Thursday, 19 February 2026

 Emma KEALY (Lowan) (14:51): I rise today to speak on the Energy and Other Legislation Amendment (Resilience Reforms and Other Matters) Bill 2026. This legislation touches on a key point of division within our community, a key point which has made my community members feel like their voice has not been heard – that you have a government that is simply trying to railroad through energy infrastructure into our region without an appropriate opportunity for people to have their say. I am continuing to receive messages and emails and verbal feedback from my constituents that they feel completely shut out from this process. This is disturbing when we have got a large-scale, government-funded organisation named VicGrid that has got this imperative set out by the Allan Labor government that they must do this, but it is more about the outcome than it is about taking local people along for that journey and also giving them an opportunity to have their say. Country people are enormously passionate people. They are pragmatic, and they know that when things are not as they should be, they will call them out. But that does not mean that VicGrid should shy away and cut them out from their opportunity to be able to have their say.

I want to share an example in the house of how poorly the announcements of the REZs, the renewable energy zones, have been handled by VicGrid across the west of the state, particularly in relation to the addition of the Dundas Tablelands to the south-west renewable energy zone. At no point in time have the entire community within the Dundas Tablelands been notified that they are within the south-west REZ. This has been fed back through VicGrid on a number of occasions. There was an instance where a single leaflet was dropped to some community members, but the vast majority have received nothing. There has been no consultation with the local community, and while there was a single meeting which not many people knew about, and some of the local people were promised a summary of the community feedback, two months later they are still waiting for that information to be provided. Submissions on this renewable energy zone close on 15 March, and so time is ticking. This community needs to be included in the process. It is unfair and I believe it is undemocratic not to listen to them.

They have some really important local issues around what a renewable energy zone would mean in that area. For those of you who have not visited the south-west, the Dundas Tablelands, I urge you to go out and do so because it is home to some of the most beautiful country you will see in the state. There are enormous river red gums. There are undulating hills. There are creeks feeding into beautiful river systems that are largely untouched. These are areas that are not consistent with putting turbines in their midst. It is not the home of extensive transmission lines. It is not on Victoria’s grid. It is somewhere which has been home to some of the most productive pastoral land in this state. It simply would not be possible to put infrastructure like turbines in some of that area without taking these massive river red gums, these very important 100-year old trees, out of our environment. It is simply not compatible with a renewable energy zone. I quote Claire Wettenhall, who recently contacted me. She stated:

This is an entirely unfair situation for the landholders within this new area of the proposed SW zone. How can it be a fair and proper process if the community is not even aware that it is happening?

So I ask this Parliament and all parliamentarians who are listening to this to take this message on board. Speak to our community, because there are significant barriers in rolling out renewable energy in parts of this state. Please do not think about regional Victoria as a place where not many people live and therefore all of that land is open to infrastructure and development, because that simply is not the case. It does not matter whether it is through the Dundas Tablelands and that south-west renewable energy zone or any of the other renewable energy zones in the west of the state, there simply has not been enough involvement and listening to the community. We have even seen legislation through this place related to VicGrid and the VNI West infrastructure project which Labor have introduced that imposes a financial penalty for farmers who, for even simple reasons like protecting the biosecurity on their property, say no to government employees coming on their land. That is a step too far.

There are enormous issues with the rollout of VNI West, and as I stated in my adjournment matter last night, I call on the government to recognise that there are serious issues with that infrastructure. That project must be stopped immediately so that a proper process can be followed and evaluate how much that project will actually cost. How much will the cost, which will be put on energy bills for every single Victorian family and for every single Victorian business, be? How much are they going to have to pay for this project? It started off as $7 billion. It is now $11 billion. It is projected to be $20 billion, and we still do not have landholders signed up to it yet. The cost just keeps increasing. This is not taxpayer dollars; it is pushing up the cost of living and the cost of energy bills in this state.

