Tuesday, 9 September 2025

Bills

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

Council’s amendments

Message from Council relating to following amendments considered:

1. Clause 50, page 80, line 20, omit “subparagraph (i).” and insert “subparagraph (i); and”.

2. Clause 50, page 80, after line 20 insert –

“(c) to, through the payment of grants of money from the Fund, support biodiversity outcomes in Victoria, including support for the implementation of biodiversity programs, and the carrying out of biodiversity research, in Victoria.”.

3. Clause 50, page 81, line 24, omit “Fund;” and insert “Fund.”.

4. Clause 50, page 81, lines 25 and 26, omit all words and expressions on these lines.

5. Clause 50, page 82, lines 1 to 5, omit all words and expressions on these lines.

6. Insert the following New Clause before clause 63 –

‘62A Definitions

In section 3 of the Electricity Industry Act 2000 insert the following definition –

“public sector employee has the same meaning as in the Public Administration Act 2004;”.’.

7. Clause 63, line 8, omit “person” and insert “public sector employee”.

8. Clause 65, line 26, omit “person” and insert “public sector employee”.

9. Clause 65, line 27, omit “person” and insert “public sector employee”.

10. Clause 65, page 127, lines 1 to 7, omit all words and expressions on these lines.

11. Clause 65, page 132, line 6, omit “60” and insert “30”.

12. Clause 65, page 137, line 26, omit “60” and insert “30”.

13. Clause 65, page 139, after line 29 insert –

“(1A) In determining whether there are reasonable grounds for making the order, the Magistrates’ Court must have regard to the extent to which an electricity corporation or the CEO VicGrid has complied with the relevant obligations described in subsection (1B) in relation to entering ‍–

(a) onto the land in respect of which the application is made; and

(b) in the circumstances in relation to which entry is sought to be authorised under the entry order; and

(c) for the purpose for which entry is sought to be authorised under the entry order.

(1B) The relevant obligations for the purposes of subsection (1A) are obligations that –

(a) are imposed by the provisions of a Code of Practice referred to in section 93(5)(d); and

(b) require things to be done before (and not during or after) entry onto land.”.

14. Clause 65, page 143, line 17, omit “60” and insert “30”.

15. Clause 65, page 149, line 4, omit “60” and insert “30”.

16. Clause 65, page 149, line 25, omit “60” and insert “30”.

17. Clause 65, page 152, line 4, omit “6” and insert “4”.

18. Clause 65, page 152, line 9, omit “6” and insert “4”.

19. Clause 65, page 152, line 14, omit “6” and insert “4”.

20. Clause 65, page 152, line 24, omit “6” and insert “4”.

21. After clause 75 insert –

‘75A Magistrates’ Court may make entry order

In section 93BL(1A) of the Electricity Industry Act 2000 omit “or the CEO VicGrid”.’.

Lily D’AMBROSIO (Mill Park – Minister for Climate Action, Minister for Energy and Resources, Minister for the State Electricity Commission) (16:52): I move:

That the amendments be agreed to.

I will just add a few comments to that. We are at a critical stage of the transition in our energy system. Our existing traditional generators are ageing, are becoming increasingly unreliable and are set to close, and we must deliver the replacement capacity to allow our industries to grow, to ensure reliability and to keep bills as low as possible. To keep the lights on we must build critical new transmission infrastructure; there are no two ways about it. This bill is a critical step in order to make this happen.

The government has accepted a number of amendments to this bill that arose in the other place. These amendments are the Greens amendment 1, to expand the renewable energy zones Community Energy Fund to encompass supporting biodiversity outcomes and biodiversity research in Victoria, and amendment 2, to prevent funds from the renewable energy zone community energy fund being paid into the Consolidated Fund. Legalise Cannabis Victoria also moved some amendments, including to reduce the maximum fines issuable by authorised officers and the Magistrates Court, to clarify that authorised officers may only be public sector employees and to require that VicGrid comply with the Essential Services Commission’s Land Access Code of Practice before exercising the powers provided to the Magistrates Court to issue penalties up to the maximum amount prescribed in the bill. I would like to acknowledge the Victorian Greens, the Animal Justice Party and Legalise Cannabis Victoria in the other place for their collaborative contributions to this bill. I commend it to the house.

James NEWBURY (Brighton) (16:54): The coalition has said since day one this bill is an absolute disgrace. It is an absolute abomination. As the minister just said, the government is pushing ahead with a steamroller the transition of our energy system. But in doing so it is taking away the property rights of Victorians.

You saw only the other day at the bush summit the feeling of regional Victoria. Not only is regional Victoria outraged by the new taxes that are being imposed upon them – and those are incredible burdens – but you also heard them talk about the renewable projects being forced onto people’s properties. No longer will those Victorians have a say in what is happening on their own property. And they know it is true – Victorians now know it is true. That is why the attendees at the bush summit had nothing they could do other than try and use that opportunity to have their voices heard, because their voices are not being heard. You saw the Premier attend with her script. Imagine waking up in the morning and needing a script to read into the record, not even being able to talk about your own life without a script. Nevertheless the community saw how fake, false, and lacking any empathy the Premier and this government are when it comes to the regional communities of our state.

And what did we see as a result? We heard the mayor of Ballarat speak out bravely. Very rarely are people able to speak out, but the mayor in that instance spoke out. The mayor of Ballarat Tracey Hargreaves spoke out and said that the community’s passion was a reflection of just how deeply people care about their region and care about issues like this VicGrid bill, this abomination of a bill, which attacks the rights of regional Victorians on their properties. The mayor spoke out in support of their passion and their right to have a say. And what did we hear from this government? We heard the member for Wendouree describe people’s passions and them putting their views on the record. She was ‘disgusted’. She was disgusted by her constituents. ‘Disgusted’ is what the member for Wendouree said. Imagine speaking about your own constituents that way.

Members interjecting.

James NEWBURY: That was a direct quote. When I am finished, I am more than happy to make the article where those quotes were directly lifted from available for the members of the house. The member for Eureka attacked her constituents as well, as did the member for Ripon. I mean, the member for Ripon – wow. Talk about talking out of both sides of your mouth in this place and then out in the community. We will see what happens at the next election in the seat of Ripon.

Talking about those attendees’ behaviour, you cannot attack your own constituents for voicing their views on what the government is doing to these communities. It is wrong – it is simply wrong. Not only is this bill wrong, not only are the taxes that are being imposed on the community wrong, but for the government to attack people for having their say is an absolute disgrace. How can you attack thousands of your own constituents? It was extraordinary to see that. Those three members did it, which has been reported in their own local papers. It was a bizarre, unhinged attack on communities that only adds insult.

