Thursday, 31 July 2025

National Electricity (Victoria) Amendment (VicGrid Stage 2 Reform) Bill 2025

Second reading

Debate resumed on motion of Lily D’Ambrosio:

That this bill be now read a second time.

James NEWBURY (Brighton) (14:56): I rise to speak on the National Electricity (Victoria) Amendment (VicGrid Stage 2 Reform) Bill 2025. The coalition is opposed to this outrageous bill, this outrageous attack on Victorians – on Victorian farmers, on regional communities and on the property rights of landowners in this state. We know how dangerous the proposed powers that are contained in this bill are by the fact that the government has refused to debate this bill. They have simply refused to debate this bill until the wee hours of a Thursday afternoon, knowing how many people want to speak on this bill. We have some two hours until Parliament finishes. We have had the government debate one bill for three days and yet shelve this one so that members will not have the opportunity to speak. So I would say the members on this side of the chamber, to ensure that all of us get an opportunity to speak, will speak in a truncated way to ensure that our colleagues get the chance to put their contribution on the record. I would hope that the government would do the same and allow as many colleagues as possible an opportunity to speak, because it is disgusting that a government would not only push a bill through but try and push it through in a way to not even allow members an opportunity to speak. It is an even more pernicious attack when you do not allow parliaments an opportunity for enough time to have their democratically elected members speak, and that is what has happened with this bill.

What does this bill do? This bill shows that the government has completely lost control of the energy system and the energy transformation of this state – completely lost control. We see it just today in a report from the Australian Energy Market Operator showing that the Victoria to New South Wales Interconnector West has blown out in an extraordinary way in cost because of that lack of control, from $3.9 billion to $7.6 billion. It could soar up to $11.4 billion because of a basic lack of control and partly because of a decade of lack of preparedness, because you need to do more than release press releases if you are going to transform an energy system, as we have seen in Victoria. So not only have we seen an incredible delay and lack of preparedness, we have also seen a lack of preparedness to work with industry effectively. That has been called out by the entire sector. I do not think there is any question or debate anymore.

Thirdly, this is a government that is driven by ideology over good policy outcomes and practically implementing their plans, and that is what is shown by the energy market operator’s report today, that huge, huge explosion in cost. What does that cost blowout mean, and what does it show? It shows that the government does not understand what it is planning to do and how it is going to deliver it. What does this government do? It says, ‘We are going to step in. We are going to ignore property rights. We are going to remove the right of the community to have a say over their own land, and we are going to tell them what we are going to do on their land.’ This is not just a regional thing. Often people say this is an issue for farmers, but this is not an issue for farmers, this is an issue for Victorians. To bring a bill into this place that says you no longer have the right to decisions in relation to the land you own is shocking, and to do it in such a blanket way is appalling. It is absolutely shameful. No wonder the government has hidden this bill until the end of the day, to not allow members the chance to speak.

And it is not just decision-making on your land, as we know. This bill will allow forcible entry onto your land, so it is not just government in Spring Street which now has a say over what happens on your land. And we know when it comes to planning, the planning decisions that have been made to cut the community out of what happens in their local surrounds no longer exist. We know that. And we know that earlier this year, the government, when it comes to renewable energy, changed planning systems to ensure that local communities did not have a say. If a project is proposed, guess what – Spring Street decides. But this bill is worse. Who could have thought it would be possible for it to be worse, but it is worse, because this bill does not just say Spring Street decides what happens in your community, in your surrounds. What this bill does is it says people in Spring Street can come out to your property and forcibly enter your property to enact the decisions they have made and then fine you for it. They can forcibly enter your property on an individual basis, dish out $12,000 fines – or to body corporates, almost $49,000 fines – if you disagree with what the government has decided on your own property. It is not possible to imagine a more disturbing change in public policy position at such a grand scale than what is contained in this bill.

What we have seen over the last year has been a shift in the taking away of rights from people in having a say in what happens around them, which we have been opposed to. This goes one step further because the government has completely lost control and they have decided the only way to get back into control is to take it away from the people who own the property, the people who built the communities, and say that ‘Spring Street knows all; not only will we decide, we are going to come into your properties now. We can break our way in and we’ll fine you for it.’ Can you imagine a more outrageous public policy decision than that? That is why the coalition so strongly opposes what is being proposed. I know how many members on this side of the chamber want to speak to the bill, so I would ask the government to please consider how many members want to speak to this bill on both sides of the chamber and allow all members the opportunity to represent their communities, because we want it so clearly on the record how deeply opposed we are.

To think that this bill includes a provision for so-called community benefit, moneys raised going back into a community, but then the bill includes a get-out provision whereby the Treasurer can take money out of that fund and put it back into consolidated revenue.

Well, we know that the community benefit funding is actually just one big lie – that is what it is – and we know that that money will be ripped out of the fund, as is allowed in this bill, and put back into consolidated revenue. It is a giant hoax. But more than that – because it is not just about that community funding, which we know is nothing more than a hoax – what we are so deeply concerned about is that now communities no longer have a say in what is built around them. Those powers were lost and those rights have been lost over the year. What this bill does is say Spring Street decides and will now come into properties. They have the right to come into your property, and they can fine you: $12,000 for the individual and $49,000 for the body corporate. We oppose this wholeheartedly. It is wrong. It is wrong in principle, it is morally wrong and every single member of the government should be ashamed of themselves this afternoon when they support this bill.

Nina TAYLOR (Albert Park) (15:06): Bearing in mind the obvious sensitivities with regard to the matter at hand but also factoring in the critical nature of the service that is energy for all Victorians – actually across the globe, but in this context we are talking about Victoria – I think it is very incumbent upon all of us, and none the least those opposite, to be very, very considered when it comes to the precision around what this bill is actually delivering and not distorting the ramifications of the bill.

I should clarify. There is already a provision for enabling access to land by transmission companies under section 93 of the Electricity Industry Act 2000. These provisions are common across large infrastructure projects such as transport. However, under the existing regime the only legal option to enforce land access is for a transmission network provider to seek an injunction from the Supreme Court to enforce the right to access land under section 93 of the EIA, which is expensive, time consuming and not fit for purpose. It also means there is no direct accountability to government, as the private transmission companies are responsible for accessing land – just to be clear about that.

This bill does two things to improve land access provisions. First, it creates an enforcement mechanism. Let us just be clear about what it is doing and what it is not doing, particularly with the creation of unnecessary fear and harm to Victorians by some of the distortions that I am hearing from those opposite. Of course the preference is always that the energy corporations work cooperatively with landholders to agree to access to land, and VicGrid have already worked with the Essential Services Commission and the Australian Energy Infrastructure Commissioner to create an enforceable Land Access Code of Practice.

I do want to come back to some other fundamental tenets of this bill. One of them is the impetus when it comes to the provision of energy. Victoria is undergoing one of the most rapid energy transitions in the world. Investment in renewables effectively ground to a halt under the previous Liberal government. I remember it well. They stymied it. They were absolutely outrageous in the way they managed that. But we have nearly quadrupled the share of renewable energy in power generation since 2014, and we are on track to meet our 2025 renewables target of 40 per cent by the end of this year. There is nothing morally corrupt about driving renewable energy and certainty with regard to the provision of renewable energy in this state, and that is a gross distortion by those opposite and it is deeply irresponsible. We will hit 65 per cent by 2030 and 95 per cent by 2035. Okay. These are the facts: to get there we will need to unlock about 27 gigawatts of new capacity. To put that into context, there is currently 15.6  gigawatts of capacity on the network. However, 4.8 gigawatts of coal-fired generation will retire before 2035, and overall demand will increase by 40 per cent as we electrify homes, businesses and transport; we attract new industries such as data centres; and our population continues to grow. So I think we need to look continuously at the underlying rationale and purpose for this legislation.

This will create enormous opportunities for our state, creating 59,000 jobs by 2035, attracting billions in investment and generating some of the cheapest electricity ever produced. Victoria’s record investments in renewable energy already mean that Victoria has the lowest wholesale electricity prices in the country. Coming to the crux here, to get this cheaper, cleaner and more reliable renewable energy to homes and businesses across the state we need to modernise and expand our electricity grid. That is a fact. But the current legislative framework was never designed to accommodate a transformation of this scale. What terrible people we are to want to be generating cheaper, cleaner and more reliable renewable energy to homes and businesses across this state. That is what they are inferring really. That is their best argument, and it falls short by a long way. The last time we built a major new transmission line was more than 30 years ago, before the Liberals sold off all our energy assets to private companies, and the current arrangements simply are not fit for purpose.

I want to go a little bit further on that point, talking about harming and helping, because I can see a sort of oscillation in that argument here throughout the energy discussion. I am just going to reiterate this point: the consequences of the privatisation of Victoria’s electricity assets were that accountability for this crucial public service was lost, generation assets were sold off to private companies, retailers were allowed to run riot and planning Victoria’s transmission network was left to the Australian Energy Market Operator. The result was a disaster for consumers and communities, and we remember that when those opposite were in power they did nothing to protect people. When they were last in government, retail electricity prices increased by 31.4 per cent over four years, and disconnections doubled, 28,959 versus 58,503, leaving vulnerable Victorians without power and heating.

It was our government that cleaned up this mess in retailing. We increased the utility relief grant and made it easier to apply; forced retailers to let customers know if they can get a better deal; introduced the Victorian default offer to provide a clear and easy-to-understand benchmark price; ensured that retailers could only change prices once per year; banned sneaky marketing tactics like bait-and-switch offers, cold calling and door-to-door sales; and have offered multiple rounds of power saving bonuses. All of these reforms have made the retail electricity market fairer and easier to understand. On the generation of electricity, we have legislated clear targets for renewable energy, which have created certainty for investors, because that is the other thing that is critical in a conversation about energy.

Not least, for the communities impacted, is certainty about what is being invested in their area in terms of infrastructure and environmental impacts, and in fact through the legislative change we are actually changing the order, because traditionally through AEMO the order was wrong, it was not having the best impact and it was not giving the certainty to communities that they deserve. Just to be clear on that point, under existing arrangements the Australian Energy Market Operator plans any expansion of Victoria’s transmission network. Once they identify the need for a new line they conduct an economic test to assess whether the project stacks up financially. Then they initiate a procurement process to find a company to build and operate the line, and only then do full environmental assessments begin and the community fully engaged in the process. This process is completely backwards and creates the great angst in communities that host new energy infrastructure and uncertainty for investors, and that is what I am talking about – distortion when it comes to the very delicate discussion of these transformative changes and making sure that responsibility across the chamber is carried to be really clear about what this legislation actually does.

