and consultation on these issues, is with regard to traditional owners. The new licence regime will provide an opportunity for the Victorian government to have an active role in guiding and coordinating the placement of connection assets. And there is a further point here: this can help mitigate the risk to social licence and traditional owner support caused by disorderly or insensitive location of infrastructure. So rest assured that there is very prudent and diligent work that has to go into every element of this process of implementing these very strong offshore wind projects, and hence prioritising the input in terms of consultation particularly of traditional owners is certainly very important. The Victorian government’s engagement with traditional owners is underpinned by self-determination, I should say as well, and the government aims to form genuine, meaningful partnerships with traditional owners by transferring power back to and being held accountable to traditional owners. This is consistent with broader work that we have in progressing towards treaty as well. I will not go into that, because we are talking about energy today. This inserts offshore wind into the existing public land licensing regime. It is not a carve-out for offshore wind and does not provide exemptions for offshore wind licences. That is a really important element of progressing these offshore wind projects.

Another key element of course which I think should be or certainly would be a priority for most Victorians, if not all Victorians, is knowing that we are certainly prioritising energy security. Further to that point, we know that offshore wind provides incomparable levels of generation capacity, far more than onshore renewables, moving us more quickly away from fossil fuels and towards 95 per cent renewables by 2035. Victoria is Australia’s offshore wind leader. We have worked to build strong investment interests and will have a successful multicompetitive auction. We know that we very much need to see the realisation of these offshore wind projects. We do have an imperative to facilitate the transition and to meet those strong renewable investment targets to be able to get to net zero by 2045, and offshore wind is simply a key mechanism to be able to get to those inputs.

The first offshore wind farm will be constructed here thanks to our ambitious offshore wind targets of at least 2 gigawatts of new capacity by 2032, 4 gigawatts by 2035 and 9 gigawatts by 2040. Our first wind farm in Victoria will power 1.5 million homes. This is another point that I want to make, and I really want to drill down on this: these are the first targets of their kind in the country, and we have become a global leader in the development of offshore wind. So it is really important, because Victoria is leading on this offshore wind trajectory, that we be given the opportunity to be able to work through the appropriate mitigation elements that are encompassed in and required as part of facilitating a successful offshore wind trajectory in this state.

We do not apologise – and why should we – for fighting for our state and our state’s ability to progress on offshore wind. We will fight for Victoria. We have been doing the heavy lifting in this space for some time, and that is why we are actually calling for a national approach to offshore wind that aligns environmental approvals and regulation and a national taskforce to align things that are absolutely important, like environmental approvals, regulation and planning approvals, which the Commonwealth rejected – so targets nationally that show our entire nation is serious about this, and I believe it is. We already have a National Electric Vehicle Strategy, a national hydrogen strategy and a national energy performance strategy under development – it is time for national leadership on offshore wind to help Australia reach our ambitious renewable energy targets. We are happy to be leading the way here in Victoria, but as I say, we make no apologies for doing that, for fighting for our state, and we would like a national approach on this as well – why not? Across the country this is the way forward. I think there is an imperative for the whole country to get those emissions down, to provide energy security into the future; it is in all our best interests.

Peter WALSH (Murray Plains) (15:19): I rise to speak on the Energy and Public Land Legislation Amendment (Enabling Offshore Wind Energy) Bill 2024. I note, listening to those who have been making a contribution, it has been a very wideranging debate about everything but the bill in most cases, particularly by the member for Albert Park. She said that she has all these documents and she has read all of these documents so carefully; she was not actually talking about the bill at all.

This bill deals with the 3 nautical miles offshore that are Victorian waters and deals with on land. It does not deal with where the wind farm is going to be built, because that is in Commonwealth waters and is a Commonwealth issue. It is the Commonwealth’s decision as to what goes into Commonwealth waters, as we saw with the issue of the Port of Hastings, where the government was going to put the port facilities to build these wind farms – it was a Commonwealth decision as to whether that went ahead or not. The Commonwealth has a lot to say about this. This legislation is about the 3 nautical miles and on land as to how wind farms actually connect with the Victorian grid. That is specifically what this legislation is about.