What these amendments do not do is make this bill better. You heard from the minister that a number of amendments have been agreed to. On some of these amendments, the coalition will be opposing them. We would ask of course, considering the package of amendments, that the question be split, because this package of amendments is significant. It is 21 items on my read, and it is reasonable that the question be split.

In relation to those amendments, there are some that reduce the personal fines that are going to be imposed on people who do not comply with the government turning up to their house and telling them what happens on their property. In principle we oppose those fines, let me make that very, very clear. The coalition opposes those fines, full stop – fines that initially were $14,000 and almost $49,000. The Council has amended, through amendment, a number of those fines to reduce them. We oppose them in principle. However, those amendments –

Michaela Settle: Acting Speaker, on a point of order, I take offence at the comments made by the member for Brighton regarding my comments in the Courier about the bush summit, and I do not believe that he reflected them correctly. I am more than happy for him to quote on the record –

James Newbury: What’s the point of order?

Michaela Settle: That I have taken offence at your comments because they are incorrect. I take offence at your comments, because the article does not say what you said. I would like you to withdraw it.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Paul Mercurio): Member for Eureka, I do apologise. I am not sure if I was in the chamber or I was swapping over, so I did not hear the comments. I would suggest possibly talking to the Speaker about it, but I cannot rule on it at this moment because I did not hear it.

James NEWBURY: I will continue. I have never seen a member so concerned about what was reported in their own public paper, where they report their own comments attacking their own constituents. How bizarre.

Michaela Settle: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, I take offence at the comments. If the member would like to read my comment from the Courier, at no point did I attack my constituents. I said that events of the day had crossed a line. If you would like to read the quote, member for Brighton – I take offence that he is suggesting that I am criticising my electorate.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Paul Mercurio): Member for Eureka, I stand by my earlier comments. If you have the opportunity to debate this bill, you will have the opportunity to –

Members interjecting.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Paul Mercurio): Thank you, member for Eureka.

James NEWBURY: Bizarre. That just goes to show how much the comments which were reported in the media have upset those members. Every member can talk, and every member is perfectly entitled to get up on these amendments and put on record whether they used words like ‘disgusted’, which are in the media.

In relation to the amendments, as I was saying, we oppose the principle of a fine. However, the fine is being reduced, so we will not be calling a division on that particular amendment, though in principle we oppose strongly these fines that are going to be applied to hardworking Victorians because they do not allow people to have a say over their own property. You can see it when it comes to renewable energy in relation to planning more broadly, but this specific VicGrid bill is part of the broader suite of changes this government is bringing about.

What this government is doing is saying, ‘We are going to build what we want where we want – not just in regional Victoria but in Melbourne too. We are going to build what we want where we want, and you do not have a say about what is built where you live because this government knows better than everyone else.’ You can see with the feedback towards the Premier and the Prime Minister –

The ACTING SPEAKER (Paul Mercurio): Through the Chair.

James NEWBURY: Acting Speaker, you can see with the feedback towards the Premier and the Prime Minister how strongly the community feels about that. Why should they not have a say about what is built on their land? Why should they not have a say over who can go onto their property? Of course they should have a say. What this government is doing is saying, ‘You should thank us because not only were we going to introduce fines but we are reducing the fines we were going to impose. That is what these amendments are all about, so say thank you.’ You are still up for thousands of dollars – or, in terms of businesses, tens of thousands of dollars. They are just not as big as what was once being proposed. What a disgrace – this bill is a disgrace. And you can see that regional Victoria can see quite clearly through what this government is doing in relation to this bill, in relation to planning more broadly, in relation to the imposition of renewables onto people’s land and also in relation to the imposition of taxes that are being imposed across the community. You could see that at the bush summit. You could see so many people say that they –

Members interjecting.

James NEWBURY: The yelling and screaming from that side of the chamber does not in any way show respect to their community. And every member on that side –

Members interjecting.

James NEWBURY: I do not know who this is. Who is this? This is clearly not Danny Pearson. Who is this? His photo looks nothing like this.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Paul Mercurio): Member for Brighton!

Danny Pearson: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, this is a workplace, and I feel my hearing is being damaged by this unhinged rant from the member for Brighton, who is clearly auditioning to replace the member for Gembrook.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Paul Mercurio): There is quite a lot of noise in the chamber and I would like to take it down. Maybe use your inside voices for a while.

James NEWBURY: Quite clearly a stranger is in the house. I am absolutely sure –

The ACTING SPEAKER (Paul Mercurio): Are you reflecting on the Chair, member for Brighton?

James NEWBURY: Not at all. A stranger in the house – it is a parliamentary term. The members on that side of the chamber can scream, they can shout and they can abuse their own constituents. They can say they are disgusted, which has been reported in their own newspapers. They are going to be held to account by their own constituents. At the end of the day, those communities are unhappy, rightly, with their rights being taken away. They are unhappy with the imposition of projects onto their own communities without a say. They are unhappy about the big government coming in and saying they can access properties or fine you otherwise. They are unhappy that this government, under a claim of supporting emergency services, is taxing the community again and again and again. The government can say there is nothing going on here, but when the Premier stood up at the bush summit we all saw what regional Victoria thinks. When the Prime Minister had to flee the event, we all saw what regional Victoria thinks.

These amendments, which we will oppose in part, are simply a reduction in a number of bad fines. We do not support the fines; I say that very, very clearly. But a reduced bad fine is better than a higher bad fine. Simply because we do not have the choice to knock it out completely anymore, we will not cause a division on those items, but otherwise, in principle we could not be clearer. We could not have been more clear on this issue. We could not have been stronger on behalf of our communities.

I know that the National Party members who are speaking after me have been unbelievably strong in terms of representing their communities on these issues, and all of the whingeing and moaning from that side of the chamber about their own constituents only reflects on them. If you cannot work out that you should not attack your own constituents, you do not deserve to be here. So in relation to this package, we are seeking a split of the amendments, and in certain instances we will oppose them but in others we will not.

Dylan WIGHT (Tarneit) (17:11): That was most unpleasant, wasn’t it? That was tough. We are in here to speak on the amendments to the National Electricity (Victoria) Amendment (VicGrid Stage 2 Reform) Bill 2025. I think the member for Brighton went to that for about 2 minutes and for the rest of it just screamed utter dross. It was a tough 15 minutes or so to get through, ranging from essentially just misleading the house in respect to what some of our members had to say within the media last week and really just talking about absolute nonsense. It is no secret that the coalition and the opposition have gone out into the community and sought to drum up as much fear as they possibly can in respect to this bill. It is what they do on most bills, but they have been particularly unpleasant on this one.