There is a much easier solution in the meantime while you work out what happens with the resilience of the grid, and that is to upgrade the existing lines. We know the lines in western Victoria are aged and brittle and send energy in the wrong direction. It is for that reason that I believe the government should get on with upgrading those existing lines, and of course that would have a flow-on benefit for every single Victorian. Those Victorians who want lower energy bills would get them because there would be less infrastructure required, and there are already existing easements in the west of the state if you look at doing that job first. If your focus is you want to see more renewables in this state, then upgrade the existing lines because far more renewable capacity would be able to come online through upgrading the existing infrastructure in the west of the state than there would be unlocked through VNI West. It stacks up on every metric, and particularly for people who are farming, where agriculture has always been the jewel in the crown and the driver of Victoria’s economy. That is what we need to see. We need to see that we have agriculture put front and centre for these sorts of decisions, which are around how we use our land and how we prioritise agriculture in this state.

To put agriculture to the side and not give it priority, not consider it as part of the planning process, is negligent by any government. It is negligent of the Labor government to just ignore agriculture and how important it is as a driver of the Victorian economy. That is why the Liberals and Nationals have committed to ensuring that we prioritise and recognise the value of agricultural land as part of planning processes to roll out any project across the state. We do an environment effects study; we value that, and we should too. We do a cultural heritage study to ensure we look at the cultural heritage. We should also value our agricultural land and make sure that that is included in our assessments on where major infrastructure is rolled out and how there are changes to land use across our state.

We have committed to that policy of making sure that agricultural land is protected and that agricultural producers are included in the conversation, but more importantly we want to make sure we go back to first principles. Let us make sure that all Victorians can access reliable energy. Let us make sure that all Victorians know what they are going to be charged at the end of the day and that they do not have the cost of energy infrastructure quietly put onto their energy bills and see their bills go up and up and up. As the member for Brighton stated, our energy should be affordable. Without having affordable energy, we are just going to see the cost-of-living pressures and the cost of doing business in Victoria continue to increase. The Nationals and the Liberals understand this. We have got policy which is consistent on delivering for rural and regional Victorians when it comes to energy infrastructure, looking at how we can make sure we can bring online cheap, affordable and reliable energy infrastructure, and that is what we will stand for each and every day.

While this bill is debated I urge government members to consider some of the challenges that are happening in rural and regional Victoria. Farms are not simply vacant blocks that are ready to put whatever infrastructure you want on. They are very, very important for our Victorian environment. They are very, very important drivers of the Victorian economy. They are supporting very important communities that may not be as big as Melbourne, but they are the heart and soul of Victoria. They are pragmatic people. They should be heard. They are coming to the table with solutions. But please give them an opportunity to be part of that conversation, because at the moment there is wilful negligence and wilful ignorance of key issues, which are going to make it impossible for these projects to go ahead without there being a significant impact both on the environment and on our net agricultural land in this state.

 Colin BROOKS (Bundoora – Minister for Industry and Advanced Manufacturing, Minister for Creative Industries) (15:01): I move:

That the debate be now adjourned.

 James NEWBURY (Brighton) (15:01): The government have just again, on a Thursday afternoon, sought to adjourn debate on a bill that at the start of the week they said was important and needed to be debated throughout the week as one of the government business program bills – one of the three bills – and that the government would not want to use the Parliament’s time to sledge. The government have informed me that they do intend to adjourn this bill to sledge – to take away from the government business program the bills that should have been debated and use this Parliament’s time instead to sledge.

I would say to the government members, who can hear me, I hope – I am happy to speak louder if they cannot – that last sitting week the Leader of the House attempted to move two motions, which were I think the most embarrassing display of fumbling of this chamber in my time as Manager of Opposition Business; it was the most embarrassing tactical behaviour I have seen in my time as manager. When we spoke at that time about those motions I made the point – I was very clear about the point – that the government had mismanaged the chamber and, frankly, mismanaged the tactics of this chamber. So what have they done right now with this motion? They are doing it again – the same mistake of last sitting week they are doing again. They are going to attempt to move this house into dealing with, clearly, sledge motions instead of proposed legislation, purely for politics because of how poor the government’s week has been and, frankly, because we are witnessing the worst corruption scandal in our state’s history.