Nina Taylor: Offshore wind.

Peter WALSH: Yes, it says it in the title. We do not have the powers to do that. It says it in the title, but it does not actually say it anywhere in the bill. So for someone that said they have read all the papers to do with this and was quite scathing of our side of politics – perhaps they might want to go back and read those papers again and actually read what it is about.

This actually amends a number of pieces of legislation that deal with how, if there is offshore wind that Commonwealth approves to happen, it can get ashore and get into the Victorian grid. It changes the Land Act 1958, the Crown Land (Reserves) Act 1978 and the Forests Act 1958. What I find intriguing with some of these changes, particularly the changes to the Forests Act, is that the minister has the power to make those changes and must consult with the industry but not with the forestry industry about making changes. So you could find a situation where you have got Crown land that has got forest on it – and the bill also changes the National Parks Act 1975 to allow infrastructure to go onto a national park, and we know how a lot of people do not want changes to national parks and do not want infrastructure built on national parks. So I could envisage that this sets up a framework to investigate; it does not actually give the permission, but it could end up that we have an underground cable coming ashore from the Commonwealth-approved wind farms that are out in the Commonwealth waters, but once it comes ashore it comes above ground.

Now, to bring that power into the grid you are going to need a substation. This is exactly what has to happen. So once it comes ashore underground, it will go above ground – it will pop up somewhere – and there will be a giant substation. Now, we know with VNI West, the people of Ballarat North were very worried that there was going to be something like 50 hectares taken up there with a substation to manage all the renewable energy that was coming into that particular area to come through to Sydenham and supply Melbourne. So you are going to have potentially these giant wind farms offshore in Gippsland – and you have heard from the member for Gippsland East about the potential issues for the fishing industry. You are going to have these wind farms in those zones, which are approved by the Commonwealth. Power will come ashore. Under these powers there will be investigations as to where that comes ashore and what infrastructure will be built when it comes to shore, and you could find you have got a 20-, 30-, 40- or 50-hectare facility sitting in the middle of a national park to actually have this power come ashore and get into the Victorian grid. If that facility is sitting in a national park, you are going to have to have a giant powerline to then take it to wherever it connects to the Victorian grid. So you are then going to have effectively a great big scar through the middle of a national park that is going to take a powerline through it. At the moment, the government has shut down VicForests from harvesting trees. Those trees actually regrow. Every tree that VicForests harvested regrew to store more carbon, but under this, if there is a facility set up in a national park and a major transmission line built through a national park, those trees will not regrow, because that would actually be a fire hazard.

Danny O’Brien: Won’t they build it around the trees?

Peter WALSH: I do not know. I am not sure what the Labor Party’s coalition partners the Greens are going to think about a massive substation in the middle of a national park and a huge scar through the national park that will actually do that. Those on the other side might laugh, but if they actually read the legislation and actually understood the rules, this is what they are enabling to happen.

Nina Taylor interjected.

Peter WALSH: No, again, I am actually talking about the legislation, not the extraneous issues that those on the other side have all wanted to talk about through this.

There are some amendments that we will move for this legislation which are particularly around community consultation. There is no compulsion for the government to go through any community consultation around this, so people that enjoy the vista of living in a beach area in East Gippsland could find that once it comes ashore underground and pops up, their beautiful view has a powerline on it, their beautiful view has a huge substation on it or their beautiful view has a major transmission line that runs out of that substation back to the Victorian grid. There is no consultation process around that; this will just be forced on them there.