I think it is most concerning that the member for Brighton wants to stand up here and reference some of the behaviour that we saw at the bush summit by some people in regional Victoria and talk about that, because some of that behaviour towards the Premier, towards a female politician, is quite frankly deplorable. But we have seen the colours of some of those opposite today. We have seen the Leader of the Opposition kicked out of this place for standing there and abusing a Speaker for, what, 20 seconds.

James Newbury: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, on relevance, we are debating a set of amendments.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Paul Mercurio): I would ask the member to come back to the set of amendments.

Dylan WIGHT: Yes, sure. I will use 30 seconds of my 10 minutes – a bit like the member for Brighton did. He is the champion of regional Victoria, of all the out-of-towners. Honestly, the two-faced nature of the member for Brighton is –

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

The ACTING SPEAKER (Paul Mercurio): I do note that it was a wideranging discussion.

Members interjecting.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Paul Mercurio): Member for Brighton, do not yell at me from your chair, please. The member for Tarneit to continue.

Dylan WIGHT: I am simply rebutting some of the dross that I heard for the 15 minutes prior to me standing up. The member for Brighton does not need anybody to reflect on him – he does that all by himself. Like I said, he barely touched on the amendments. I have said this before: you take a point of order –

Emma Kealy:On a point of order, Acting Speaker, on relevance, this is a piece of legislation which some members of my community and other members of Victoria are very, very upset about.

A member interjected.

Emma Kealy: This point of order is on relevance, Danny, if you are listening. I ask you to bring the member back to the amendment because it is important to all Victorians who are very upset by this legislation.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Paul Mercurio): I also remind members to use proper titles.

Michaela Settle: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, the member for Tarneit is debating this amendment. The member for Brighton made contributions, and he is reflecting on those contributions, which is wholly within the debate. I ask that you rule it out of order.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Paul Mercurio): I ask the member for Tarneit to come back to the amendments.

Dylan WIGHT: I understand that this is an issue that is important to many Victorians out there, and I will debate this piece of legislation with respect to that. But frankly the member for Lowan should maybe just give an elbow to the guy next to her, who carried on with complete and utter nonsense and went nowhere near it for 15 minutes – went absolutely nowhere near any of the amendments for 15 minutes – until just about the very end of his contribution, when he spoke about some of the divisions that they will have and some that they will not and how they do not support the legislation as a whole. If you want to stand up and talk nonsense for 15 minutes, then someone is going to eventually rebut it. Like I said, you would take a point of order, but you are better off just to let them go and embarrass themselves.

James Newbury interjected.

Dylan WIGHT: That is what you are doing after point-of-ordering me three times. These are incredibly important amendments. I do thank those in the upper house – I think it was the Greens, Legalise Cannabis and Ms Purcell from the Animal Justice Party in particular – for putting some of these amendments forward and bringing them back to the Legislative Assembly for us to debate here this afternoon.

To go to some of those amendments, we have got an amendment from the Greens to expand the REZ community energy fund to encompass supporting biodiversity outcomes and biodiversity research in Victoria. We have also got a Greens amendment to prevent funds from the REZ community energy fund from being paid back into the Consolidated Fund, into consolidated revenue, to make sure that the government are not using that to prop up their bottom line come budget time. Another one from Legalise Cannabis Victoria reduces the maximum fines issuable by authorised officers and the Magistrates’ Court, which I do think the member for Brighton actually touched on. Another one from Legalise Cannabis clarifies that authorised officers may only be public sector employees.

This piece of legislation as a whole supports the government’s transition to a renewable energy future. This government, it is no mistake and it is no secret, has some of the most ambitious renewable energy targets not just anywhere in Australia but anywhere in the world – 95 per cent by 2035. For those opposite, it is a pretty simple equation: as our population grows, our energy needs to increase. So the energy mix that we have had in Victoria for the last hundred-odd years, being coal-fired power and gas, is no longer –

Emma Kealy: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, this is a narrow debate which goes only to the amendments, and I ask you to bring the member back.

Dylan WIGHT: On the point of order, Acting Speaker, it has been a pretty wideranging debate. We had things in bush summits –

The ACTING SPEAKER (Paul Mercurio): I will rule on that point of order. There is no point of order. It is has been very wideranging. I came in when the member for Brighton was on his feet, and it was quite wideranging.

Dylan WIGHT: Indeed. Victoria’s renewable energy future – this bill is an incredibly important part of that. As our population grows, our traditional energy mix will not suffice any longer. Coal-fired power is bad for the environment but is also becoming expensive and unreliable. We see at the moment down at Loy Yang issues with faults in the power station there. We know that in the Otway Basin in particular and the Gippsland Basin gas is less plentiful than what it was. It is also the most expensive energy source that we have here in Victoria at the moment. What we need to do is rapidly move to a renewable energy future. It is a difficult transition, but it is obviously a difficult topic for those opposite as well. Not only do they oppose basically every onshore renewable energy project that we try to create, whether that be wind or solar, they oppose offshore wind as well.

Members interjecting.

Dylan WIGHT: The member for South-West Coast – I am happy for you to go through Hansard – has spoken at length about her opposition to an offshore wind project off Portland, I believe because of whale migration.

To move to a renewable energy future, both onshore solar and wind projects and offshore wind are going to be integral to Victoria’s future, but so is getting power from A to B – building those transmission projects and those transmission lines through parts of Victoria so we can move that energy which we are creating from A to B.

These amendments to this bill are, in my view, incredibly helpful, but the piece of legislation itself is one that I understand is hard for some people. I do not discount that, and I am not trying to be a smart alec about it. I do not discount that it is a hard topic for some people in regional Victoria, but it is one that is absolutely essential to making sure that we can meet the energy needs of Victorians in the future. As coal-fired power becomes less reliable and as gas becomes less plentiful, it is incredibly important that we have pieces of legislation like this to ensure our energy future.