The Victorian transmission investment framework addresses these flaws by completely reforming the way we plan and develop transmission. The framework sets out an approach that creates investment certainty, fosters renewable energy investment and ensures the coordinated development of electricity transmission and renewable energy generation infrastructure to deliver energy affordability, reliability and security for Victorians. It puts community and traditional owner engagement at the very beginning of the process, before any corridors are determined.

I would also say the first stage of the VTIF legislation was passed by this Parliament last year and is already being implemented, if we are looking at where we are exactly in this process. The centrepiece of stage 1 of the legislation was the creation of the Victorian transmission plan, and the purpose of the VTP was to provide a long-term electricity system plan. The first plan will identify renewable energy zones and provide a 15-year outlook for the development of renewable energy generation, storage and transmission. The VTP will then be revised every four years, with subsequent plans providing a 25-year outlook. This would give communities and investors long-term certainty about how much infrastructure we need to build and where we need to build it. The process began with a strategic land use assessment which mapped land use across the state to identify areas that are most suitable for new energy development. The process involved the use of over 60 datasets and engagement with communities and traditional owners, and significant consultation followed this process. We know that energy is absolutely vital, and fighting against the transition to renewable energy is just a furphy, and it has undermined cheaper energy and reliability and certainty about energy for all Victorians in this state.

Danny O’BRIEN (Gippsland South) (15:16): ‘Respect’ was a word I saw a lot on signs on the front steps of Parliament yesterday, and what we are seeing from this government in this piece of legislation is a lack of respect – an absolutely disrespectful approach to rural and regional Victoria – and now, added to it, a lack of respect for this Parliament. Having debated one bill for three days this week, we now get an hour and a half virtually to debate this very, very important legislation, and it is disrespectful to regional Victoria. Indeed it is the disrespect of regional Victoria so far in the development of transmission lines and the renewable energy policies of this government that have got us to this point that we are at with this piece of draconian legislation. In my 10 or 11 years in this place I have never seen a Bill 160 pages long with a shorter second-reading speech. It is just a disgrace. The government does not even know how to argue its own case on this. That is why we are concertinaing this debate this afternoon, because the government is embarrassed about it, and it should be.

We just heard it from the member for Albert Park, who of course has left – the government wants all the green credibility it can possibly get from the renewable energy policies it has and the transmission policies that come as a result, but it wants country people to carry all of the costs, all of the issues with visual amenity, all of the issues with noise, all of the issues with impacts on agricultural land and, most particularly, all of the impacts of transmission lines. The member for Albert Park does not have to worry about transmission lines. The member for Albert Park does not have to worry about solar farms or wind turbines in her electorate; they are all in our electorates in the regional areas of this state. So far the government has specifically precluded the development of wind farms in all of Melbourne and all the places that the government holds, with the exception perhaps of the seats of Ripon and Eureka. In the Bellarine – in your own electorate, Acting Speaker Marchant – the Yarra Valley, the Dandenong Ranges, the Mornington Peninsula, the Great Ocean Road and the Macedon and McHarg ranges, you cannot even apply to put a wind turbine there, but if you want to put wind farms in rural Victoria, go your hardest. ‘Not only that’ – this is the government – ‘but we’ll make sure you can sign up to the transmission lines because we’ll force our way onto people’s lands to make sure it happens.’

The member for Albert Park said, and the Minister for Climate Action has said across the table, that there are already provisions, so what is our concern with this. There are already provisions for access to private land for these sorts of facilities. If that is the case, what is this legislation needed for? Why do we need to introduce new $12,000 fines for individuals and $48,000 fines for body corporates if they have the temerity to refuse this government in terms of access to their private farms? This legislation is draconian and out of step with democratic ideals. We have seen this already with the government taking away the right of regional Victorians to appeal to VCAT in the case of renewable energy and transmission projects. The Nationals and Liberals will give that back. If we are elected next year, we will give regional Victorians their voice back and allow them to take these matters to VCAT.

I know in my own electorate there was a wind farm that was approved – approved by the department, approved by the minister – and the locals took it to VCAT. They found that both the department and the proponent had messed up, and that permit got withdrawn, so it is not a hypothetical situation. This is a situation in which the government’s policy to take away regional Victorians’ rights has a specific impact on whether these projects go ahead or not, and the government stands condemned for that. It stands condemned for the approach that it is taking. It has released a draft community benefits plan, but it has not released a final community benefits plan. Its preference is to start with the big stick of this legislation, with the threat of fines, with the threat of breaking locks and smashing open gates to get access to people’s land, instead of actually putting the carrot in front. That is why we are at this spot, because the government has manifestly failed to do the right thing by rural and regional people.

And do not take it from me, take it from Bruce Mountain, who is an energy expert, but he is no particularly hard right-winger or anything. He said in the Financial Review this week:

Drastic changes to private property rights, as the Victorian government is proposing to enforce a poorly founded transmission plan, are unlikely to achieve its objectives and will poison the water for other renewables and transmission developments …

And that is exactly spot on. That is what this government is doing. It has messed up its renewable energy rollout, and it is now making it worse with this approach. This is bad legislation. This bill is draconian. It is overreach and it is undemocratic. The Nationals and Liberals will oppose it, and if elected next year, we will repeal it.

Bronwyn HALFPENNY (Thomastown) (15:22): Well, obviously the member for Gippsland South has never been to Thomastown, because the residents of Thomastown have been carrying the whole load, just about, of transmission powerlines for many, many years. So when we hear this sort of rubbish about ‘Only country people or only regional people bear these costs’ –

A member interjected.

Bronwyn HALFPENNY: Well, I am talking about the electorate that I represent. In fact the powerlines are so into the substations, the whole of the Keon Park level crossing removal had to be redesigned because of the powerlines in order to get the station and the trains under it. So when you are talking about inequality for some, it is just a political expediency. It is quite a low act when you try to drum up this division that somehow or other people in the regions are being treated differently or worse than people in the metropolitan area when it comes to sharing the load of trying to transition our economy and our country and our state to renewable energy, or clean energy, for the sake of our children and to stop the terrible march of climate change that of course is having the greatest effect in regional and country areas, when we talk about the ever-increasing catastrophic weather events such as drought and flood and storm that are mostly affecting those in those regional country areas. I would have thought that the National Party at least, if not the Liberals, would be acting and working very hard to support any initiatives to mitigate the effects of climate change, to stop the warming of the globe, in order to help and support those in the areas that they represent.

Getting back on to aspects of this bill, I know the member for Albert Park gave a very comprehensive explanation of what these amendments are. There are amendments that affect a number of different pieces of legislation that are all to do with ensuring that we can progress and forward our renewable energy plan, which we are leading the nation with and are up there in spite of Victorians for many, many years having to do it all by ourselves because we had a Liberal–National federal government that also did not believe in climate change and therefore left things. The terrible act of not acting on climate change not only put our country behind – except for in Victoria – but also meant that we could not capitalise on new jobs and strengthen our economy in the industries of renewable energies, because they left it so late and did not support businesses in this area and created so much uncertainty.

Of course we know that to have good, strong economic growth and to build industry we need to have the certainty and the support from government in those industries, and we have never had that as a national concept. I talk to many businesses working in this area, particularly with my background from the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union, and they are very critical of the inaction of the federal Liberal–National government around industry on renewable powers.

If we look at the issues that we are talking about in this bill, there are only a couple that I would like to focus on. One of them, which I do not think I have heard any of the Liberal–National parties speakers talk about – and I am sure they never will – is the fact that there is going to be, and this bill looks at this, the introduction of a transparent framework in order to make payments of compensation and other things to landowners, traditional owners and community members that are affected by these transmission lines because of course this infrastructure is essential to distribute the power from renewable energy across the country and across the state. If we want to get cheaper and cleaner power to businesses, to households and to farms, then we need to be able to move it along something, and that is the transmission line that we are talking about building as a system in order to carry that power to all parts of the state.

This compensation and payment fund that will be introduced means that landowners will receive payments for access to their land. There will also be payments for the use of their land, as in the use of it for building some of this infrastructure. There is also going to be a community energy fund, which will provide funds for projects in particular communities that are affected by these transmission lines. That will again increase investment into those areas, as an act of good faith and to demonstrate that they are helping us all by being the places where these transmission lines need to be.

In respect to access to private land, yes, this legislation does make some tweaks and changes to access to private land, giving authorised officers access powers to enter land – of course under court orders, so there will be some check and balance in all of that. It will not just be people marching in, stomping in, standing on the flowerbeds and rushing in. It will be done in a properly organised way, with the ability for those landowners or land users to raise concerns. Then of course there will also be penalties if there is a denial of access that has been determined as needing to happen.

This is not unusual. I remember a number of years ago there was a big issue with I think it was the WorkSafe legislation when forest businesses were refusing to allow WorkSafe officers onto their premises to investigate serious injuries where people were losing limbs and all sorts of things. There were landowners and business owners that were actually denying access to those authorised officers. I think there was a loophole that required amendment because in some cases the business’s home was also attached to the workplace that forestry workers or timber workers were using. Authorised officers are not unusual. Access for authorised officers is required in many cases, and this is not something new. I have not really heard any outcries from the timber industry. Once those changes were made on the ability for authorised officers to enter premises, I did not hear any outcry, other than before it was being introduced, but certainly not after it was introduced. Really it was just a scaremongering sort of campaign in order to try to stop what was essentially trying to make workplaces safer and provide better rights and conditions for working people in those areas.

As I said, I will come back to the electorate of Thomastown, where there are many transmission lines and substations. Not just in the older part of the electorate but all the way up to Wollert there are big swathes of land where there are some of those really large transmission powerlines carrying old power. We hope very soon to see that those transmission lines will also be carrying lots of renewable energy, because I know we are looking forward in the electorate of Thomastown to power prices going down, because we know that renewable energy is much cheaper than gas and coal-fired power. We also know that it is cleaner and it is going to be good for the future for our children. We want to leave this place better for our children than what we have it; certainly we do not want to leave it any worse. I think these figures are only maybe a year or so old, but more than 4600 households in the electorate have already taken up the subsidies for solar panels and investing in renewable energy. We have also got the Yarra Valley waste-to-energy project, another area of creating renewable energy.