One of the clauses here repeals section 34 and 35 of the Land Act 1958. These sections provide for a public hearing process related to, among other things, applications under this part of the Land Act et ‍cetera to demonstrate the bona fides of their application for such leases. These public hearing sections are outdated, it effectively says, and they are going to be taken out. In my mind, the minds of the Nationals and the minds of our coalition partners the Liberals, public consultation may be outdated for the Labor Party. It may be outdated for the Labor Party to actually talk to the community before they do something, but from our point of view public consultation is not outdated. Public consultation should be a key part of this, and public consultation should not be just putting it on some obscure website where most people can never find it. It should be genuine, real public engagement where people actually know what is being proposed and they do not have to find it on a website where you have to track through a whole heap of links to get to it – it actually can be found, can be read.

And true public consultation is about having public meetings. It is actually about having, most importantly I think, a minister or a senior member of the government front up and talk to the community. With all respect to the people that work in the departments, I do not think it is their job to go and face the public. It is actually the minister’s job to go and face the public and have genuine consultation about what they are going to do in their particular community. I am a northern Victorian, and I like northern Victoria; I was born in the Mallee and raised in the Mallee and I understand the flatlands of the north. But some of the people from Gippsland actually enjoy the hills, enjoy the view and do not want that destroyed with a giant substation and a huge transmission line.

If this government are going to be genuine about doing that, I would actually ask them to accept the amendments that we have put forward where there is genuine public consultation before anything is done under this particular legislation. I would also ask them to accept the amendment that there be a fit and proper person test applied to whoever the applicant may be. We want to make sure that if wind farms are approved by the Commonwealth and this bill is needed to bring the power from those offshore wind farms ashore, the businesses that are actually doing this and the people that are in charge of this actually pass the fit and proper person test. We do not want a situation where we have an overseas company that does not do the right thing by Victoria and if there is an issue of compensation we find that it is a shell company in some tax haven somewhere else in the world and no-one can ever get compensation out of them. So it is very important, I think, that if the government are genuine about doing this they actually accept the opposition’s amendments and have genuine consultation about whatever project may be there to bring this power ashore and have a fit and proper person test in the legislation as well.

Until that happens I just do not think the government are being serious about how they treat country communities. They just want to sit here in Melbourne and force this down people’s throats without having genuine consultation and involving them in it. Things happen in Melbourne without any idea of what we think. Why should Melbourne people come and tell us what is going to happen in our communities?

Emma VULIN (Pakenham) (15:29): I rise to speak on the Energy and Public Land Legislation Amendment (Enabling Offshore Wind Energy) Bill 2024. I want to acknowledge the Minister for Energy and Resources and her department for their work to bring this bill to the house. This bill is about developing and delivering a thriving offshore wind energy sector for Victoria. I am proud to be part of a government who understands the importance of renewable energy, unlike the federal coalition and some of those opposite. I think I can safely say that my community does not want a nuclear reactor in our neck of the woods and we certainly do not want the nuclear waste. I am almost certain that our neighbours in Gippsland would feel the same way. I also bet the member for Bulleen is grappling with the idea that his party is suggesting that nuclear is the way forward. It is a decade plus to build a reactor, and at an astronomical cost. We heard today it is 500 per cent more. We live in Australia, a land with an abundance of sources of safe, clean renewable energy, and now that I have said my piece about that I will get back to the bill.

Victoria is committed to maintaining advantage as the first state to move on offshore wind energy farming. We have a desire to be globally competitive in attraction and investment in this renewable energy source. We need to ensure that we have the legislative framework in place to make this happen. Victoria will be the home of Australia’s first offshore wind farm. We have legislated targets of 4 ‍gigawatts by 2035 and 9 gigawatts by 2040 for these offshore wind projects. Establishing these wind farms will also create thousands of jobs in planning, construction and the ever-growing renewable energy sector for the long term. The plan is to have at least 2 gigawatts of offshore capacity by 2032. That is enough energy to power 1.5 million homes. This is all part of the efforts across our energy network to work towards net zero by 2045.