Emma KEALY (Lowan) (17:21): I would like to speak on the amendments regarding the National Electricity (Victoria) Amendment (VicGrid Stage 2 Reform) Bill 2025, and I would like to pick up that last topic that was raised by the member for Tarneit: ‘This is a hard topic for some people in regional Victoria’, in reference to renewables. I am deeply offended that regional Victorians would be pitched in such a way. It shows how tone-deaf Labor MPs are in this place when it comes to the concerns of landholders, and I note the giggles from the member for Wendouree. It is disgraceful. They are your members. These are Labor members representing them in this place, and they are laughing at Victorians, who are being told that it is a hard topic for them. Do you know why it is a hard topic for regional Victorians – because they are being pitched as being some sort of group of people who do not like renewables, a group of people who are Neanderthals in some way, who are all backwards, and they need to take this on for the greater good. I mean, it is like that Hot Fuzz movie around the greater good: ‘Why do we do it? For the greater good.’

Listen to what people are saying in regional Victoria who own property or live around the VNI West corridor. They are saying that they are not being heard, and at no point through Labor’s discussions and their government bureaucrat discussions on the ground have they actually made the effort to hear what country people are saying. That is the point. It is completely unfair, and it is maligning regional Victorians to put it any other way. There would be members in metropolitan Melbourne who would be equally upset if there was a road proposed to go from one side of Melbourne to the other and we did not know where the road was exactly going to go. You are speaking to thousands and thousands of different households: ‘It might go here or there.’ You are pitting neighbour against neighbour. You are looking at offering different rates for different properties. You are organising meetings and saying you will not meet with a group, you will only meet one on one, but then you bring five people from the department with a security guard onto their property. That is a one-way conversation. That is not consultation, that is being consultold that the government is going to enter your property. This is what this legislation does.

Within the VicGrid legislation and the amendments there is a reference that not only can you not have the discussion, which is the experience of regional Victorians who live through the VNI West corridor, but actually now we have got Labor making legislation so that if you refuse to let those officials onto your land you get a fine. This is not bringing people on board. They have simple, straightforward questions. They have legitimate concerns. We have got biodiverse areas which VNI West looks like it will run through. These are particular areas of forest that contain areas of native environment – plants and animals – that are on the endangered list, and the government are not even listening to that. Isn’t it bizarre that we are saying, ‘We’re going to save the environment with this new powerline by unlocking more wind and more solar to save the environment, and at the same time we’re going to bulldoze very important, diverse protected areas of our natural environment’? It simply does not stack up.

It also does not stack up when you look at the cost of this project. It is a project that has gone from $5 billion to $7 billion, and now we are expecting $11 billion in just two years time. And that is not funded by the big energy companies. It is not even funded through the mystery coffers of the government and diverted taxpayer dollars. It comes under ‘poles and wires’ on each and every Victorian’s energy bill. Have a look next time you look at your energy bill: it is coming through, and it is getting bigger and bigger and bigger. One of the aspects of that is poles and wires, and that will be VNI West. That will be a huge chunk of money on every single Victorian’s power bill, whether you are a household or whether you are a business. That will have an impact on people’s ability to feed their family, keep a roof over their head and keep on running their farm and growing the food and fibre that Victorians and Australians and people all around the world rely on and enjoy. That is the implication of that.

It is a cost-of-living issue, it is a cost-of-business issue and it is something that appears to have not been heard by Labor MPs. It is deeply concerning, because our regional Victorian voice has not been heard for many, many years. I do not like seeing my people forced to protest on the front steps of Parliament. I equally do not like the fact that we have got farmers who are resorting to getting in tractors and chasing the Prime Minister down the street because they do not feel like they have been heard. I do not like that there is a local woman who is so concerned about the mental health impacts of this government’s bulldozing of local people’s rights that she is going to the bush summit holding a noose around her neck – not because she has not tried to have the conversation, not because she has not engaged with the government and not because our people have not written to the Premier and written to ministers and written to their local Labor MPs raising these issues but because they are not being heard. They are not getting a response. They are not getting anything back apart from this bill, which just puts a great big fine in place.

I asked the government – and this might be something that is unexpected from me – to please, for the mental health of our community, provide more mental health supports. I suggest to the government – and this is in respect of comments from previous speakers that the Labor government just want to get on with it – that if you are going to get on with it, then just do it. Have compulsory acquisitions of land and make it quick and make it fair so our people can move on, because it is completely unfair to grind down the mental health and the welfare of people who live in regional Victoria. It is cruel, what the government is doing to our people. It is cruel for the people who grow our food and grow our fibre to have this level of uncertainty – ‘You might be in or you might be out’ – when we are continuously told this project will happen. I call on Premier Allen: please, if you care about regional people, go out and do compulsory acquisition, as you would for a Melbourne project, and let our people deal with this, because the uncertainty is dividing families.

I met with a school last week where I saw the impacts on the kids who hear these concerned conversations from their parents. They see the tears, they hear the conversations, they see what is happening in the media and they are taking that to the schoolyard. Principals in tears, teachers in tears, kids in tears – that is not fair. I ask every single member of this chamber to at least please listen to this, no matter what party you are involved with: have some fairness and find some kindness and respect, because our people are not being treated with respect right now. Our people have been let down time and time again, and the only response that they ever get from the government is that it is a hard topic for them. Absolutely it is a hard topic. They have been trying so hard to have the conversation, but nobody will listen. No-one will say what is next. It is so cruel and unfair, and I invite everybody in this chamber to do what I have done: sit at the kitchen table, go to the Wallaloo Golf Club and have a meeting with impacted landholders on VNI West. Go and actually hear what their concerns are, because just speculating and stereotyping that they are some sort of rednecks that just hate renewables – you have completely missed the point, and that is so rude. It is so disrespectful – to even think that people in this state could be maligned in that way.

It is grossly unfair, and if it was based on race, you would be calling it out for racism. It is against regional Victorians. Respect them.

I appreciate that there are amendments in here that mean that the community benefit fund cannot be redirected to consolidated revenue. I absolutely support this. I also ask the government to ensure that every dollar of the community benefit fund goes back to the communities that are hosting this infrastructure. They deserve it. They deserve better roads, they deserve better hospitals, they deserve better schools and they deserve better public transport, but, more importantly, they deserve far more respect than they get from the Allan Labor government. They should not be paying the price for this mindless end towards bulldozing landholder rights.

John LISTER (Werribee) (17:31): I would just like to reflect on the member for Lowan’s contribution there and the tone that she set when reflecting on this idea of respect in these sorts of debates. I do want to return briefly to comments made by the member for Brighton at the start of his contribution around what we saw in Ballarat. I do not know if the member for Brighton has a subscription to the Courier. After all, he is an out-of-towner when it comes to Ballarat issues, and he refused to quote in full the contributions to that fine regional newspaper by my colleagues the member for Eureka and the member for Wendouree – I have to remember it is not Ballarat anymore. I think it is really, really important to reflect on this idea of respect when it comes to debate, respect when it comes to protest. It is about calling out bad behaviour at these kinds of rallies that distracts from –

Members interjecting.