All of these projects are fantastic and are really changing the way that we use power, but they need some way to travel. I will give you a good example of a business in the area, Cadell Food Service – I have only got a few seconds. They wanted to put on solar panels. They were denied that through AusNet because there was not the capacity in the grid. We were able to work that out for them, but these are the problems that are coming up.

Richard RIORDAN (Polwarth) (15:32): I rise today to join my colleagues on this side of the house in opposing the National Electricity (Victoria) Amendment (VicGrid Stage 2 Reform) Bill 2025. Why? Because this is yet another lipstick-on-a-pig effort from this government. This bill is going to wreak havoc and mistrust right across regional Victoria. I will just give you some examples of why I say this. First of all, the Victorian Parliament yesterday saw a huge rally of country and regional people who are just aghast at what this bill is going to do. It is not just members on this side of the house talking about the concerns with this bill: we had the Victorian Farmers Federation (VFF), we had farming groups, we had communities from right across Victoria come here to say, ‘Victorian government, you have got to stop using and abusing us in regional Victoria to make your political statements’.

What are we talking about there? First of all, just in the last week we have had this in the Age newspaper: ‘Farmers’ fury over Victorian government’s power grab’. We have got this Australian Financial Review headline: ‘Honesty and credibility needed on Victoria’s energy transition’. We have got this from the Herald Sun: ‘Allan Labor government accused of creating “sneaky tax” through energy fund loophole’. And just this morning the VFF was out on the front foot saying we desperately need a rethink as AEMO flags huge cost blowouts in this government’s attempts to put transmission lines across the state.

But what I want to contribute on today is the lie and the deception that this bill is wreaking on country Victoria. One of the few elements of the rollout of renewable energy and powerline transmissions has been a promise to country communities that there would be a community benefit fund in that for them. We have seen the energy industry trickle out little sums of money; you know, $5000 for a bit of concrete at a footy club, some funding for some plastic bag replacements in another small town. We have seen some funds available to contribute to a local hospital or other, at times quite worthy, causes. There have been some contributions, some benefit back to the communities for the huge toll on their roads, the huge blight on the landscape, the uncertainty about what the future holds in many communities. But what this legislation does is supercharge renewable energy as another taxation tool for the Victorian government. We know, for example, that this government has put a nearly $200 million a year land tax on the transmission industry here in Victoria. This government will sell it to the average voter that this is a tax on some big multinational company, but of course it is not. That $200 million worth of land tax that the energy companies are paying is not being paid by them – it is being added to our household bills.

In a cost-of-living crisis, this government is using its renewable energy rollout program as another form of sneaky tax. But what is worse is these people here at Treasury here in Victoria have seen that community benefit fund that many energy companies have used to try and sweeten the deal in country communities, and in some part it has enabled some social licence in rural communities, but guess what? They, being the government – this government, this Treasurer, this energy minister sitting opposite me now – are now going to aggregate all those community benefit funds. And guess what? They are going to send them all to Spring Street. No longer will local communities be dealing directly with the energy companies operating in their communities to seek a few thousand dollars here and a few thousand dollars there to make life in country Victoria better because of the inherent and embedded damage that the renewable energy rollout is doing in regional Victoria, but they are now going to take the money, and we are now going to have ministers in hard hats and fluoro vests coming down when they feel like it to country Victoria to gift us some of our money that we already had back to us. If that is not insulting enough, in this bill – and I will read it out to you – is a clause that should disturb every single person, organisation, charity and community group in regional Victoria and it is this one, and I quote from page 82, part 2 of this bill, section 92, part 4:

The Treasurer, after consulting the Minister and VicGrid, may direct VicGrid to pay out of the … Community Energy Fund a specified amount of money to be paid into the Consolidated Fund.

That is code for, ‘We are going to take your community money, put it into the Treasury, and we will spend it on tunnels in Melbourne, overblown projects here in Melbourne,’ and every other wanton cause that this government is failing to pay for through a mismanaged and poorly funded budget. They are going to take money that was going to be destined for our regional communities for genuine community benefit. It is outrageous. And not only that, they are adding another whole new tax, keeping in mind that these sources of funds are not coming from the energy companies. It is not coming, for example, from Ikea that owns the largest Ikea, the famous and wealthiest furniture company in the world, that runs the biggest wind farm across the top of my electorate. It is not coming from them. No, it is coming through your bills. It is being claimed back; each and every month that you pay your power bill, you will be paying this through.

But the next bit they are doing is they are setting up another whole new slush fund in this, and it is the Traditional Owners Fund. This Traditional Owners Fund is going to be used of course for this government to help pay for its treaty commitments. Now, think about that. We have got $200 million a year being added to our power bills on land tax. We are now taking all the community fund money dressed up as a community fund, but of course it is not; we know, like the TAC and WorkCover, this government is going to harvest cash out of that for its own nefarious purposes. Now they are setting up an additional tax on the powerlines, and that is a Traditional Owners Fund. What that is going to do is tax every single household for this government’s commitments to treaty and reconciliation by this government. They are not going to be transparent about it. They are burying it in and embedding it in the cost of turning on your lights at home. When you want to turn on the TV, when you want to turn on – as the minister wants us all to have – electric heating and cooling in our homes, when we turn that electric heater and that electric cooler on, we will also be paying for the commitments that this government makes in its promises around reconciliation and treaty.

I say to you that this bill is nothing but a farce and a fraud. It is just another big new taxation method, a weapon by this government to make average mums and dads and average people in the community pay for the largesse and budget mismanagement of this government.

Eden FOSTER (Mulgrave) (15:39): I am proud to rise today and speak in support of the National Electricity (Victoria) Amendment (VicGrid Stage 2 Reform) Bill 2025. This legislation continues on the world-leading path this government has been going down, transitioning from a fossil fuel-dominant electricity grid with immense amounts of pollution emitted to a renewables-led grid that delivers net zero emissions by 2045.

Victoria is undergoing one of the swiftest transitions in the world. When this government came to power the state was in a very different climate: investment in renewable energy had collapsed, and Labor had come in, replacing a party that to this day has no real plan for energy transition.

This bill makes a number of reforms to the state’s electricity system. It transfers the existing transmission planning functions from the Australian Energy Market Operator to VicGrid. It establishes renewable energy zones, where the state government is directing large amounts of investment, and creates a new and transparent framework for the funding and payment of benefits to community members such as landholders and traditional owners impacted by infrastructure such as battery storage and transmission lines, among other reforms. This bill acknowledges the reality that those opposite and some others around the world do not want to acknowledge – that the renewable energy transition is an inevitable event that creates new challenges for government and the private sector. The way in which we react to this economic revolution, akin to the industrial revolution, will be one of the defining legacies of any government currently in power, and this government acknowledges the challenges but also the innumerable opportunities from this transition. I just might make a comparison. Perhaps those opposite would like to see us going back to the old days with holding gas torches and maybe using the whole Flintstone-style ways of moving around. Maybe that is a good way of reducing emissions – I do not know – but they do not want to see technology developed and used and they do not want to see Victoria progress.

Under the current system the Australian Energy Market Operator is responsible for planning expansions to Victoria’s transmission network. After identifying the need for a new line, AEMO conducts an economic test to determine the project’s financial viability, then commences a procurement process to select a company to build and operate the line. Only after this point do full environmental assessments take place and communities become fully engaged. This backwards process creates significant anxiety for communities hosting new energy infrastructure and generates uncertainty for investors. The Victorian transmission and investment framework – VTIF – aims to fix these issues by fundamentally reforming how transmission is planned and developed. It establishes a more coordinated approach that provides investment certainty, encourages renewable energy projects and supports the efficient development of both transmission and generation infrastructure to deliver affordable, reliable and secure energy for Victorians. Importantly, it prioritises engagement with communities and traditional owners from the very start, before any transmission corridors are determined.

The VTIF will be implemented by VicGrid, a new government body. The first tranche of VTIF reforms were passed last year by the Parliament and are already making an impact. This legislation brings powers that up until now have been delegated to AEMO back to state government control in the form of VicGrid. In conjunction with the revival of the SEC, the Allan Labor government is ensuring that the state government has all the policy levers it needs to tackle the energy transition head on and reap the rewards of this green industrial revolution. VicGrid has already been playing an active role in the development of our electricity grid. They are responsible for administering the $480 million Renewable Energy Zone Fund, which has supported 12 projects that will strengthen and modernise the state’s grid.

VicGrid will assume the entire transmission planning function to ensure that we build what we need when we need it. Last year the VicGrid stage 1 legislation introduced additional annual payments to landholders hosting new transmission infrastructure, recognising the vital role they play in the energy transition. These payments amount to $8000 per kilometre of new transmission hosted, indexed for 25 years, equating to around $200,000 per kilometre, and are provided on top of any compensation under the Land Acquisition and Compensation Act 1986 for loss of land value. At the same time, the government committed to establishing renewable energy zone development funds for host communities and a dedicated traditional owners fund. Following extensive consultation, this bill delivers on that commitment by creating a framework for these funds. The REZ community energy funds will invest in projects that improve local energy outcomes and deliver lasting benefits aligned with community priorities, funded through fees paid by generation developers in REZs and contributions from transmission companies.

It will commence when REZs are formally declared in the first Victorian transmission plan in 2025. Additionally, the bill establishes a Traditional Owners Fund to support self-determination and the aspirations of traditional owners impacted by new energy infrastructure, ensuring that for the first time they directly share in the benefits of projects hosted on country.

This transition is not only about reducing emissions and securing a sustainable energy future, it is also about creating thousands of high-quality jobs for Victorians. By investing in renewable energy zones, modern transmission infrastructure and the revival of the SEC, we are ensuring that the benefits of this transition flow directly to local workers, regional communities and Victorian industry. The clean energy sector will drive apprenticeships, training opportunities and long-term careers in construction, engineering and advanced manufacturing, helping us build both a cleaner and a stronger economy. This is also in line with other reforms the government is making in the Local Jobs First framework, ensuring that investment in Victoria sees the local benefits compound by mandating that Victorian workers and suppliers receive the benefits from these strategic projects.

I would also like to touch on some of the alternatives, or lack thereof, that those opposite support. Honestly, it is quite hard to tell where the opposition’s position on the renewables transition is. I am sure there are some, such as maybe the member for Sandringham, who is sitting in the chamber, and the member for Brighton, who go back to their communities, speaking about how they support renewable energy. I am actually quite sure that if I sat down with them privately, they would not have particularly outrageous views. But on the other hand, there are some within the Victorian coalition and their federal counterparts who do not even support the idea of us reaching net zero in the first place, let alone by 2045 or 2050. I would also like to remind the house that the Leader of the Opposition has not committed to net zero –

Members interjecting.