To get the offshore wind farms built, investigations need to occur to determine the design and placement of the connection infrastructure to deliver the electricity generated through offshore wind into the Victorian grid. Simply, we need this bill to enable the investigations to get underway. This bill amends the Land Act 1958, Crown Land (Reserves) Act 1978, Forests Act 1958, National Parks Act ‍1975 and Electricity Industry Act 2000 to enable activities on public land to be approved to do the investigations. Works on private land will need to be negotiated directly with the owners.

Consultation with community is crucial. The Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action, DEECA, consulted on the bill with the relevant traditional landowner corporations whose land and sea country may be directly or indirectly impacted by offshore wind development. This government’s engagement with traditional owners is underpinned by a commitment to self-determination. We have committed to supporting the Gunaikurnai Land and Waters Aboriginal Corporation’s, GLAWAC’s, aspirations for mutually beneficial agreements with feasibility licence holders in line with international best practice. Last September GLAWAC released Gunaikurnai and Offshore Energy: Aspirations for a Better Future to government and developers. The document sets their expectations in negotiating agreements with offshore wind generators that will help enable the seven goals of their Whole-of-Country Plan. The Victorian government supports this strategy and acknowledges that self-determination is a core principle. This is about forming genuine and meaningful partnerships with traditional owners.

DEECA also engaged with industry and potential investors in Victorian offshore wind projects to see what regulatory changes they considered were most urgent to get things underway. The government has established Offshore Wind Energy Victoria, OWEV, as the organisational gateway for industry, stakeholder and community engagement, as we plan and grow this exciting new industry. OWEV is now part of DEECA, and it is responsible for coordinating and supporting the new industry’s development.

In December 2022 the Australian government declared an area of the Bass Strait off Gippsland as Australia’s first offshore wind zone. Offshore wind farms will be in Commonwealth waters, adjacent to the state waters, which extend 3 nautical miles from the coast, as the member for South Gippsland was talking about before. Those wishing to set up the wind farms are required to obtain the necessary licences to undertake feasibility research and demonstration, construction and commercial works under the Commonwealth’s Offshore Electricity Infrastructure Act 2021 and related regulatory frameworks.

This bill is putting in place the framework for licences to work across state waters into Commonwealth waters to investigate, demonstrate and then build the linking infrastructure. This inserts offshore wind into the existing public land licensing regime. It is not a carve-out for offshore wind or about providing exemptions for offshore wind licences. This is a thorough process which requires the meeting of existing obligations and considerations under Victorian law.

Getting the offshore wind farms off and flying is of state and national but most importantly global value. It is part of our contribution to preventing further climate change. Over 30 projects have been invested in in Victoria since our targets were announced – that is, international investors, ready to set up in Victoria for decades, which makes a lot of sense when there is a significant list of countries already in the offshore wind energy generation business. Countries with offshore wind farms already include: China, the United Kingdom, Germany, Vietnam, Denmark, the Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, United States, Spain, Macau, the Faroe Islands – which is an independent territory of Denmark – Portugal and Ireland. Denmark has been the world leader in offshore wind farm development, building the world’s first wind farm in the 1990s. Without a doubt, the technology is available.

The Allan government has done the work, providing three detailed implementation statements which have paved the way for the legislation we have in front of us today. In our later statement, we provided an updated timetable for our offshore wind development. The Victorian government will run a multiproject, competitive auction process, beginning with expressions of interest in the fourth quarter of 2024 and closing in the first quarter of 2025. The request-for-proposal phase is targeted for commencement in the third quarter of 2025 and to close in the first quarter of 2026, and contract negotiation and award are expected to occur later in 2026.

One of the biggest wins for me from this bill is the job creation in the renewable energy sector which will flow from it. Offshore wind energy has the potential to create thousands and thousands of jobs. The waters near Gippsland and the second field of the Great Southern Ocean off Portland have the potential to support 13 gigawatts of offshore wind capacity, creating nearly 6000 jobs, with up to 4000 during construction and 1750 for operations and maintenance annually. Many of these jobs will hopefully be just down the road from my electorate of Pakenham, in Gippsland, and provide my community with an option to travel in the other direction, making a big difference for the betterment of our planet.