I would say that of course we must oppose what the government is proposing to do now. We must oppose it, because why should this house be debating a sledge motion? That is what the government have advised me they want to do, and that is why they want to move the adjournment motion. To everybody in this chamber that feels like they have heard this speech before, they have, because only one sitting week ago the government tried to do the same thing. I will put on the record that as I walked out of the chamber just after 5 o’clock in the last sitting week, I was surprised by how many Labor members of Parliament said to me, ‘Gee, the Leader of the House has had a really bad day’ – absolutely. So what has the government done again through the Leader of the House? It has fumbled that ball again, and it has tried the same trick twice. And, do you know what, where is the Leader of the House? The Leader of the House is getting her poor ministry up like bunnies to move these motions, embarrassing as they are, and is not fronting the chamber to speak on the procedural motion.

I would say to the chamber that the Leader of the House’s job is to lead this house. And the Leader of the House does not speak on procedural motions. Other than the government business program, the Leader of the House refuses to speak on any procedural motion. In fact I challenge any speaker after me to find instances – any instance – where the Leader of the House has spoken on a procedural motion as Leader of the House. I challenge you to find that for me. Instead the government backbench are sent out and the ministry are sent out to move these motions. I have never in my time in Parliament or before, working in politics, ever seen a Leader of the House so invisible on managing a house. You can see why. The government is saying to me, ‘Ridiculous.’ Show me the example where the Leader of the House has spoken, because the Leader of the House is gutless. We will be opposing this motion; of course we will. Shocking motion that it is, we will oppose it.

 Gary MAAS (Narre Warren South) (15:07): Goodness me, what was that? The Minister for Creative Industries is well within his rights. As a minister in our government, he is allowed to –

Members interjecting.

Gary MAAS: No, the Minister for Creative Industries is well within his rights to put forward the motion to adjourn the debate, and that is what is being put forward. In fact I think it is fantastic that we are proposing to condemn the Leader of the Opposition for her plan to make $11.1 billion –

James Newbury interjected.

Gary MAAS: That is what will be moved, and I understand that the opposition was given notice that this motion would be debated. Yet again what we see is an opposition that is too afraid to have these types of debates in the house. What we have, quite frankly, is a petulant child that sits in this chamber every single week, a petulant child that is supposed to be, one day, according to him at least, the Attorney-General of this state.

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

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Narre Warren South to continue on the adjournment motion.

Gary MAAS: It is well within the rights of the Minister for Creative Industries to move to adjourn the debate. We have had a terrific debate on the Energy and Other Legislation Amendment (Resilience Reforms and Other Matters) Bill 2026. We have heard from all sides of this Parliament. We have heard from the Greens, we have heard from the Liberals and the Nats and we have heard from several members on this side of the chamber as well, members of the government. It has come up to 3 o’clock on Thursday afternoon, and the thing is, you have got to have the privilege of government, don’t you, to be able to seek to adjourn debate. You have absolutely got to be in government. And what a precious gift it is too. When you come to government, you have got to make sure that you are out there, that you are doing things.

James Newbury interjected.

Gary MAAS: No, we are not about sledge motions here at all. What we are about is making sure that every single Victorian is looked after and that we take every single Victorian with us in this place. If there is going to be an $11.1 billion black hole, then we think that Victorians should know where the money is coming from to fill that black hole. Where are the cuts going to be made? I support the Minister for Creative Industries in seeking to adjourn this debate.

 Peter WALSH (Murray Plains) (15:10): I would remind the previous member speaking that yes, it is a privilege to be in government, but unfortunately some governments use that privilege to rort the system, and $15 billion has been proven to be rorted. I wonder if the member wants to take credit for that as being part of the government as well. Or is he going to actually speak up and demand a royal commission?