Eden FOSTER: Surprise, surprise. When it comes to private sector investment, certainty is so important. The private sector wants a government that will ensure this goes ahead. Energy infrastructure does not appear overnight, and investors are going to be wanting the dollars to be seeing returns over decades. If those opposite were on this side of the chamber, then there would be no certainty whatsoever within the private sector. Even those that want to expand coal-fired generation would not even be able to get their way, let alone any investment into renewables. This is all before we mention the dreaded word that to this day tears apart the coalition: nuclear. We saw what a whiff of that did at the federal election and to their former federal opposition leader.

It is clear that only the Allan Labor government has the maturity to handle the greatest economic challenge of our time. Before I conclude, I also want to talk about how climate change is making our youth anxious. We know that there is climate change anxiety. Those on the other side choose not to do much about it, or anything for that matter. They oppose what we do to get to net zero, our net zero targets. In the process our future generations, our children of today, are experiencing anxiety because of that fear of what will happen to their world if we do nothing about climate change. So I urge those opposite to support this bill – I know they are not; it is probably a bit late for me to say that. I urge some common sense on the other side, and I commend this bill.

Tim READ (Brunswick) (15:49): This bill establishes VicGrid as the authority regulating the new renewable energy zones (REZ) and transmission lines to be built as part of moving Victoria off coal and onto renewable energy. Until March this year, if you had asked me to predict Australia’s next climate disaster, I would not have listed the algal bloom killing everything in a vast area of South Australian waters. Fish, stingrays, hundreds of species are washing up dead on South Australia’s beaches, and the fishing industry, seafood businesses and tourist towns along the coast are in serious trouble. Nobody wants to eat possibly contaminated oysters or fish.

Climate disasters like heatwaves, fires, droughts, cyclones and floods are now so frequent that we are starting to forget what a normal climate was like. A collapsing glacier wiped a Swiss village off the map two months ago, and most of us have probably forgotten that, if we noticed it at all.

This bill will facilitate the powerlines and the solar and wind farms needed to replace coal, the largest source of Victoria’s greenhouse emissions and Victoria’s greatest contribution to global heating and to, for example, the marine heatwave that is killing the fish in South Australia. Victoria’s brown coal gives us the majority of our electricity, meaning that we still have one of the nation’s most polluting electricity systems, even though we are at almost 40 per cent renewable energy. With two of our three coal-fired power stations scheduled to close in 2028 and 2035 respectively, we need a lot more wind and solar built in Victoria to replace them and to supply the growing demand for electricity as we electrify homes, factories and cars. With climate change already this bad and global heating locked in to get us to well over 1.5 degrees so that there is worse to come, I want to see our coal-fired power stations closing sooner than scheduled, but whether we close them sooner or later, we will need the renewable energy zones and the planned high-voltage powerlines to generate electricity and carry it around the state.

Because this bill enables corporations to build big ugly powerlines where they are not wanted, the Greens, and I am sure other parties here, have heard plenty of reasons why the bill should not be passed and the powerlines should not be built. Here are some on the list that we have heard. We have heard that the planned route is wrong. We have heard that there is a better option – to build an underground DC route up the Calder Highway – that has not been adequately considered. We have heard that agriculture will be restricted in the path of the powerlines. We have heard that too many trees will be removed and that the proposed 500,000-volt lines are bigger than needed. And while there may be some truth in some of these points, there is a clear need to connect Melbourne with the west and north of the state. We are hearing that solar and wind farms in those areas are already limited by the lack of adequate transmission, and the massive scale of the fish kills in South Australia is just one reason to think that pretty soon our greatest concern will be that we have not quit coal fast enough, not that we have built too much infrastructure in the race to replace coal with renewables.

It is a surprise really that these high-voltage lines have not already been built, given that they have been talked about for so long. But concerned communities have been flagging for years that one of the biggest risks to the renewables transition would be a failure to engage properly and to obtain social licence for these projects. The Victorian Labor government does need to listen carefully to these communities and to do all it can to make sure that there are no further delays. It is good to see the government has taken some steps to implement things that my Greens colleague in the other place Sarah Mansfield, among others, called for when she spoke on the VicGrid stage 1 bill last year, such as a heightened focus on benefits for local communities, including traditional owners; and ensuring cheap, clean power or other high-quality amenities for regional communities hosting this infrastructure.

We have heard a number of concerns about the bill as it stands – more than the general concerns about the powerlines that I outlined above. Perhaps the most prevalent complaint is an objection to fines of around $12,000 being levied against landholders who refuse access. I have raised this objection with the government, and I thank the minister’s office and VicGrid for their time speaking with me and listening to these concerns. I understand this penalty is viewed as a last resort, that people would have to go through quite a few steps for that fine to be imposed, and it is hoped that this infrastructure can be built in a way that ultimately benefits everyone without having to issue any of these fines. The legislation sets out a number of steps that would have to be taken before it gets to the point of issuing a fine. Given the importance of social licence in our energy transition and the need to work in good faith with communities rather than to take them for granted, I urge the government to keep their word and take every possible measure to work constructively with communities so that these penalties are not used.

We have also heard concerns about the proposed community energy fund, and while the Greens welcome the establishment of this fund and certainly agree that communities should see the benefits of the infrastructure they host, we would like the government to have a little more faith in these communities and to allow them to have more of a say in the types of projects this fund will support. So rather than unnecessarily restricting eligible projects to be related only to energy, VicGrid should consult deeply with local communities to understand what their priorities are, because no-one knows the needs of a community better than the people who live there.

We will introduce amendments in the other place to make the community energy fund less prescriptive in its requirements and to involve communities in decision-making. We will also introduce an amendment to abolish the clause in this legislation that allows the Treasurer to appropriate funds from the community energy fund into consolidated revenue. While it is unlikely to ever be a significant source of revenue, the mere fact that the government could take this money for its own purposes seems to undermine the very point of this fund and provide an easy target for opposition. Lastly, we will introduce an amendment to strike out the clause in this legislation that exempts VicGrid from the Freedom of Information Act 1982. There can be no justification for this. Victoria’s FOI regime already contains so many exemptions that it is nicknamed the freedom from information act. We need more transparency in government, not less.

My colleague Sarah Mansfield will speak more to these amendments when debate reaches the other place, and I know she will have more to say from the perspective of the affected people she represents in Western Victoria. Overall, the Greens might have done a few things differently if this were left to us, but the bottom line is that we are not going to stand in the way of Victoria transitioning away from fossil fuels. We either have a climate emergency or we do not, and since we do, we need to act like it.

I would like to take a moment to acknowledge the recent death of John Englart, a powerhouse climate and social justice advocate who was one of the most dedicated activists in my electorate and beyond. John and his faithful companions Juliet and Jones were a fixture at climate protests and critical-mass bike rides. John’s advocacy kept me personally active on issues relating to climate and the environment. I was there the day John convinced the then Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change to sign on to the climate emergency declaration while all three of us were handing out how-to-vote cards at pre-poll in Brunswick in 2018. It was an important moment that I am sure the minister also remembers. Government ministers signing on to such statements signals a commitment to take action, and it is good to see that commitment bearing some fruit a few years later even if there is still a very long way to go. Let us continue John’s work here today and take this step to help address the climate emergency we are living through.

It is critical that we shut down coal-fired power stations as fast as possible. The worst outcome would be if this fails to happen quickly enough and Yallourn’s life is extended, which some have suggested as a possibility. The Greens will support this bill, and we hope other parties will support our amendments in the other place to try and make this fairer for communities and farmers.

Sarah CONNOLLY (Laverton) (15:57): I too rise to speak on the National Electricity (Victoria) Amendment (VicGrid Stage 2 Reform) Bill 2025. I was just listening to the member for Brunswick’s contribution on some of the realities that are put in place in this bill when it comes to access to landholders’ land. I think he has quite eloquently put that there have been some commonsense measures put in place in this bill, and I just want to expand upon that a little bit before I begin my contribution and talk about the wonder that is the SEC and the ambitious climate targets that the Allan Labor government has set for this state and is going ahead and rolling out.

On this side of the house, our government’s expectation is that transmission companies will reach voluntary land access agreements, which normally include payments for access. Only if these agreements cannot be reached would an authorised officer go ahead and attend, but that would only be after a warning that the landholder would receive a $1200 fine. They would still have to refuse a magistrate, who would issue such an order. Sorry, when we are talking about the magistrate, it would be a $12,000 fine if the landholder did not comply with such an order. These are end-of-journey measures that we have put in place. They are measures that we hope we never have to use. The minister, who is here at the table this afternoon, has made it entirely clear publicly and also to members on this side of the house and members on the opposite side of the house that these are measures that we hope never to have to use and that agreement can be reached.

I think one of the reasons for that is because we inherently understand and empathise with the landholders who find themselves in this situation. This is not a situation that has been easy to be in for anyone. The Leader of the Nationals talks passionately about his local community. I have visited his local community. It is somewhere I have gone with my children to enjoy such beautiful countryside, and I know he does feel really passionately about his community and ensuring that they are able to maintain the benefits of their own land and autonomy. I understand that. But we also are in a situation where difficult decisions have to be made, and we are trying to make them as fairly as possible.

This bill is delivering another set of reforms. They are reforms, here in this place, to go ahead and advance our government’s bold and ambitious plan to transition our energy sector to renewable energy and to achieve net zero by 2025. It should be clear to all of us here in this chamber that Victoria has been and continues to be an absolute national leader in climate action and supporting the energy transition. The energy transition and tackling climate change is a conversation where if you are out in your community and you are visiting schools – and I am heading off to a school on Friday with none other than the Deputy Premier in my local electorate – children and young people constantly want to talk about what our government and governments are and should be doing to tackle climate change. It is on their minds. It is on their parents’ minds. It is the right thing to do.