This bill will also allow the Minister for Energy and Resources to declare a licensee under the Commonwealth Offshore Electricity Infrastructure Act 2021, the legislation I mentioned earlier, an offshore wind generation company. It will be these companies that will be the employers in energy for the future, just as we are reviving the State Electricity Commission. We need this generation. Offshore wind is critical to our energy mix, along with solar. It is not a nice to have, it is what we do need. Victoria’s coal-fired power stations are run down and reaching the end of their life. These stations are flagged for closure, so we need a significant ramp-up of renewable energy to keep us out of the dark and meet our climate and energy targets. Offshore wind provides incomparable levels of generation capacity – far more than onshore renewables – and will move Victoria more quickly away from fossil fuels and towards 95 per cent renewables by 2035.

Given offshore wind energy is a new industry, there are of course members of the community who will be logically concerned about the potential impacts on our marine and coastal ecosystems. In my background reading for the bill, I learned that in investigation and construction of an offshore wind farm project developers apply a range of protective measures. There is quite a long list of them, so I will not read them all. Under the Victorian Environment Effects Act 1978, projects that have a significant effect on the environment of Victoria require environmental assessments, so they will look at all that sort of stuff. This process is administered by the Victorian Department of Transport and Planning. Offshore wind has so much to offer our state as a new form of renewable energy to fight climate change, and I commend this bill to the house.

Tim READ (Brunswick) (15:39): It is a pleasure to speak on the Energy and Public Land Legislation Amendment (Enabling Offshore Wind Energy) Bill 2024. The bill, as we have heard, is about facilitating the connection of future offshore wind turbines in Commonwealth waters greater than 3 nautical miles from shore to transmission infrastructure that runs through Victorian waters and land and connects to the electricity grid. The framework to ensure offshore electricity can traverse both state and federal regulatory jurisdictions to deliver energy to the grid is obviously vital for those seeking to build offshore wind projects. The bill seeks to facilitate this by the issuing of long-term licences over areas of public land to offshore wind companies so they can begin investigative activities on how to link their generation to grid connection points.

The bill will hasten the transition from coal to renewable energy, but I am left wondering why we are seeing it in 2024. The coal-to-renewables transition is vital and could have been and still could be so much faster than the timetable being followed by the present government. I was interested to look at how many offshore wind farms there around the world. I see that China has 105; the UK, 39; Germany, 28; Vietnam, 26; and so on. I think Australia still has zero, so we got a little way to go. Those figures were from January last year, by the way.

If we have got a climate emergency right now, then we can and must act accordingly. I marched with Extinction Rebellion on Saturday, and we stopped just out there on the corner of Collins and Spring streets, and one of their signs said, ironically, ‘Sorry for the delay.’ It was making the point that while Saturday shoppers might be delayed by the protest, that is nothing compared to the trouble that is being caused by climate change. And we are not talking about some future theoretical climate catastrophe – a bushfire blocked the Western Highway about three weeks ago, and thousands of kilometres of Victorian rural roads were seriously damaged by flooding in spring in 2022. Global heating pushed more water into the atmosphere, and when it came down it did over a billion dollars worth of damage to Victorian roads in one month just about 18 months ago. MPs from outside Melbourne tell me that roads are vital to our rural economy, so global heating is already holding up the traffic – sorry about the delay.

But you can interpret that sign another way. This Parliament should be sorry for the delay in transitioning Victoria to renewable energy. Given the climate damage we have already suffered and the worse damage to come, we should be much further along the path to retiring coal than we currently are, where we are still burning over 100,000 tonnes of the stuff every day. For some time now it has been clear that much of our future energy will come from Bass Strait – from the wind above the sea, that is, not the hydrocarbons beneath – and transmission is one of the main barriers to large renewable projects. There are too few funded wind farm projects in the pipeline because the easy areas to build and connect are full and because of declining investment in renewables nationally. So it is the lack of transmission that clearly needs to be addressed there.