A member interjected.

Peter WALSH: Where is the proof, you ask? You are calling a senior counsel into disrepute about a report that he wrote. That is the issue.

Gary Maas interjected.

Peter WALSH: You have had your time, mate. The government moving to adjourn this debate is an absolute slap in the face to regional Victoria. There is a long list of National Party MPs that want to speak up for their electorates on the particular bill that is being adjourned. If you go through this bill, it legislates away the powers of people to have a say on what happens on their farms and in their communities. It is legislating away their rights and their privileges as citizens of Victoria to have a say about whether they have transmission lines on their farms, whether they have renewable projects put next door to their farms and whether they have a wind tower that shades their farm, flickers next to their farm and creates noise for their farm or their house. To say that the government wants to move away from this bill after it was on the business program and with very short notice, with a long list of speakers that want to speak on this bill, is a disgrace and an insult to regional Victorians that they are going to adjourn this debate.

Yes, as the member for Brighton and Manager of Opposition Business said, this is a sledge motion. The government is going to have a bit of sport sledging. I think the government needs to have a long, hard look in the mirror at their own actions in recent times – the fact that, as I said to the member for Narre Warren South, $15 billion has been rorted out of this state on major projects. They are just going to have an attack motion to try and cover up their own corruptness, which is an absolute insult, again, to Victorians.

When I go through the bill before the house, which I would have had a contribution on if the government was not going to adjourn it, I am really, really concerned about what it is going to do to people’s rights and the fact that it gives VicGrid the power to effectively set up a renewable energy zone anywhere they like, without any consultation, and that it gives the Governor in Council the right to tick off projects and put conditions on those projects. There is no transparency in that. Those of us that have been in government know how the Governor in Council works – that on a Tuesday morning four ministers by rotation go to the Old Treasury Building and they go through the list of things that are being ticked off. It happens all of a sudden, without anyone knowing until they read the Government Gazette every week. And I am sure that is on the kitchen table of every household in Victoria; every household is reading the Government Gazette! They will not know what has happened to them. Their rights will have been traded away. The fact that the government is stopping regional Victorian MPs from speaking up on behalf of their community is a disgrace.

I will end with a contribution I made in a members statement recently congratulating the people of regional Victoria and particularly those people that are being impacted by VNI West. They are actually standing up for their rights. They are actually stopping people going on to their farms, and I commend them for doing that. The movie TheCastle is alive and well with those people who are standing up for their rights and stopping the government from just marching over their rights. They should have the right to a third-party appeal for these decisions. This bill, which should be debated instead of moving to the sledge motion, actually takes away more of those rights. I say to the government and I say to the minister at the table that moved the motion, on behalf of regional Victoria: have a long, hard think about what you have done in shutting down this debate today. It is an absolute disgrace, and I thought better of you.

 Paul EDBROOKE (Frankston) (15:15): I rise to support the motion. I was looking at notice paper ‍154, and this is for everyone in the house to consider: with the former deputy leader who quit or was bullied out, what happens to his orders and motions on the notice paper?

James Newbury: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker: relevance. This is an adjournment motion.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I appreciate the member for Frankston had just started, but that was varying from the adjournment topic. Member for Frankston, bring it back.

Paul EDBROOKE: We know that the Manager of Opposition Business does not like variety, and every Thursday afternoon we have this debate where we have apparently over the last two days not prosecuted the argument enough and we need to drag that out. I have heard very, very respectful debate over the last two days on this bill, and this motion is something we should be talking about as well. This Parliament should be able to adapt to different debates which cater to lots of different members and their constituencies in this house, and I think that was put across by all the Labor government members before me. When we hear those opposite talking about how they have not had their say, it is absolutely laughable in a lot of ways. There are four people in the house today that are coalition One Nation–Liberal.

James Newbury: The Leader of the House isn’t here.