John LISTER: Your mates – the issue at hand. It is something that I find very strange when those opposite, with their absent leader, stand by chalk-painted slogans on the sides of CFA trucks in Synnot Street in Werribee – misogynistic slogans on CFA government-funded appliances.

Emma Kealy: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, the amendment is in relation to the VicGrid bill. The member has not even touched on the bill or mentioned the name.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Paul Mercurio): Sorry, your point of order?

Emma Kealy: I ask you to bring the member back to the bill, because this is nothing about any random protest. It is about VicGrid, and it is a narrow debate.

Danny Pearson: On the point of order, Acting Speaker, when the member for Lowan made her contribution she talked about respect, and what the member for Werribee said is, ‘I’m taking up that point about respect.’ So the member for Lowan wanted to talk about respect; all the member for Werribee was doing was responding to that. So there is no point of order.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Paul Mercurio): I will rule on the point of order. There is no point of order.

John LISTER: I appreciate this is a difficult thing to be confronted with when your leader is standing next to these sorts of things – the behaviour that was called out. I remember this from my work in education: we call out not the people but the behaviour. Both of those members – if the member for Brighton would like to read the Courier article – called out the behaviour of people there on that day directed towards our democratically elected Prime Minister and the Premier of this state, people who represent our Commonwealth and represent Victorians as a whole.

However, I would like to also reflect that the member for Lowan represents a beautiful part of the world, somewhere where I myself have taught and lived, out in Dimboola, and I know the benefits that those parts of the world have seen from these renewable energy projects, like that at Murra Warra and near West Wimmera. But the critical, difficult thing that we now face is ensuring that we have good transmission lines and good transmission corridors to be able to get that power from these areas in western Victoria to where they are ultimately being consumed – which, ironically, is western Melbourne at data centres, which is another problem which we will not face just today. But it is important that we have good legislation in place that makes these rules clear for everyone. This is how we are going to engage when it comes to making sure that our grid is resilient and is meeting the needs of a growing Victoria.

Over the time that we have been in government there has been $3 billion invested into climate action here in Victoria. One billion dollars has gone just to the SEC to develop renewable energy projects across the state. The reason why I am going to this when I am talking about VicGrid is because with all this investment in renewable energy we need to make sure it gets to where it needs to go. You cannot just have a windmill running and expect that power to be used out in Horsham, although I am sure if they all turned on their kettles and hot water services out in Horsham or Dimboola they could probably chew through a fair bit. But the reality is that it needs to get somewhere and as it is generated it needs to go somewhere.

We have also established the renewable energy zones (REZ) and neighbourhood batteries, all really important parts of transitioning to a net zero low emissions economy. While those opposite and their colleagues in Canberra tilt at windmills when it comes to net zero, we are committed to making sure that we have a grid and energy projects that meet this future need. We need to keep the lights on. We need to keep the power moving from where it is being generated through great renewable energy projects, whether it is out in western Victoria or out in eastern Victoria, to get to those places where that high energy consumption is happening. It also means that we have the resilience during natural disasters to make sure that we can keep the lights on.

We have accepted a number of amendments in the other place, and I am going to go to them specifically now because I think those opposite have not necessarily gone to them in as great a detail as they warrant and the work that has been done by our colleagues in the upper house would warrant. One of the amendments is to expand the REZ community energy fund to encompass supporting biodiversity outcomes research in Victoria, something the member for Lowan mentioned. We want to understand the biodiversity in these corridors, and we want to have those outcomes when it comes to that research. The other amendment that we accepted was to prevent funds from the community energy fund to be paid into consolidated revenue – something the member for Lowan also welcomed, and I think we can all welcome – to make sure that the funds are going to exactly what they are being collected to do. We have also accepted amendments to reduce the maximum fines issuable by authorised officers and the Magistrates’ Court. We have also clarified that authorised officers may only be public sector employees, addressing some of those concerns around people from private companies or security guards going onto these properties and making those approaches on behalf of the government. They need to be public sector employees. We also have accepted an amendment that VicGrid comply with the ESC, Essential Services Commission, Land Access Code of Practice before exercising those powers and so that the Magistrates’ Court can issue penalties up to the maximum amount prescribed in the bill.

I would like to acknowledge that collaboration between the Greens, the Animal Justice Party and Legalise Cannabis Victoria when it comes to this bill, because, after all, communities like mine that are relying more and more on energy for things like the data centres we are building and our new homes that we are building want to make sure that we have a stable and resilient grid that keeps the lights on. I think it is important in all of these debates that we do acknowledge that it will be difficult for communities, but at the same time we need to ensure that as members of Parliament we maintain and uphold standards when it comes to behaviour at protests and when you are having your say. I think some of the behaviour that has been condoned through silence when it comes to the Emergency Services and Volunteers Fund and some of the behaviour around Guru Nanak Lake out in the south-east and some of the behaviour towards the – thanks, mate.

Brad Rowswell: On a point of order, Acting Speaker – relevance to the amendments before the house.

Mathew Hilakari: On the point of order, Acting Speaker, this has been a very wideranging debate, and members have been given a lot of latitude to talk about other topics.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Paul Mercurio): I will rule on the point of order. There is no point of order.

John LISTER: I understand it is a difficult topic to confront, given some of the comments by their federal colleagues, whether it comes to renewable energy or whether it comes to various communities in Victoria –

Brad Rowswell: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, I fail to see the connection between what is happening in Canberra and what is happening in Victoria in relation to this and how that relates to the –

The ACTING SPEAKER (Paul Mercurio): Sorry, your point of order?

Brad Rowswell: Is on relevance again, Acting Speaker, in relation to the amendments before the house.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Paul Mercurio): There is no point of order.

John LISTER: To return to what I was saying about that federal view when it comes to our approach to getting to net zero, that is an important part of framing what we are doing here in Victoria and what the National Electricity (Victoria) Amendment (VicGrid Stage 2 Reform) Bill 2025 goes to in ensuring that we do have a stable energy grid to continue to develop renewables and have that mix so that we are less reliant on fossil fuels.