We have been here in government for 10 years, and we have made remarkable inroads on tackling climate change and reducing emissions. Our last climate target, which was a 15 to 20 per cent reduction of emissions from 2005 levels, we went ahead and exceeded by another 10 per cent. We not only talk about taking action in relation to climate change here on this side of the house but are actually taking real action. That comes from being in government, and it also sometimes comes from having to make really difficult decisions that can have adverse impacts on some people in our community. This has been a really tricky situation. Right now the SEC is powering our government facilities and utilities, our schools and our train stations, and even this very chamber is being powered by renewable energy generated from projects the SEC has invested in, and I think sometimes it is easy to forget that. But it is extraordinary to be standing here in this place knowing that the lights that are on in this very chamber are being powered by renewable energy that is generated by investment by the SEC. This is not just something we have talked about. We have been beavering away in the background making it happen. This means that when the SEC enters the market it will do so servicing at least 5 per cent of Victoria’s energy consumption, making it the fifth-largest energy retailer in the state.

Mathew Hilakari interjected.

Sarah CONNOLLY: It is a massive uplift, member for Point Cook – massive – and we are not stopping there. Later this year the SEC is going to actually begin offering to sell electricity to commercial and industrial businesses, helping them make the switch to renewable energy and slashing their power bills. The SEC is going to be more than just a provider of renewable energy. I just think this is tremendous. I was telling my mother this. She is not actually living in Victoria, but she thought it was a great idea. It is going to be a one-stop shop for families and folks right across Victoria looking to save on their energy bills. I feel like it is a one-stop shop that will tell you everything that you need to know about our Solar Homes program, batteries, solar panels – you name it – hot-water systems, where it is made, good reliable installers, the products. It has got everything that you need to know to make the switch to renewable energy. It is also the one-stop shop that will help you save on your energy bills, which is equally important. It is a one-stop shop, but it is also serving as a bit of an education tool for our community to better understand their options, what it all means, how it all connects together, how it is lowering power bills, how it is reducing our emissions and how that is good for tackling climate change.

This is a one-stop shop and has tremendous benefit for folks in our community.

Our Victorian energy upgrades program is making sure that households can upgrade their appliances, heating, cooling and hot-water systems with the most energy-efficient products. As I said, you will be able to check this out on the one-stop shop. You know, every time I am out and about in my local community, particularly the outer west, I see they absolutely love this program. I feel like every single person has got the solar panels, has got the battery, has got their hot-water systems. They are now driving around in electric vehicles. People always thought whether people in the outer west would take up electric vehicles – yes, they are. That is how the SEC is going to work, lowering power prices for households and businesses in a stronger, more competitive market that thrives on renewable energy.

A lot of work has gone into this bill. I think that with the consultation there has been a lot of really good outcomes in relation to powers that, yes, do need to be in place but hopefully will never have to be used. These are not powers that are just implemented here in Victoria. They are in South Australia, New South Wales and, I understand, Tasmania. It is not something new. They are there, and hopefully we do not have to use them, but they do need to be there because we do need to build these transmission lines, and we are trying as hard as possible to reduce the burden on and anxiety for the landholders that are caught up in this. I really do wish that those opposite, who a lot of them I do know feel passionately about this and feel protective of their community, would start to reveal some of the more factual things about this bill and about this situation in trying to make headway into having a mutual agreement to move forward and ways in which we can take those extra steps. Fearmongering never gets anyone anywhere in this state, and it certainly does not get them elected. I commend this bill to the house.

Roma BRITNELL (South-West Coast) (16:07): Our communities are being ignored, disrespected and steamrolled by the Allan Labor government, which has lost touch with the land and the people who care for it. The Allan Labor government’s proposed legislation, the National Electricity (Victoria) Amendment (VicGrid Stage 2 Reform) Bill 2025, is nothing short of a land grab. It gives VicGrid the power to forcibly enter private farmland to build transmissions. I have been hearing the other side say that legislation already exists, and this is no different. Well, why are we here? What are we here for? No, this is very different. This is forcibly going onto people’s land. If landowners resist, they face fines of up to $12,000 or, for corporations, $48,000. Most farms would be in a partnership, a trust or a company. That is how we do succession; that is how we run businesses. That is just normal business practice. So most family farms will be facing fines of up to nearly $50,000 for protecting the land where they have got lambs just been born or crops about to be harvested or where they have major concerns about a biosecurity issue. They will just be ridden roughshod over. This is not consultation. This is coercion, invasion, takeover.

Let me be clear: we are not against renewable energy. We support transition, but what we cannot support is a process that tramples over the rights of landowners, ignores community voices and treats farmers as obstacles rather than partners. Farmers in my part of the world are angry. They are facing drought; they are working their butts off. Many of them could not even make it along with the thousands who did get here yesterday because by the time you milk, feed and try and keep your animals safe at the moment during this terribly difficult period, you just cannot get here. But there were thousands out there, and they are here in spirit. They rang and they texted me, and they are fiercely angry. As a former dairy farmer myself, I understand the land is more than a workplace. It is a home. It is a source of livelihood and in many cases an area of environmental significance.

We have never farmed for just ourselves. We have farmed on behalf of our forefathers, who gave it to us to look after, and we farm it for our children and those that come after us. It is just the way it is. Farmers produce food – clean, green food – that we export and feed the state with. Sustainability is a feature of it. Come on – forcing farmers and making them feel like they are just being trampled over is not an appropriate way for any government to act, but it is certainly what we are seeing out of this state government. This government has failed to engage meaningfully with communities. It has failed to explore alternatives. And the Victorian Farmers Federation have pleaded with the MPs – written to all of us – and you wait, in 2 hours time or an hour and a half’s time will we see all the MPs in here voting or will the ones who have been misleading their communities, saying that they want to be representing their communities, hide or refuse to cross the floor and stand up for the farmers in their communities? Every single person in every single electorate who is farming should check how their local member voted on this bill or whether they hid. This bill is an undemocratic overreach. It erodes trust, it divides communities and it sets a dangerous precedent for how governments interact with the people who it serves.

We in opposition will vote against this bill every step of the way, and if elected next year, we will repeal it. Not only are this government forcing themselves onto land, but they are taking away the community benefits that were once offered to communities. Many will say that was a bit of blackmail or a sweetener, but the point is now those community funds will come out of the electricity bills and the access fee. It is not only that we are now paying for it in another way, because we probably were already with the companies, but in this bill there is a clause that actually quite clearly says that the Treasurer can sweep in and take it and put it into consolidated funds to fund all those projects in Melbourne that they cannot find the money to fund. And we will be – as farmers, as communities in regional Victoria – paying for that.

Let me finish with this: if we truly want to reduce emissions and build a sustainable future, we must start respecting the people who already care for the land. We in South-West Coast are not against renewable energy, but we are saturated with wind farms. We have had our fair share, and they are even trying to take them out into the beautiful ocean where our whales migrate on a migratory pathway and birth. This is just beyond belief. Farmers protect biodiversity. We are stewards of the water. We feed our nation, and we deserve better than this.

Mathew HILAKARI (Point Cook) (16:13): Appropriately we are talking for a shorter number of minutes here today so that more members of the Parliament can have their say. I do appreciate that, and I will be consequently speaking for a little bit shorter time myself. I rise in favour of the National Electricity (Victoria) Amendment (VicGrid Stage 2 Reform) Bill 2025 – one of the longest titles, I think, but we will get some references from Hansard on whether that is true or not. I have been listening carefully to those opposite speak about their opposition, and I think we have been listening to their opposition on any changes related to the electricity market for literally decades now. For literally decades we have been listening to the opposition, whether it is here, whether it is up in Canberra, talking about how they want to go back in time.

We have a great history in Victoria of technology and technological change in relation to electricity. We were actually the first place in the whole world to bring on brown coal and be able to produce that into electricity. It is a proud history and legacy, but the legacy itself is quite bad. We know that, and the challenge to all of us is here right now. It is here right now in the fires, it is here right now in the floods, and we have to meet that challenge. It is a responsibility of everyone in this place to put forward a plan to meet the challenges of the day. I do not want to anticipate some of those opposite, but the former Leader of the Nationals has always got quotable quotes when it comes to this transition and this challenge ahead of us, and I quote him from July last year saying ‘renewable rubbish’ when he was talking about batteries. I hope he can fix the record. He said he is happy to repeat it.

Peter Walsh interjected.

Mathew HILAKARI: He said he is happy to repeat it. Minister Lily D’Ambrosio and I were in our own community, celebrating the changes that we are making, celebrating batteries in households. It is a really important thing to reduce power prices. We met William, who has solar PV and a hot-water heat pump. His change has meant that his house is going to pay off, he reckons, in about three or four years, from the cost savings of going electric rather than his old gas heater. That change is going to be a benefit for the rest of his experience, in his family, for the next 20 years, as they will be reducing their electricity costs. Lauris and her family – we were at their house, and they were actually putting in their second battery, which is renewable rubbish. They are now on zero dollars in electricity prices – zero. And for communities who are suffering with high electricity costs and are really trying to work against that, the state and federal Labor government programs, particularly related to solar, batteries and hot-water heat pumps, all contribute to a better life for people across our communities. Mr Walsh also said:

A reality … is proving what The Nationals have been saying for a decade – sustainable energy is light years from being a viable solution to this state’s energy needs –

light-years away. Well, I think he has probably got to get with the program, because it is communities like those represented by Mr Walsh that suffer most from climate change. That is what we are trying to buttress against in this state, because we know that climate change is already here. I did not think we would get dog whistling today with the member for Polwarth, but he did get there – shamefully so. I did not think that would be part of the scaremongering that we got to. It is so typical to go low when we are seeking to make the changes that we are in desperate need of, changes that will benefit this generation, the next generation and all those to come.

We should be really proud of what we are doing in the area of renewable energy; we are leading the nation. This year we should be getting to 40 per cent and hit our 40 per cent target of renewables. I am not sure how that quite splices with renewable rubbish when 40 per cent of the electricity that we use in this state is already renewable. This Parliament, as the member for Laverton said, is run on renewable energy. The lights are still on, the building is not collapsing and society is okay. We will continue with renewable energy. We have targets of 65 per cent by 2030 and 95 per cent by 2035, and as long as those opposite do not get in power, we will easily meet those. Because we know that we are going to have, in the lead-up to 2035, a 40 per cent increase in the usage of electricity, and of course we hear about that every day. We had data centres opening up in the western suburbs of Melbourne most recently, and we talk about the high use of electricity that goes alongside that. We talk about homes that are electrifying, that are moving to it, because they want to have cheap electricity. We as a government want them to have cheaper power bills – that is the point. We are always keen to see that the electricity sector is modernised and fit for purpose and fit for the future ahead of us.