Paul EDBROOKE: What has that got to do with anything? How many of you are here? We think that we should be able to adapt. We think we should be able to be flexible and actually debate different things on the same day. I think everyone on this side of the house believes that. It is absolutely silly to be arguing anything different. To say that we cannot adjourn this debate at this time is something they seem to argue every week. It is a matter of inflexibility, and it is why those opposite will never form government. They cannot adapt to what is happening around them. They have got high self-confidence but low situational awareness and low self-awareness. I must admit I found it really funny when one of my children was watching question time recently and said, ‘Who is that bloke that keeps on getting up?’ They called him Elmo because apparently he goes red in the face and they cannot understand what he says. I said, ‘That’s the member for Brighton.’ Now they are starting to call him Elmo, and I am not sure if that will stick. I hope it does not stick. But we do not think this is a sledging motion.

James Newbury: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, this just shows how juvenile he is. Relevance.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think the member had strayed. Please come back.

Paul EDBROOKE: I find that really nasty. I think we should have the flexibility in this house to debate different things. I know there are members on this side of the house that would like the opportunity to debate something else today, to talk about something else that is important to their constituency. For me personally, Frankston hospital opened a month ago. We are already having babies born in that hospital. It is serving our community, and it is the light on the hill in Frankston. You can see it, coming down the Monash. It is something that is transformational. I would love the opportunity to talk about that today. To talk about that, though, requires adjourning this. I think the argument has been well prosecuted by this side of the house, and I am sure that during the division we will be able to prosecute those numbers pretty well as well. For those on the other side of the house, this is democracy. They can have their say, they can argue and they can get up. But does it get tiresome every Thursday afternoon, turning the volume up on the member for Brighton, who cannot seem to regulate his voice like a normal human being at times and gets very shouty? It is like teaching again. I know we have got a former teacher here in the member for Sandringham.

Brad Rowswell: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, I draw the house’s attention to standing order 118.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I did not hear an imputation on a single member. The member’s time has expired.

 Brad ROWSWELL (Sandringham) (15:20): I do agree with the member for Frankston on this part: this is democracy. It is a democratic act of the government to come in here and choose to adjourn debate for the purposes of a sledge motion. Notice of motion 2 on today’s notice paper is an attack on the opposition. But there is an action related to democracy, and then there is a constructive and a productive and a community-building action of democracy, which is the bill that we were on, to enable the member for Murray Plains, the member for Morwell, the member for Euroa, the member for Gippsland East and the member for Ovens Valley to have a say on the government’s Energy and Other Legislation Amendment (Resilience Reforms and Other Matters) Bill 2026. That was the bill we were on. According to the opposition’s speaking list, those are the members who have still not had the opportunity to contribute to that debate. They have still not had an opportunity to have their say on that bill in this place on behalf of the tens of thousands of electors that they represent in this place.

I put it to the house, Deputy Speaker, to you and to the member for Frankston, who raised the point that, yes, this is a democratic act, that the government are choosing to adjourn debate for the sake of attacking the opposition but they are adjourning debate for the sake of attacking the opposition when they could simply continue with the Energy and Other Legislation Amendment (Resilience Reforms and Other Matters) Bill 2026 and enable those members, those colleagues, those men and women elected to this place, democratically representing regional and rural communities right around this state, to have their say on behalf of their communities on this bill. But no – no, no, no.

Where did we hear that recently, actually? I would have thought that the government had learned, but clearly they have not. I will just remind them of what happened last sitting week. Last sitting week they tried to do the same thing, as the member for Brighton, the Manager of Opposition Business, actually raised. They tried to do this in the last sitting week, and they tried to adjourn debate for the sake of adjourning to a sledge motion. They have got form on this. It is the second sitting week of 2026 – yes, an election year – and it is the second sitting week in a row on a Thursday afternoon where they are seeking to adjourn debate to pour a bucket of you-know-what on the opposition –

A member interjected.