There are a lot of fossils when it comes to the sentiments of those opposite, but we are here to look towards the future. I might say in the last little bit of my contribution that when I was out helping retirement villages with the power saving bonus I had a very brief conversation about renewables and the importance of them. These people were saying to me, ‘We want to transition to electricity from fossil fuels. We want to have renewable energy options on our bills, because it’s not just about us, it’s about our kids and their kids and making sure that we have a stable energy grid to continue to deliver renewables into the future.’

Jade BENHAM (Mildura) (17:41): I wish I did not have to rise today to make a contribution on the VicGrid amendments. Like the member for Lowan, I spend a lot of time actually talking to members of my community. After last sitting week, instead of going to the bush summit like so many others, I drove home through the corridor that VNI West will run through. I visited Birchip, and I visited Culgoa. Those two areas, particularly Birchip, are of the opinion that the Labor government’s policy is to divide and conquer, because that is what is happening.

If the member for Werribee wants to talk about thinking about children and families into the future, maybe it is about time that the Labor government started thinking about the kids and the generations of families that have been the stewards of the land through that corridor for generations and the future that they are having ripped out from underneath them by way of this masquerade of energy reform when there are other options. This is not something that has just appeared since this bill was introduced into Parliament. This has been coming for a long time – several years – since the corridor of VNI West was seemingly moved to the west for what the community, again, are of the opinion are political reasons only. That is all they can see.

If the government had decided to consult on any sort of level that made these communities feel heard, they would not have to protest. They do not want to protest, especially after a rain. Those growers would much rather be out there spraying and looking after that land that they have looked after and farmed for generations. That is their livelihood, and now they are going to have it ripped up for some sort of energy reform. Then they get made out to be anti-renewables, and it is simply not the case. All they are asking for is to be heard and to have other options considered – it is as simple as that.

When we talk about some of these amendments, these communities need more than a media release that the fines have been reduced from six to four points, from $12,000 to $8000 – big whoop. It is still a fine for not allowing public sector employees to enter their farmland by force. They can still walk on. It does nothing for mothers in particular – who can be home, as I said last time, for weeks on end with their children during cropping season – to have people waltz onto their land and start surveying for towers.

It is the worst thing that these growers and these families can remember happening to their farms and the biggest challenge that they have faced – and Mallee farmers are the most resilient people in Victoria. They have been through fires, floods and droughts, and they come back again and again and again. They rarely have their hand out. All they want is a hand up.

When my dad and his parents came out from Italy, farming was all they knew. But my dad and his family have been saying for decades now, ‘It just feels like the government’s trying to put us out of business.’ For a long time I would scoff and say, ‘Don’t be silly. Why would they want to do that? You produce food for not only the state and the country but also other countries.’ But now I agree with them. It absolutely feels like this government just has so little regard for those that produce food and fibre for this state and that put food on the table of everyone in this place. I agree with him.

It just feels like utter and complete disrespect and disregard by the Allan Labor government, who just want to get to this imaginary net zero policy by any means possible and by bulldozing through communities like the ones I visited last week in Birchip and Culgoa. Whilst I was in Culgoa, it was one of the biggest turnouts that I have seen for a mobile office. Like I said, these people do not want to be getting involved in protests. They are head down, bum up, getting to work and producing what they need to produce to make a living for their families. They do not want to have to be involved in these discussions, but they are at the end of their tether. They are so incredibly frustrated, and they are scared for the future of their children. They are scared for the future of those generational farms that have been handed down through generations. They are scared that their kids will not come home to farm – and they will not, because the future is not secure. It is very evident that the Labor government are not interested in securing the future of farming families.

As well as all the red tape that farmers have to go through – the audits et cetera – there is just no value that these communities can see for the agriculture sector in this state, and they are getting out in droves. I was having a talk to a table grape farmer a couple of weeks ago who has literally sold out and has gone and got a job. My father in fact, at 73 years old – he has farmed his entire life – now cannot make a living off it. At 73 years old he has had to go and get a full-time job because farming in this state is simply not viable. So when members on that side of the house giggle and laugh and are disrespectful to farming communities, they should think about that 73-year-old Italian man who has had to go and get a full-time job. He has survived cancer twice and a stroke once, and that generational occupation of farming is no longer viable for him and he has had to go and get a full-time job.

It is disgraceful what the Labor government is doing to farming families in this state. It is disgraceful, and it is not just in broadacre and not just in irrigated horticulture; the absolute disdain and disrespect that this government has is for the entire ag sector at every level. It is felt by every farming community in this state, and this bill proves it. There might be some amendments and it might make a good media release, but this is utter disrespect. What you are doing to families in this state is disgraceful, and I hope you sleep well at night.

Nina TAYLOR (Albert Park) (17:50): I think it is important with such significant legislative reform to come back to the fundamental tenets of why these changes are being brought about. Nobody is seeking to cause pain or suffering to others in Victoria – that is not the purpose of this legislative reform – and everybody here, everybody in this state, requires energy. We require energy to cook, for heating, for lights and so forth. We are at a critical stage of the transition to renewable energy. Our coal-fired generators – there was discussion about: ‘Well, do something else.’ What else are we supposed to do? Is it nukes they are talking about? What is the other? Is it nukes? Our coal-fired generators are increasingly unreliable and are set to close, and we know that actually the market has driven that, not only here but globally. It is not only our government. We have very good reason, for instance, in driving the legislated renewable energy targets and market soundings, which actually provide, contrary to what has been proffered in the chamber, certainty to the market, because they create a much more even and reliable playing field for the energy market. But fundamentally, if we are talking about the need for sustainability of energy for the benefit of all Victorians, we must deliver the replacement capacity to allow our industries to grow, to ensure reliability and to keep bills as low as possible.

I understand this is an incredibly emotive issue, and no-one is resiling from that. No-one here is seeking to attack anyone. On the contrary, we have a moral imperative – and there is also a practical imperative, to be honest – to provide sustainable energy, reliable energy, into the future. I think that perhaps there are manipulative arguments which do service least of all the farmers that have been discussed. It is certainly contextually relevant of course to discuss those impacted in the regions, but I do not think it is helping them to perpetuate information that I do not think we can even class as information but fanciful ideas about other pathways for energy, sustainable energy, into the future that simply do not exist.

The other factor that I think is very important when we are talking about the transmission of energy and also where we capture that energy, whether it be solar or wind, is that actually geography dictates where, for instance, the optimal wind corridors are. It is not, again, about attacking any particular person who happens to live in any particular part of the state, but it is a fact of science that we know where the wind will blow in the strongest way or the most reliable way, so to speak – I am obviously not a meteorologist but as best I can from a pragmatic point of view. Hence when you are looking at (1) where you capture the energy but (2) how you transmit it, there are some fundamental and practical elements. Of course if there were other reliable mechanisms to do so, then those would have been pursued.