In the short time that we have had to look at this bill and consult with stakeholders we are left with some persisting questions. The bill does not specify in detail the terms of the licence agreements granted to offshore wind companies on what their investigations in public land may entail. I understand licence conditions are intended to enforce existing environmental effects statements (EES) and environmental laws and restrictions, but to what extent is unclear. The second reading also outlines that the minister or a delegate may consider cultural and environmental factors such as these when issuing a licence, but the bill does not specify or mandate this. So we will be looking for further reassurance that an offshore wind company will not be able to bulldoze part of a national park, for example, or destroy thousands of years of First Nations cultural heritage just to determine whether or not somewhere is a good place to put a transmission cable. Nor does the bill give any indication if some of the most delicate and important areas of public land, particularly areas in state forests and national parks of significant cultural or conservation status, will be declared off limits from investigation activities. At least we would like to see some kind of assessment framework for allocating licences based on the condition and value of the public land that favours issuing licences to cover areas of degraded land such as farmland to the greatest extent possible.

Having established these concerns, I want to also make it clear that we recognise there is conflict between building the essential renewable energy infrastructure such as wind turbines and transmission lines and threats to existing wildlife and ecosystems where this infrastructure is located. We are of course in a biodiversity and extinction crisis at the same time that we are in a climate emergency. I am not trying to say that attempting to balance these conflicting priorities is always simple, but the Greens’ position is that we cannot solve climate change by destroying nature. We desperately need intact ecosystems as part of the climate solution, such as healthy forests and oceans which absorb and sequester carbon. Habitat destruction in Victoria such as deforestation has led to a worsening climate crisis and is also one of the biggest threats to biodiversity. All renewable energy projects should avoid harmful impacts to nature and First Nations cultural heritage.

We also know that we need to involve the local communities in these processes to the greatest extent possible. The more certainty and clarity we can give communities, the better, and I will talk a bit more about that in my contribution to the National Electricity (Victoria) Amendment (VicGrid) Bill 2024 debate tomorrow. For now, the Greens look forward to ongoing discussions with the Minister for Energy and Resources and her office in relation to resolving our concerns with this legislation.

Eden FOSTER (Mulgrave) (15:45): Today I rise in support of the Energy and Public Land Legislation Amendment (Enabling Offshore Wind Energy) Bill 2024, which takes us on the next step towards our ambitious and much-needed climate and energy targets that we took to the last election. Offshore wind plays a key role in the green energy transition, and this government is determined to make sure we do not get left behind in the global green revolution. This piece of legislation allows offshore wind projects to undertake site investigatory activities to determine the design and placement of connection infrastructure required to deliver electricity generated by offshore wind projects in declared Commonwealth waters into the Victorian grid. In simple terms, this legislation is a prerequisite for any construction of future offshore wind projects. The crux of this bill lies in its amendments to several acts, and these amendments are critical for approving activities on public land related to the investigation of offshore wind connection assets. This government has sought broad consultation from Indigenous traditional owner corporations, Energy Safe Victoria, the Essential Services Commission and relevant members of industry in order to strike the right balance between emissions reductions, environmental conservation and energy affordability.

The Allan Labor government has committed to ambitious offshore wind generation targets over the next two decades. These targets position Victoria as the offshore wind capital of Australia. Now, with two approved offshore wind zones, one in the Bass Strait off Gippsland and another in the Southern Ocean region near Warrnambool and Port Fairy, this government is ready to oversee the biggest offshore wind project in the country. The Allan Labor government aims to maintain its national first-mover advantage and global competitiveness in attracting offshore wind energy development and investment. Regulatory certainty is paramount to achieving this goal, and this bill provides the necessary framework to facilitate offshore wind projects.