Brad ROWSWELL: ‘Because we can,’ says the government member. But that does not make it right. Amnesia seems to be the broadbrush response by members of the government whenever their feet are put to the flame. But let me remind them: it did not work so well last sitting week, did it? No, no, no. It did not work so well for them last sitting week. In fact they were hoping to have, what, an hour and a half, 90 minutes, a couple of hours to introduce this sledge motion. And who stopped them? We got caught up in procedural debates. You would have thought that they would have learned. You would have thought that the manager of government business would have learned, but no, she has not, and no, the government has not.

Debate must not be adjourned, for the sake of the Victorians impacted by the government’s legislation that we are currently debating relating to energy policy. I think of the member for Morwell: the heart and soul of his community is in effect categorised by the energy industry. We are talking about jobs in the member for Morwell’s seat. We are talking about the future prosperity, economic and otherwise, of constituents within the member for Morwell’s seat. But no, the government, by introducing this adjournment of debate, is effectively saying to the member for Morwell and his community, ‘We don’t care. Stuff you.’ But of course this is a democratic process, and the government is actively choosing to exercise its right in the democratic process by saying to the member for Morwell’s constituents – good, hardworking Victorian families, hardworking Victorian taxpayers – ‘Stuff you.’ That is just not good enough.

Assembly divided on Colin Brooks’s motion:

 Colin BROOKS (Bundoora – Minister for Industry and Advanced Manufacturing, Minister for Creative Industries) (15:31): I move:

That debate be adjourned until later this day.

 James NEWBURY (Brighton) (15:31): Firstly, I do note the government has just moved to adjourn debate till later this day, and it was not the Leader of the House again. We have had two procedural motions and a missing Leader of the House. The Leader of the House has not spoken on one procedural motion that I am aware of other than the government business program. I do not know what we are paying her for. What are we paying her for? Unfortunately, we have a government that for two sitting weeks in a row has tried the same trick and has failed twice. And we have lost the Leader of the House again. She has left the Minister for Creative Industries in the chamber. Here he is. He is about to say more than the Leader of the House ever has.

Colin Brooks: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, I am not sure what is going on over there at the moment. The member for Brighton seems to be obsessed with the Leader of the House.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point of order is?

Colin Brooks: This is a procedural motion about when the debate is adjourned until.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Brighton will continue on that procedural motion.

James NEWBURY: I very much appreciate the minister’s point of order and feel that he would make a great Leader of the House. He would be a far more capable Leader of the House. The government, as we know, has again tried to debate an important bill. There are many members on our side of the chamber who want to speak on this bill because they know their communities are being screwed over and are having no say in what the government is doing to regional Victoria again. We on this side of the house know that when it comes to what is happening in regional Victoria, those communities are having all of their rights and all of their say ripped away.

The government is moving from a bill that deals with the rights of regional Victorians when it comes to the energy rollout and instead is trying to waste the Parliament’s time again on a sledge motion for a second week in a row. When they moved this motion and tried this trick in the last sitting week, I thought to myself at the end of the day that that was the last time they would try and adjourn debate so they could deal with a sledge motion. I thought it was not possible for them to do it twice.

Members interjecting.

James NEWBURY: The government tells me I am not speaking loudly enough. I am only too happy to oblige. I thought to myself, ‘How can the government possibly be so tactically stupid?’ But here we are again, and when you look at what happened outside the doors of this Parliament this morning I can understand why they are moving an adjournment motion. Wasn’t the Premier’s press conference a train wreck? Wasn’t that a train wreck?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I think I can pre-empt the point of order, Minister for Creative Industries.

Colin Brooks: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, I can pre-empt what you were thinking I was going to raise, but I was actually going to raise something I think is probably different. This is not on the adjournment motion that we have spent the last half-hour debating, this is on the motion that has been moved for this to be considered later this day, and what the Premier did on the front steps is not relevant to the debate that is being put in front of the house.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point of order, as would be appreciated, is succinct. Member for Brighton, back on the adjournment question of when.