We are still suffering from when the Liberals were in government, from the sell-off of the transmission lines. It was more than 30 years ago that we actually built another transmission line because we sold off the whole of the sector. I hope that sell-off does not occur should the Liberal–National parties ever get the honour of being in government again. I will sit down now to give a bit of time to Mr Walsh – I was hoping, Mr Walsh.

Emma KEALY (Lowan) (16:19): I am so proud to be able to speak on the National Electricity (Victoria) Amendment (VicGrid Stage 2 Reform) Bill 2025, because I will have an opportunity to make sure that the voice of rural and regional Victorians is heard in this place. That is something that the Allan Labor government is seeking to again gag, because step after step in the rollout of VNI West, the rollout of more renewables across the state, the Labor government have completely ignored the property rights of landholders through this area.

Let us just go back to step one of what is going on with VNI West. There is a better option on the table. There is a better option which is cheaper to install, which means that it is lower costs that will be put on the energy bills of every single Victorian, because it is Victorian energy bill payers who will actually pay the price for Labor’s rush for renewables and this folly of VNI West. Plan B uses existing easements, so you do not have to cause the heartache and the pain and the anguish and the mental health issues that AEMO and the Victorian Labor government have inflicted on communities from Stawell right through to the border. You have not allowed people to have their voice heard. People have been kicked out of community meetings. I actually even heard this week – I was briefed by a council that said AEMO are planning on putting out a full-page ad to apologise to their communities that they have spoken to about how badly they have treated rural and regional Victorians. How are Labor responding to that? They are introducing legislation that would actually fine landholders for stopping these same people who are apologising for their behaviour from setting foot on their land. Labor are trampling on the rights of property owners and instead threatening a $12,000 fine instead of actually listening to them. You should be listening to your communities. I note that the member for Ripon is not in the chamber now; I would not be surprised if the member for Ripon does not make a contribution to this bill. It is her community that are speaking out. It is her community that are coming to the steps of Parliament in protest of this, and it is her community that expect her to stand up and vote against this legislation that they do not want. It is Martha Haylett’s constituents who do not want this bill, and they will judge her by her actions today. We want to hear from the member for Ripon. Where will she stand? Will she choose her party and her career over the people that she is supposed to represent in this place? We will see; time will tell.

I would like to go back to plan B. Plan B uses existing easements. It is cheaper but, more importantly, it would unlock more renewables. So from what I hear, this climate change guilt that you are putting forward – that if you do not support VNI West, you are anti-climate and you are basically wanting all the farmland and all of the state parks and national parks and state forests through regional Victoria to burn – is the most disgusting emotional blackmail on regional Victorians that I have ever heard, and that is what was insinuated by the previous speaker. That is simply untrue. These people just want to have their voice heard, and how is Labor responding? They are responding by legislating that if you stand up against the Victorian government, against their plans, they will slug you with a $12,000 fine. That is not fair. We can look at the facts and know that there is a better option. We can look at the facts and know that the existing lines which link into New South Wales are brittle and aged and built to send energy in the wrong direction. That should be the priority of government. The priority of government should be to minimise the cost impost on energy bills for all Victorians, because going down a more expensive route – we have heard today that the cost for VNI West will double, which is not double for this mystery bucket of nothing. It is not the Labor government who just magically find money; it is actually Victorian taxpayers and Victorian energy bill payers who will have to pay that price. It is a huge impost. Maybe the government are looking at this as a bit of a revenue-raising exercise. They can get the $12,000 fines to compensate for the massive cost blowouts we are already seeing on a project that Victorians simply do not need. This is something that has been so frustrating for the communities that I represent and the neighbouring communities within the Ripon electorate. The frustration is that we see this rollout of renewables with very little opportunity for local people to have their say or to say, ‘We don’t want that,’ or that they want something decent in return. What do we get in return for hosting these battery projects and industrialising our land, which is otherwise a beautiful, pristine environment? It is a beautiful landscape in regional Victoria. I invite some of you to come out of Melbourne sometime and have a look at what actually happens in country Victoria, because it is a beautiful landscape when you do not have industrialisation all around you.

What do we get in return for hosting all of these industrial projects for Melbourne? We get bad roads, we get cuts in our hospital services and closure of our hospital services, we do not have enough childcare opportunities or access in our communities and we do not have enough support for housing – in fact very limited housing. We get nothing in return.

Let us have a look at the community benefits scheme that is outlined in this bill. What does it do? It legislates – there is a clause that says this – that the community benefits fund can go into the general revenue of government, so we do not even get any return in our regional communities for hosting this infrastructure. It is grossly unfair for a government to inflict additional infrastructure on our community when it is not the infrastructure that we want or need. We hear so often from people in regional areas that they want more infrastructure, but they are not calling for more industrial parks and they are not calling for more powerlines. We want safer roads. We want the Western Highway fixed so that it is not riddled with potholes and we finally see that duplication completed beyond the birthing tree. We want to make sure that we have got health services available in our own communities, which is something that has diminished since Labor came into power 11 years ago. Our community want to make sure there are investments in housing. We want to make sure that we are getting our fair share of all of this taxpayer money that has been taken from our communities and put into that big black hole in Melbourne called the Suburban Rail Loop. We want to see some return. Yet here we are with Labor saying they are going to establish a community benefits fund but that money can be raided at any point in time to fill the budget black hole created by Labor for Melbourne-based projects – and I bet VicGrid will take a bit of a clip of the tag on the way through. We just want our fair share, and that is not an unreasonable ask. I stand by our communities who call for that.

There are so many better options than what Labor are promoting. There has been no consideration at all with VNI West or the vast number of renewables projects across the region when it comes to managing fire risk. Our CFA brigades are volunteers. They are turning out to massive bushfires like those we experienced last summer in the Grampians and in the Little Desert. They are the people that would be asked to turn out to fires at wind turbines, and we have seen that recently. We have seen a number of fires at solar farms as well with failed transformers. We have got this risk now of large batteries coming into our area, which, if they catch fire, simply will not be able to be put out. The CFA volunteers have not been engaged with. You need to make sure our people have their voices heard and not support legislation that would instead trample on their rights, silence their voices and threaten to slug them with a great big fine. That is not fair. That is not what any government should do.

You are not delivering a realistic outcome. You are not delivering lower energy prices. In fact as we move more and more to renewables, our energy prices keep on going up and up and up. That is because renewables cost more money. The cost of the transmission lines is never included in any of the numbers that are quoted in the media by the government. They should be included, particularly when you get a doubling of the cost of the infrastructure that Labor are planning and that so many electrical engineers say we do not need.

I stand by the community that I represent and regional people who understand that we can do better than this legislation. Rural and regional people are smart. They grow our food, they grow our fibre. They have done their research around what a better option is. They know what the solutions are and they want to have a fair deal, but they are simply not getting it from an Allan Labor government that is only focused on bulldozing away the rights of regional Victorians, who are now paying the price.

Anthony CIANFLONE (Pascoe Vale) (16:29): I rise to support the National Electricity (Victoria) Amendment (VicGrid Stage 2 Reform) Bill 2025. I follow the member for Lowan. Just when I think the member for Lowan cannot get any lower, I continue to be dumbfounded. The allegation that we on this side of the house want our forests to burn – I have only been in this place since November 2022, but that is one of the lowest comments I have ever heard thrown across this chamber that she should hang her head in shame for. Her accusations around the member for Ripon – the member for Ripon is a friend of mine and one of the hardest working, most diligent advocates for her community. She secures real outcomes, not just talk. She does not fearmonger but works to bring people together and secure outcomes for her community.

That is what the member for Ripon and we on this side of the house are all about. The member for Lowan I note also took up her full 10 minutes of time on speaking. I thought we had an understanding across the chamber here that we would be sticking to 5 minutes or so, which I certainly will, to give other members time. The member for Lowan’s full take-up of the 10 minutes, along with the Liberals wasting time through that disgraceful procedural motion earlier today, wasted time upon time that we could have had towards this debate. They stand to be condemned for why time has been limited towards the end of this afternoon.

I rise to support the bill because it is about real action on climate change. If the member for Lowan and the Nationals actually wanted to genuinely support their farming and agriculture communities, they would also support action on climate change, because we know that to take action on climate change means that we are combating extreme weather events: bushfires, floods and droughts. This is all being generated, the science is telling us, because of the increase in and intensification of carbon emissions. The less carbon emissions we have, the better it is for the environment, for our sustainability and for climate change. It is a bill that progresses our action on renewable energy, and it is a bill that no-one opposite wants to admit is about cheaper energy. Put the environmental stuff aside if you do not agree with that, but if you talk about cost of living, we know the cheapest form of energy is renewable energy. Fossil fuel – gas, coal – is becoming more unstable, unreliable and volatile in terms of pricing, both for businesses and households. Renewable is the cheapest form of energy. The energy from the sun is free. The wind blowing through the skies is free. If we can capture that and harness that into our energy grid, it is cheaper energy.

The Liberals and the Nationals always oppose these things. They oppose action on climate change, they oppose movement to renewable energy and they oppose cheaper renewables. The member for Point Cook pointed out a bit earlier that it is in the DNA of the Liberal–National coalition. Going back however long you want to, they have always been against these things. I grew up in the 1990s when, even then, John Howard refused to sign and ratify the Kyoto Protocol – he refused. At the recent federal election they took a policy of nuclear reactors to the people, and the people overwhelmingly rejected it. I just find it ironic that time and time again, whenever we move bills in this place that are about transitioning to renewable energy, which is a lot safer and a lot cleaner than nuclear technology, they would rather have nuclear reactors in their communities, the most dangerous and hazardous form of energy. If they have seen Chernobyl and if they have seen Fukushima, how could they want to have that in their community potentially? How? It is just shameful.

They are having a debate at the moment – they are tearing themselves apart as a party – around net zero. At the federal level we have seen the Nationals and the Liberals going to war about rescinding their position in support of net zero. It is just remarkable. When they were last in government at the state level they sold off and privatised the SEC, and if they got back into government, they would sell it off again.

Notwithstanding that, do not just take my word for it, fellow members here. The science and the politics of their position and their approach to this issue is very, very clear. As carbon emissions go down and we drive down carbon emissions through our actions on this side of the house, the number of Liberal coalition MPs – not just in the state but more recently in the federal Parliament – go down as well. The federal election result, as I said, just proved that. They are now down to a record low 43 seats out of 150 lower house seats in the federal Parliament, only representing 28.7 per cent of seats in the House of Representatives. Labor, on the other hand, off the back of the election, now has 62 per cent of the lower house seats. The Liberals lost 15 seats – a 4.5 per cent swing against them, a 7.3 per cent reduction in the House of Representatives – and that is all off the back of campaigning against climate change, against renewable energy and in favour of nuclear reactors. On the other hand, on this side of the house the contrast could not be any starker – through this bill that is before the chamber right now but also all the other measures.