We are thinking of all Victorians across Victoria and their future. I have to say, as a city dweller and on a personal note, I actually feel deep compassion for farmers having to cope with the increasingly unstable climate, and that is largely as a result of man-made emissions that have been going on for decades. So I come back to that point of the moral imperative: we do have to reduce emissions.

The 2045 zero emissions target is not fanciful, it is something that we are morally obliged to pursue. And it is not only in Victoria, although Victoria is leading the way and we have tripled our investment in renewable energy since we came back to government, and that has been no mean feat. They are not fanciful, they are practical outcomes. I have to say, even private companies are now using rebates and otherwise to make the decision to find more energy-saving mechanisms and better energy capture into the future because they recognise that there is an ethical imperative, if you like, or a moral imperative, and also a scientific imperative to reduce emissions if we are going to be able to mitigate the impacts of climate change, but also because they want to save money. I am going to come back to that fundamental tenet of this being a cost-of-living issue for Victorians. Yes, there is the emissions element, thinking about children of the future and thinking about farming into the future. We have to think about humans and the absolute and fundamental nexus in terms of significantly impacting, to the negative, the stability of our weather patterns. And those most impacted are going to be those on the land. That goes without saying. I certainly feel a sense of obligation with regard to that, hence the imperative to drive forward this transition to renewable energy.

There were, as has been discussed, a number of amendments made to the bill: expanding the renewable energy zones community energy funds to encompass supporting biodiversity outcomes for biodiversity research in Victoria, for instance; also preventing funds from the REZ community energy funds being paid into the Consolidated Fund. These are good, practical measures. Further amendments include reducing the maximum fines issuable by authorised officers and the Magistrates’ Court; clarifying that authorised officers may only be public sector employees; and requiring VicGrid to comply with the Essential Services Commission’s Land Access Code of Practice before exercising the powers provided to the Magistrates’ Court to issue penalties up to the maximum amount prescribed in the bill.

I have to say, though, putting aside the persons that the opposition represent in their regional areas – I should say, I cannot recall any debate on renewable energy where they have not vehemently opposed it. They have always found a mechanism to disrupt or at a minimum to completely repudiate the premise of renewable energy. It is consistent. How many debates? I have witnessed these debates because I am extremely passionate about a cleaner energy future.

Brad Rowswell: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, again on relevance. I have been listening to the member on her feet, and she has been broadly relevant to the amendments being considered by the house. But on her current point she is absolutely not. I would ask you to bring her back to the matter before the chamber.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Paul Mercurio): There is no point of order.

Nina TAYLOR: I was simply pointing out a pattern of behaviour of those opposite. When we come to the context of any discussion on renewable energy, it seems almost inevitable that they will find a pathway to oppose, undermine, repudiate or negate in any which way they can renewable energy transition in our state.

Brad Rowswell: Acting Speaker, a different point of order: I am of the understanding that it is incumbent upon every member to be factual in their contribution. I believe that what the member is saying at the minute is not, in fact, factual, and I would ask you to remind her of that obligation upon her.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Paul Mercurio): It is not up to me to decide who is factual or not. I understand everyone is being factual.

Nina TAYLOR: Well, it is probably not uncommon for us to have to agree to disagree on a number of matters, none the least on the transition to renewable energy. On that note, I will commend the amendments to the house.

Peter WALSH (Murray Plains) (18:00): We might start off with the last speaker first, the member for Albert Park, and to continue on the member for Sandringham’s point of order, the member is absolutely wrong. None of us are anti-renewables. What we are anti is having them forced on us without genuine community consultation and genuine community benefit for the community that is hosting them. The biggest problem the Allan government have is they send people out to talk to country people who have no idea about the country and no idea how to talk to country people. They try and ram it down their throats, and that is the backlash they are getting when this happens. We saw recently the Allan government is advertising for some new spin doctors – $250,000 a year, $400,000 a year for the boss to go out and sell VNI West. You would not need to employ 13 new spin doctors at those salaries if you actually had a good message to sell. The issue is they are selling a messy sandwich to those people, which they just do not buy. The member for Albert Park is absolutely wrong. This side of the house is not against renewables. It has got to be done in a sensible transition. They have got to be put where they are appropriate, rather than being forced on people.

The minister, in introducing this piece of legislation, talked about the need to get on and have a speedy transition to renewables. It is interesting that the minister and the Allan government are now finding that turning their ideology and their spin into reality is actually harder than they thought – that getting these projects built, getting the transmission lines built, having enough copper just to build these particular projects and having enough labour to build these particular projects is a real challenge. If the minister had not demonised coal so much, had not demonised fossil gas – I do not know what fossil gas is – and had been sensible with the coal generators and had an orderly transition to renewables, we would not necessarily be having these debates at the moment and we would not have the anguish in country communities that we have at the moment. Despite the minister demonising coal and demonising gas, as I understand it, there is a secret agreement between the Allan government and the coal generators that they are going to run longer than their planned closure, because there is a sudden realisation that this transition to 100 per cent renewables is a lot harder than they thought. They have done a secret deal that is going to cost power users, because everything we talk about with increased costs goes on your power bill, Acting Speaker, and goes on my power bill. It is not some mythical bucket of money that pays for this; it is power users that pay for every cost that is being talked about.

At least the minister has stopped standing at the table in question time going, ‘Down, down, down – the price of energy is going to go down, down, down,’ because she is realising now that the price of energy is going up, up, up. For those of us that are fortunate enough to be on natural gas, which I am, our gas bills have gone up substantially. All of us have electricity. Our electricity bills have gone up as well. The minister constantly lectured us over the last few years that if we have this transition to renewables, prices will go down, down, down. They have not gone down, down, down; they have actually gone up.

The member for Tarneit, in his wander round the subject in a very general sense, talked about the fact that gas was the most expensive energy there is. Yes, it is expensive because the Labor government here in Victoria had a ban on gas exploration. They stopped exploration for gas, so the supply of gas has been restricted. If you have got a restricted supply of gas, the pipelines from Queensland and New South Wales are not large enough to bring in what we need, so the prices go up – it is supply and demand. The reason why gas has got so expensive in Victoria is because of an Allan Labor government policy to restrict the search for gas and the drilling for new gas wells into the future. The gas companies say we have gas here, but the government has made it so hard for them to actually do it. I would remind the member for Tarneit: gas may be expensive, but the peaking capacity that we have from gas plants here in Victoria is absolutely essential at times when the wind is not blowing and the sun is not shining.