Offshore wind in this state will create thousands of jobs, with up to 4000 being created during construction and 1750 for operations and maintenance annually once construction has completed. These are jobs that those opposite do not support. They claim to support this legislation, but all I have been hearing today is complaining about these projects. Maybe they would prefer a nuclear power plant instead.

The offshore wind policies championed by this government draw a clear distinction between those of us on this side of the chamber, who support renewable energy and aspire to achieve net zero emissions by 2045, and those across the aisle, who are beholden to fossil fuel companies. Their inconsistency on net zero within their own caucus mirrors their chaotic coalition. I can guarantee that those opposite will have a completely different energy policy in perhaps two years time than they claim to have now. Maybe they will be talking about mini Chernobyls by the next election.

Talking about the opposition, let us remind ourselves what their leader has said in the past about climate change and climate science – their leader today, I might clarify. He has said that the science is just ‘ideology’ and that there is nothing wrong with taking the view that climate change is a hoax. He said:

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.

To be honest, I feel bit of empathy for the Leader of the Opposition because he seems to be pandering as much as he can to the climate deniers in the caucus. I will give him a tip: there is nothing that he can do to get their support, so –

Danny O’Brien: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, I am reluctant to be critical of the new member for Mulgrave, but it is the form of the house that members should not read speeches. I gave her some leeway while she was reading a quote, but it is very clear now that she is reading her speech, and I ask her to cease doing so.

The ACTING SPEAKER (John Mullahy): Member for Mulgrave, are you referring to notes?

Eden FOSTER: I am referring to notes, Acting Speaker.

The ACTING SPEAKER (John Mullahy): The member for Mulgrave to continue.

Eden FOSTER: I might continue to refer to my notes. I was talking about giving the Leader of the Opposition a tip. There is really nothing that the opposition leader can do to get the support on the other side. Maybe the opposition leader should consider working constructively with this government to lower power bills and lower emissions with renewable energy rather than nuclear reactors, which is what perhaps is best mate, the opposition leader in the federal Parliament, wants for this state.

Unlike those opposite, we do care about the environment and the self-determination of Indigenous peoples. Because of that, one of the main priorities of this legislation is making sure that there are limited environmental impacts from offshore wind projects. We are also ensuring the self-determination of Indigenous communities in the areas that may be affected by offshore wind. The government aims to form genuine, meaningful partnerships with traditional owners by transferring power back to and being held accountable to traditional owner organisations. When you compare it to those opposite that have backflipped on supporting the treaty, the contrast is very clear. Those opposite talk about the importance of consultation, and it is incredibly important to make sure those that are affected by projects have their voices heard. But for some reason the opposition does not want to listen to Indigenous people, the traditional owners of this state and the land that these projects will be on. Actually, if they are planning to support nuclear energy, maybe they should consult with residents of Fukushima or Chernobyl; they might have a thing or two to say about nuclear power plants.

Projects may require meeting the requirements set out in the land use activity agreement under the Traditional Owner Settlement Act 2010 if there are any known environmental or traditional owner cultural values or sensitivities in the relevant area. We are making sure Indigenous voices and concerns are heard. For an offshore license to be granted, the Minister for Environment may also consider the proposed scope and nature of the investigatory activities to be conducted on the Victorian seabed and onshore as well as the period that the applicant wishes to have access to the land.

But offshore wind is only one aspect of the Allan Labor government’s energy policies. The Victorian energy upgrades program for households allows households to save up to thousands of dollars by replacing old, expensive gas household appliances with new electric items. One of the most common issues my office works with constituents on is making sure that they are able to access VEU grants to replace their old gas appliances. There has been a clear desire from my electorate for the transition that this government is undertaking when it comes to moving away from gas.