I note that I have just crossed the 5-minute mark, and I just want to commend this bill to the house. It is all part of our action on renewable energy.

Jade BENHAM (Mildura) (16:34): I am more than pleased to rise in this place to vehemently oppose this utterly insulting VicGrid bill that I have mentioned a few times in this place this week. At its very core this is nothing more than a hostile takeover of Victorian farmland disguised as energy reform, and the level of delusion that I have heard come from the other side regarding this this week is absolutely mind-boggling. Let us call it what it really is: this is a land grab. It is an unprecedented power play by a government hell bent on bulldozing over regional communities all in the name of centralised control and ideology. Welcome to the socialist republic of Victoria. VicGrid does not empower communities. The Allan Labor government does not empower communities; it disempowers them. It strips farmers of property rights. It is riding roughshod over decades of generational stewardship, and it is giving unelected bureaucrats the sweeping authority to dictate where transmission lines go, with no meaningful recourse for those affected.

This government has made it abundantly clear that it does not care about regional Victoria. It does not care about agriculture, and it certainly does not care about those who actually live on the land, work that land and are caring for that land because it is their livelihood. To them, the Mallee, the Wimmera and the western districts are just blank spaces on a planning map to industrialise with hundreds and thousands of cubic square feet of concrete.

Let us talk about the carbon footprint that goes into concrete. There is nothing worse than – and do you know how much concrete you need to put in the ground as footings for a battery farm or a wind turbine? The energy produced by those wind turbines does not offset the carbon footprint it takes to make it, so where is the logic? There is none. And what consultation is there? Again, there was none. There were dodgy online surveys. There were little ads in the paper that might constitute ‘Tick the box for community consultation’, which is absolutely insulting, again, to those who live on the land that is going to be scarred by this industrialisation of agricultural land.

This bill is not about securing a clean energy future. If it were, we would actually be talking about planning reform, about genuine community benefit-sharing from these companies that are largely not owned by Australian companies either. They are largely offshore. But where is the community benefit? We should be talking about investing in and actually looking at undergrounding some of the technology, where it is feasible, not just putting a line on the map and moving it because it is politically safer to do so. That is exactly what has happened here. Let us be clear: VicGrid is not here to serve regional Victoria. It is being created to control regional Victoria and control what happens to farmers land. It concentrates power in the hands of a few and silences the voices of many.

While we are at it, this bill is absolutely the wrong bill at the wrong time for all the wrong reasons. If you actually believe in climate action, great. But believe me, this is not the way to do it. Trampling over regional Victoria is not the way to do it. This is absolute delusion from an Allan Labor government that is completely bloody delusional.

John MULLAHY (Glen Waverley) (16:38): I rise today in support of the National Electricity (Victoria) Amendment (VicGrid Stage 2 Reform) Bill 2025, a bill that represents not just a legislative milestone but a transformative moment in Victoria’s energy future. This bill is about planning smarter, building better and ensuring that every Victorian, especially those in my electorate of Glen Waverley, benefit from a cleaner, cheaper and more reliable energy system. Victoria is undergoing one of the most rapid energy transitions in the world, and nowhere is the impact of this transformation more keenly felt than in our suburban communities, places like Glen Waverley, where families, small businesses and local institutions rely on affordable and dependable electricity every single day.

Since 2014 our government has nearly quadrupled the share of renewable energy in Victoria’s power generation. We are on track to meet our 2025 targets of 40 per cent renewables by the end of the year, and we are not stopping there. We are aiming for 65 per cent by 2030 and 95 per cent by 2035. Now, to get there, we need to unlock around 27 gigawatts of new capacity, and that is nearly double the current capacity on the network. With 4.8 gigawatts of coal-fired generation retiring before 2035 and demand increasing by 40 per cent as we electrify homes, businesses and transport, the need for a modern, responsive transmission network has never been greater. This bill delivers exactly that.

It establishes VicGrid as the body responsible for planning Victoria’s transmission network and a transfer of key functions from the Australian Energy Market Operator, AEMO, to VicGrid, ensuring that planning is done by a body that is accountable to Victorians, not to private interests. It creates a new framework for renewable energy zones that will bring transparency, certainty and coordination to how we connect renewable energy generation and battery storage to the grid. It ensures that communities and traditional owners are not just consulted but empowered through benefit-sharing frameworks, community energy funds and a new compliance regime that puts fairness and accountability at the heart of land access.

For Glen Waverley this bill means cheaper power, cleaner energy and a stronger grid. It means that as our community grows – as we adopt electric vehicles, install rooftop solar and embrace battery storage – our infrastructure will keep pace. It means that local schools, hospitals and businesses will be powered by some of the cheapest electricity ever produced. The Electrical Trades Union, the ETU Victoria, has long championed secure, well-paid jobs in the energy sector, and the National Electricity (Victoria) Amendment (VicGrid Stage 2 Reform) Bill 2025 aligns strongly with their mission, representing thousands of workers across electrical contracting, power generation and manufacturing. The ETU sees this bill as a critical step in ensuring that Victoria’s energy transition delivers tangible employment outcomes. By establishing VicGrid as the central planning authority for transmission, infrastructure and renewable energy zones, this bill unlocks billions in investment and sets the stage for the creation of 59,000 jobs by 2035. These roles span construction, engineering, maintenance and energy services, fields where ETU members are already leading the way. The ETU supports the bill and emphasises the anticipatory planning, public accountability and community engagement which will ensure that infrastructure projects are delivered efficiently and fairly.

I do not want to take more time than I should. In short, the ETU views the VicGrid reform as a win for workers, a win for our communities and a win for Victoria’s clean energy future, ensuring that the transition is not only green but also job-rich. This work ensures Glen Waverley remains at the forefront of energy transformations. With that, I will hand the call over.

Peter WALSH (Murray Plains) (16:42): In starting off on my contribution, can I thank every regional Victorian person who has made the sacrifices of time and money for the effort they have made to come down to the demonstrations that have been here on Parliament house steps or demonstrations anywhere in their electorates over the last couple of years. They are demonstrating to protect their property rights from the Allan government takeover.

For those that are students of politics, I might like to remind those on the other side about Premier John Brumby and the north–south pipeline and what that did to politics here in Victoria. I would remind the Premier, who I am sure is a student of politics and very mindful of the fact that John Brumby may have been Premier but never actually got elected as a Premier, and if the current Premier, Jacinta Allan, wants to be a Premier that is elected as a Premier rather than appointed as Premier, she might actually watch what is going on in regional Victoria at the moment and what is going to happen, because this issue has galvanised regional Victorians like the north–south pipeline did, and it will be an issue that will still be alive at the next election. So I remind those on the other side: you might ridicule, you might say all of the nasty things about us, but you are effectively saying that about the communities that we represent. That is what you are doing. You are not criticising us, you are criticising those people in regional Victoria –

The ACTING SPEAKER (Paul Hamer): Through the Chair, member from Murray Plains.

Peter WALSH: for what they think about this. The thing that I think about what happened in history here in Victoria – this bill is actually un-Australian. The member for Point Cook wanted some quotable quotes from me; can the first one be, ‘This bill is un-Australian because it actually strips away people’s property rights.’ If you go back to the movie The Castle, which was all about property rights, in which a man’s home is his castle, in this case the Allan government is attacking people’s castles, is attacking their homes to allow access onto that property without any authorisation, with the ability to cut locks, to push over gates, to cut fences, to go on that property without any permission

And then if they object to it, there are fines. Let us be serious about the size of the fines. Most farm businesses are partnerships, are trusts, are companies – they are under the definition of body corporates – so the majority of people involved here will get the $48,000 fine, not the $12,000 fine. These are serious fines for these particular businesses. So people are demonstrating. People in our electorates who we are representing are actually demonstrating about protecting their property rights here in Victoria and about having the right to adjust terms of compensation, which is being stripped away from them.

Michaela Settle interjected.

Peter WALSH: And I have read it too

The ACTING SPEAKER (Paul Hamer): Member for Eureka!

A member interjected.

Peter WALSH: I hope that remark was not referring to me, Acting Speaker, because I would take exception to it.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Paul Hamer): And me. The member for Murray Plains should continue.

Peter WALSH: The budget for this project was originally $3.6 billion. The Victorian Farmers Federation put out today that it has now blown out to $7.6 billion and could blow out to $11.4 billion. Knowing the history of the Allan government and major projects, let us just think of a number – 20, 30, 40 billion dollars this is going to cost, and it is going to come out of power users pockets here in Victoria. It is time to go back and have a re-examination of how we connect renewable energy to the grid. Bruce Mountain, as the member for Lowan pointed out, had a plan B where you actually build upgraded transmission lines on existing easements. It is a lot cheaper. It is a lot more sensible. It actually gets more renewable energy into the power grid without the social disruption, without the huge cost. If we are serious about this, let us just say, ‘Have a pause,’ because it has already been put back another two years and it will be put back more than that. Let us have a pause and look at how we do this more sensibly, more economically and without disruption to the community and actually deliver for all Victorians.

I will finish off with a quote from Darryl Kerrigan from The Castle, and I think I am precising for all those demonstrators who have been on the front steps of Parliament. He would say, ‘Tell ’em to get stuffed,’ because that is what they are saying to the Allan government – ‘You can go and get stuffed’ – because they do not want this in their electorates and on their farms.

Paul EDBROOKE (Frankston) (16:47): I appreciate those opposite and their passion. There are just a couple of things I want to point out in the 5 minutes I have given myself to contribute to this debate. First of all, my understanding is that this bill grants changes of access from the Australian Energy Market Operator to VicGrid with the same enforcement model that we see for rail and road right now. So for those opposite who are under the perception, you might say, that suddenly things are going to be locked up and people can come in with boltcutters, I would ask the question: on the current network grid, how do you think the maintenance teams actually maintain those networks if those powers are not there now? Those powers exist, and the member for Morwell knows it. I know it. I grew up in the valley. For all those high-tension lines in the valley, maintenance teams need to actually go out there and maintain them, and to do that there is legislation that enables them to enforce that right of entry. We have heard it is a land grab, it is a power play, it is a hostile takeover of farmland, but one thing I would like to point out is that a member in the other place, Mrs Broad, did actually say that this will lead to more reliability of the grid, which she appreciates.