The classic example would be the gas peaking plant down in the member for Lowan’s electorate at Mortlake. If we did not have that peaking plant down there to supply the west of the state, we would be in trouble when gas was shorter.

We talk about this cost to renewables. In the member for Lowan’s electorate, in the member for Mildura’s electorate and in my electorate, not only do we have renewable projects being proposed but we have got the VNI West transmission line. That has gone from $3.6 billion to $7.5 billion and maybe $11.5 billion. That is a lot of money that is going to be spread across all the power customers here in Victoria, and it has been pushed back two years. If you take previous history on infrastructure projects here in Victoria that the Allan government manages, that $11 billion will probably be $15 billion or $18 billion before that particular project is actually built. It will be very, very expensive. The minister’s claim that power prices will go ‘down, down, down’ when renewables are here is just going to be factually wrong. As you have said, Deputy Speaker, as the Speaker has said and as others in the Chair have said, it is reliant on those that are speaking to tell the truth. Fortunately, the energy minister has stopped making that claim because it is just not truthful anymore if you look at the costs of power and energy here in Victoria.

There is some commentary around the fact that one of the amendments is making sure the money goes into the community fund and not into consolidated revenue. Might I say that the same rules apply to the waste management levy here in Victoria. The same rules apply to the water environmental fund here in Victoria. That does not stop the government of the day leaving money in that fund to make the bottom line look better. If you talk to local governments around Victoria who want to get projects going to reduce the amount of waste to landfill to better manage waste here in Victoria, they are concerned that there is usually about $500 million – about half a billion dollars – that sits in the waste management levy because the Treasurer of the day wants that money there to make the bottom line look better. A similar thing applies to the environmental water fund, where every water authority pays 5 per cent out of people’s urban water bills and pays 2 per cent out of rural water bills into a fund for environmental projects. That, again, has quite a lot of money sitting in it because it helps prop up the bottom line. Treasurers have a way of finding how to take money out of the water environmental fund, out of the waste levy or, I dare say, out of this community fund. They will have a way of finding it to fund departmental work, because it might be doing this particular project, but they are going to pay the department to manage that project. That is how they actually get money out of that particular fund into the future.

There was a discussion about respect in this house and the fact that those that demonstrated in Ballarat were not respectful. I would like to remind those on the other side of the house who had a lot to say about this: I did not hear them saying anything when Peter Marshall threatened Jane Garrett. They were very quiet on that other side of the house. I did not hear anyone speaking up against John Setka with his reign of terror out of the union here in Victoria. Yes, some of the people in Ballarat got a bit excited, but they are very, very concerned about their future. The member for Lowan touched on this, and the constant mental anguish they have with the threats to what is going to be built on their property or what may not be built on their property and what compensation they may get. There is this whole process where the bureaucrats are grinding them down and grinding them down and actually destroying their quality of life and how they live in their communities. The member for Lowan did not go that far, but I wonder if the government are not just driving people to the point where we get some suicides before they will actually take notice of what is going on.

Members interjecting.

Peter WALSH: No, I am serious. People are beside themselves with the stress that your bureaucrats are causing them, and one day one of them will end up committing suicide. That will be an absolute tragedy, but it will be because of what you as a government are doing to them.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Through the Chair!

Peter WALSH: Deputy Speaker, your government is driving people to despair, and that is just not fair.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Do not reflect on the Chair, member for Murray Plains.

Peter WALSH: It is not fair that these people are having the mental anguish of what is being driven onto them with renewable projects, particularly VNI West and the western link. It is wrong. Go out and actually tell them the truth.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I remind all members not to reflect on the Chair. The minister has moved that the amendments made by the Legislative Council be agreed to. The member for Brighton has indicated that he would like us to split the question.

Amendment 1 agreed to.

Assembly divided on amendment 2:

Ayes (54): Juliana Addison, Jacinta Allan, 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, Will Fowles, Matt Fregon, Ella George, Luba Grigorovitch, Bronwyn Halfpenny, Katie Hall, Paul Hamer, Martha Haylett, Mathew Hilakari, Melissa Horne, Natalie Hutchins, Lauren Kathage, Sonya Kilkenny, Nathan Lambert, 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, Nick Staikos, Natalie Suleyman, Meng Heang Tak, Jackson Taylor, Nina Taylor, Kat Theophanous, Mary-Anne Thomas, Emma Vulin, Iwan Walters, Vicki Ward, Dylan Wight, Belinda Wilson

Noes (25): Jade Benham, Tim Bull, Martin Cameron, Annabelle Cleeland, Chris Crewther, Wayne Farnham, Sam Groth, Matthew Guy, David Hodgett, Emma Kealy, Tim McCurdy, Cindy McLeish, James Newbury, Danny O’Brien, Michael O’Brien, Kim O’Keeffe, John Pesutto, Richard Riordan, Brad Rowswell, David Southwick, Bridget Vallence, Peter Walsh, Nicole Werner, Rachel Westaway, Jess Wilson

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments 3 to 5 agreed to.

Assembly divided on amendments 6 to 10:

Ayes (54): Juliana Addison, Jacinta Allan, 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, Will Fowles, Matt Fregon, Ella George, Luba Grigorovitch, Bronwyn Halfpenny, Katie Hall, Paul Hamer, Martha Haylett, Mathew Hilakari, Melissa Horne, Natalie Hutchins, Lauren Kathage, Sonya Kilkenny, Nathan Lambert, 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, Nick Staikos, Natalie Suleyman, Meng Heang Tak, Jackson Taylor, Nina Taylor, Kat Theophanous, Mary-Anne Thomas, Emma Vulin, Iwan Walters, Vicki Ward, Dylan Wight, Belinda Wilson

Noes (25): Jade Benham, Tim Bull, Martin Cameron, Annabelle Cleeland, Chris Crewther, Wayne Farnham, Sam Groth, Matthew Guy, David Hodgett, Emma Kealy, Tim McCurdy, Cindy McLeish, James Newbury, Danny O’Brien, Michael O’Brien, Kim O’Keeffe, John Pesutto, Richard Riordan, Brad Rowswell, David Southwick, Bridget Vallence, Peter Walsh, Nicole Werner, Rachel Westaway, Jess Wilson

Amendments agreed to.

Amendments 11 to 21 agreed to.

The SPEAKER: A message will now be sent to the Legislative Council informing them accordingly.