The revival of the SEC is also a key part of the Allan Labor government’s plan to lower prices and reach net zero by 2045. Only those on this side of the chamber want to see a strong SEC able to invest state government money into renewable energy projects across the state. I have seen firsthand the damage that the privatisation of the Kennett era has done to working people, and by reviving the SEC, this government is determined to lower prices, reduce our emissions and give Victorians a state-of-the-art electricity grid. Those opposite, we know, do not support the SEC, but they were awfully quiet about it during the last election if we cast our minds back. Maybe it is because we all know that the vast majority of Victorians back the SEC, including those that voted for the opposite. I heard that a lot during my by-election – that there was a lot of support for the SEC and bringing that back.

These amendments are critical for our state to reach zero emissions by 2045. This bill is critical for that, for our future, for our children’s future and for their children’s future. I am happy to stand here today, and I commend this bill to the house.

Wayne FARNHAM (Narracan) (15:55): I am happy to rise today to talk on the Energy and Public Land Legislation Amendment (Enabling Offshore Wind Energy) Bill 2024. It has been quite interesting today. I have listened to a few of the contributions today, and I am going to reference the member for Box Hill, a hell of a good guy but a little bit delusional. When I questioned him today whether the wind blows in Port Phillip Bay, he said to me, ‘No, it does not, member for Narracan.’ The member for Box Hill might be interested to know that the wind today is at 43 kilometres an hour in Port Phillip Bay. Guess how much at Barry Beach – 34. The wind does blow in Port Phillip Bay.

The member for Albert Park talked to us about the science of wind and why the science is so important, why it has to be in Gippsland South. There is another thing about science, and I will put this to the member for Albert Park, being that she is right into renewables: science will tell us that the sun will shine everywhere, so why don’t we put solar panels on Albert Park? Why don’t we take up that parkland? Cover the whole thing in solar panels rather than covering regional Victoria in solar panels and wind farms.

Nina Taylor interjected.

Wayne FARNHAM: You are going to cover the whole park, are you? I would love to see that. Your greenie mates would have an absolute fit to see that. The Labor coalition with the Greens would be absolutely besides themselves if Albert Park was covered in solar panels. I can see that.

The one thing I support the members for Gippsland South and Gippsland East with is consultation. Regional Victoria, with the government’s renewables plan, is going to be left behind on consultation. We heard the member for Gippsland East today talk about the importance of fishing in that area. It is very important to that economy in Gippsland East, and it is very important that this government actually consults with the stakeholders down there. I could not agree more with the member for Gippsland South and his comments today about the wind farms that are going to be built literally off his electorate – right through his electorate – and the fact that regional Victoria is bearing the brunt of renewables and it is not happening in Labor seats.

We have a figure that has been thrown around in the past that 70 per cent of agricultural land will be taken up by renewables. It was corrected today – that figure is somewhere closer to 30 per cent. Whether it is 30 per cent, 40 per cent or whatever, the fact of the matter is that if 30 per cent of our agricultural land gets used for renewables, I hope they consult, because I can tell you that in my electorate a 250-acre solar farm has been put in. It has been put in in a bushfire zone, so how that got through I will never know. Of course the neighbours are up in arms, and they have taken that to VCAT. I hope the neighbours win in VCAT because it is the lack of consultation on this renewable push by this government that is the biggest problem in regional Victoria.

A member interjected.

Wayne FARNHAM: Well, this mob got in before, and I think they will win because the way the government’s consultation process is going with this in regional Victoria is an absolute disgrace. They just say, ‘We’re doing this in this location.’ The member for Gippsland South’s contribution today was really, really on the money, and I could not agree with him more. He nailed it right through his contribution, as did the member for Brighton. The member for Brighton pointed out that the government’s wind program is not going well considering the federal Labor government has absolutely slammed the Port of Hastings. Your federal colleagues have absolutely slammed the Port of Hastings, member for South Barwon. There were four ministers that got it wrong. Four ministers got the Port of Hastings wrong and now your wind program is in the toilet. I keep talking about this.

The member for Albert Park is over there, throwing her arms around like a seagull in the breeze –

The ACTING SPEAKER (John Mullahy): Order! The time has come to interrupt business for the grievance debate.

Business interrupted under sessional orders.