I would also like to ask: what is the alternate plan? And today we have not heard one. If there is an alternate plan, I would like to see it. We heard from The Castle, that famous movie that Paul Mercurio is not in, about the vibe and it kind of is the vibe. I think if people today wanted more time to speak about this, we would not have been wasting time with a procedural stunt earlier in the day. We would not have. How much time did that take? We have also heard about climate change guilt. I am not quite sure where that was coming from. We have heard about members wanting forests to burn.

But the thing I take most umbrage with and which provides us with the most transparency and clarity about what I guess the aim of some people is in this house is is when we start naming members personally instead of talking about this bill. Take what was said about the member for Ripon – I am personally offended by that. The member for Ripon is a great member, and I think putting this in a personal perspective shows that this is a subject and an issue that has been politicised in this house today.

As I said earlier, this is not new. There is right-of-entry legislation. But I did reflect just sitting here that we had a condolence motion on Tuesday, and we spoke about seatbelts. A lot of people who got up on that condolence motion said that at the time seatbelts were not very popular. Everyone hated them. There was a lot of controversy about it, and people got up and said they did not want this. We look back now, and I guess we could say that if leadership feels comfortable, you are not doing it right. That is the way it was when we introduced seatbelts, and it is a lot like being here today. There are some things that are hard to do – leadership can be very hard – but it does not mean they are wrong. We introduced seatbelts. Again, I think on seatbelts, the opposition, if it was in today’s era, would be opposed. The opposition would be absolutely opposed to something because it was new, because that is its job as opposition – not looking at the facts and not looking at the future.

This is necessary. We have heard people on the opposite side of the house speak with passion and commitment, but at least 50 per cent of those people have been wrong in their assertions about what this bill does – absolutely wrong. You can laugh, but you can also read and educate yourself. With that, I will leave my contribution there because I know other people really want to speak on this. It is a bill that has incited a lot of passion and a lot of dedication, especially from regional members, and I totally understand that. Certainly my opinion is that we do have different views, but these things need to be done. I will leave it there.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Before I call the member for Hawthorn, I want to remind all members that the standing orders apply until the end of the adjournment.

John PESUTTO (Hawthorn) (16:52): Communities and people deserve respect, and it is perfectly legitimate for communities to properly interrogate big decisions that affect them, particularly if people have lived for generations on the land and worked the land. It is not unfair. We all experience this as local members of Parliament. When there are changes to people’s property rights, to the way they live, they raise it with us, and we know how sensitive they are and how reasonable they are in ventilating their concerns.

I also stand up to say that I fully support and believe in the need for an orderly transition to a decarbonised future, and the best way to do that is for governments to be competent. In 2023 VNI West was forecast to have a cost of $1.6 billion. Then it went to $3.3 billion, then $3.9 billion and now $7.6 billion. It will go to $12 billion; it will probably go beyond that. The same has occurred with the Western Renewables Link. The same has occurred with the Marinus Link. This government is mismanaging the thousands of kilometres that the AEMO says the country will need in the years ahead to manage the transition if it is to be done in an orderly way. Why should regional communities be suddenly told and have to accept – because of incompetence by this government, with massive cost blow-outs, at least a two-year delay to VNI West and there are already delays to Marinus and to Western Renewables Link – that their rights will now be further impeded, and they will have no voice in big decisions that will affect them. People are entitled to competency in one of the most important transitions that we have ever undertaken as a nation, and people have every right to raise their concerns.

The same thing is happening in gas. The government is at sixes and sevens over what to do about gas Whether it is import terminals, whether it is pipeline capacity or whether it is Woodside’s proposal in the Gippsland Basin, it does not know what to do on gas. In offshore wind people are deserting the sector. We saw BlueFloat desert the sector just recently. People say it does not stack up, and particularly in Victoria, where we have fairly shallow waters and strong winds, people are deserting.

I look at this as someone who believes in the need for an orderly transition, but it has to be done responsibly, it has to be done respectfully, particularly to those regional communities that are going to host infrastructure in the years ahead. They deserve to be consulted, and where it is appropriate, they deserve to be compensated and generously compensated.

Pauline RICHARDS (Cranbourne) (16:55): I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak for just a couple of minutes on this really important legislation and reflect on how important it is for us to have an orderly transition, reflect on the different tone of debates across this chamber – and even the different tone of debates across the opposition parties – and why it is important that we reflect the need for us to undertake legislative reform that does in fact make some fairly simple governance arrangements and governance changes. Those governance changes and governance arrangements are necessary so that we can have these areas of our state with the greatest potential for the development of renewable energy generation, such as wind and solar, able to be catered for.

I do want to, though, in just a couple of minutes, reflect on the importance of how many members we have on this side of the chamber that do represent regional and rural Victoria. We have got the Premier and the Leader of the House. I sit next to the member for Eureka and very close to the member for Wendouree. Of course we have the member for Bass, the hardworking member for Ripon, the member for Lara and the member for Geelong. There are so many here who are hardworking members of Parliament, representing their communities, and the contributions that they make to policy development are incredibly important and reflect the need for us to make sure that we have the health services, the education services, as well as access to a secure energy grid. I am just going to finish by saying that anything that the Electrical Trades Union provides input into is done in a way that is considered and has a focus very much on safe, secure and well-paid jobs. I am very pleased to have this legislation, and I commend it to the house.

Martin CAMERON (Morwell) (16:57): I rise to talk on the bill as well. One of the things we want to do as MPs is we want to bring in the voice of the people that we do represent. It does not matter what we stand and talk on in this place, we have the responsibility and the privilege to bring the concerns of our constituents into this chamber. When we have a bill that is up, that we are talking about, and it appears that we are not getting our full allotment of time to be able to relay those concerns, when we go back to our areas, people ask: why is that the case? We see a bill that is before us today which is taking away the rights of normal mums and dads, especially farmers on the land that actually feed us. The government has the right to be able to bring the bills in, but people need the opportunity to be able to have an outlet where, if they do not agree with it, they can actually ask their local politician to stand up for them or have a legal avenue where they can go and contest what the government is bringing in. What we have here is that actual format for our people to do that being taken away.

In 10 years time Yallourn and Loy Yang will be shut, so we will not have coal-fired power stations any longer. For our transition and being able to move into a renewables sector, we need to bring the community with us. We do not want to divide and have issues where we have people not wanting transmission lines, not wanting to have renewables in their area because, as I said, in 10 years time we are wholly and solely going to have coal-fired power stations off the grid with the rapid acceleration to close them. Give the people their voice – that is what we are here for.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The time set down for consideration of items on the government business program has arrived, and I am required to interrupt business.

Assembly divided on motion:

Ayes (52): Juliana Addison, Colin Brooks, Josh Bull, Anthony Carbines, Ben Carroll, Anthony Cianflone, Sarah Connolly, Chris Couzens, Jordan Crugnale, Lily D’Ambrosio, Daniela De Martino, Gabrielle de Vietri, Steve Dimopoulos, Paul Edbrooke, Eden Foster, Ella George, Luba Grigorovitch, Bronwyn Halfpenny, Katie Hall, Paul Hamer, Martha Haylett, Mathew Hilakari, Melissa Horne, Lauren Kathage, Sonya Kilkenny, Nathan Lambert, John Lister, Gary Maas, Alison Marchant, Kathleen Matthews-Ward, Steve McGhie, Paul Mercurio, John Mullahy, Danny Pearson, Tim Read, Pauline Richards, Tim Richardson, Ellen Sandell, Michaela Settle, Ros Spence, Nick Staikos, Natalie Suleyman, Meng Heang Tak, Jackson Taylor, Nina Taylor, Kat Theophanous, Mary-Anne Thomas, Emma Vulin, Vicki Ward, Dylan Wight, Gabrielle Williams, Belinda Wilson

Noes (27): Brad Battin, Jade Benham, Roma Britnell, Tim Bull, Martin Cameron, Annabelle Cleeland, Chris Crewther, Wayne Farnham, Will Fowles, Sam Groth, Matthew Guy, David Hodgett, Emma Kealy, Tim McCurdy, Cindy McLeish, James Newbury, Danny O’Brien, Kim O’Keeffe, John Pesutto, Richard Riordan, Brad Rowswell, David Southwick, Bridget Vallence, Peter Walsh, Kim Wells, Rachel Westaway, Jess Wilson

Motion agreed to.

Read second time.

Third reading

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Assembly divided on question:

Ayes (52): Juliana Addison, Colin Brooks, Josh Bull, Anthony Carbines, Ben Carroll, Anthony Cianflone, Sarah Connolly, Chris Couzens, Jordan Crugnale, Lily D’Ambrosio, Daniela De Martino, Gabrielle de Vietri, Steve Dimopoulos, Paul Edbrooke, Eden Foster, Ella George, Luba Grigorovitch, Bronwyn Halfpenny, Katie Hall, Paul Hamer, Martha Haylett, Mathew Hilakari, Melissa Horne, Lauren Kathage, Sonya Kilkenny, Nathan Lambert, John Lister, Gary Maas, Alison Marchant, Kathleen Matthews-Ward, Steve McGhie, Paul Mercurio, John Mullahy, Danny Pearson, Tim Read, Pauline Richards, Tim Richardson, Ellen Sandell, Michaela Settle, Ros Spence, Nick Staikos, Natalie Suleyman, Meng Heang Tak, Jackson Taylor, Nina Taylor, Kat Theophanous, Mary-Anne Thomas, Emma Vulin, Vicki Ward, Dylan Wight, Gabrielle Williams, Belinda Wilson

Noes (27): Brad Battin, Jade Benham, Roma Britnell, Tim Bull, Martin Cameron, Annabelle Cleeland, Chris Crewther, Wayne Farnham, Will Fowles, Sam Groth, Matthew Guy, David Hodgett, Emma Kealy, Tim McCurdy, Cindy McLeish, James Newbury, Danny O’Brien, Kim O’Keeffe, John Pesutto, Richard Riordan, Brad Rowswell, David Southwick, Bridget Vallence, Peter Walsh, Kim Wells, Rachel Westaway, Jess Wilson

Question agreed to.

Read third time.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The bill will now be sent to the Legislative Council and their agreement requested.