James NEWBURY: However, the reasoning why the government is adjourning until later this day is entirely relevant. The reasoning for ‘until later this day’ is entirely relevant, and to deflect from the Premier’s train wreck would be the reason that I put to the chamber.

Members interjecting.

James NEWBURY: It was a train wreck. What would you call it? You guys are all briefing the media.

Paul Edbrooke: On a point of order, this is a train wreck, Deputy Speaker. Please bring the member for Brighton back to the subject at hand.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I take it that is relevance. Member for Brighton, continue with the –

James NEWBURY: I can understand why the members are touchy about what has happened with the Premier this week.

 Josh BULL (Sunbury) (15:36): I am pleased to have the opportunity to make a relatively brief contribution on this procedural debate and just take it down a few decibels from the sort of ranting and raving that we are seeing from the other side. Talk about theatre on a Thursday afternoon. What is really critical and what is before the house at this current point in time is of course a conversation about what happens in terms of the management of the house when it comes to both the Energy and Other Legislation Amendment (Resilience Reforms and Other Matters) Bill 2026, which I had the opportunity to speak on just before lunch, and the very important debate that goes to health in this state. What we have seen, particularly just this week, member for Footscray, is the significant investment in the amazing Footscray Hospital. That of course builds on the significant investments that have been made in health right across the state. I was just having a chat before to the member for Frankston on the outstanding projects in his electorate when it comes to investments in health. All of those investments that this government has delivered it continues to deliver, and of course it will work very hard through the budget process and others to continue to support our healthcare workers in this state and, most importantly, all Victorians.

We know and understand that all of those things are potentially at risk, and what we need to ensure is that that debate can be brought on, as well as recognising the importance of the energy legislation that has been debated in the house throughout today. As I mentioned earlier, having the opportunity to speak on that and having the opportunity to make comments about safety and resilience, poles and wires and the changes and mechanisms contained within that legislation is very, very important as well.

What is before the house right now in terms of the next 22-plus minutes is an opportunity to have what will be a very important debate and a very important conversation in terms of the government’s ability to continue to invest in health services across the state and of course make those necessary changes that we have outlined in detail in the legislation that was before the house this morning and through the course of the early afternoon. We have got an opportunity to be able to frame those conversations in a way that is most important to all Victorians. What I know as a local member – and you, Deputy Speaker, in your role and I think all members of the house should know and understand – is the importance of health care and that investment. The ability to get seen by a doctor when you need it and the ability to get treated with good local health care and, importantly, a structured, resourced and well-managed system that will not be fundamentally damaged by more than $11 billion in cuts are things that are of serious consideration for people within my terrific community and indeed right across the state.

We need to ensure that those fundamentals are in place. We need to ensure that through the course of the work that is done by the Minister for Health and by her office, but most importantly by the incredible workforce of nurses, doctors and healthcare staff, who do just an outstanding job. And to know and understand that these things are on the table and that that pipeline of investment can indeed be at risk is something that we are not prepared to gamble with. That is something that we will fundamentally prosecute through the course of this debate and every single day, member for Frankston, just as you are very proud, as you ought to be, of the investments in Frankston and the amazing Frankston hospital. These are really important commitments and really important investments. We need the opportunity to be able to discuss those. That is what is before the house right now, and that is why we remain committed to being able to have this debate, to bringing this debate on, meanwhile having the important discussions that I had the opportunity to reference earlier, just before lunch. With those comments I am going to park my contribution there, but I want to take the opportunity to thank the house for its consideration.

 Martin CAMERON (Morwell) (15:41): I rise to stand with the Manager of Opposition Business on this attack, this sledge motion that is being brought up against the opposition. We were perfectly debating the Energy and Other Legislation Amendment (Resilience Reforms and Other Matters) Bill ‍2026. I am not sure if they were trying to gag us regional members, especially me as the member for Morwell, which is in the heartland of where these lights that are functioning at the moment would be coming out of – Loy Yang A and Yallourn. Whether they are charging batteries around the state somewhere, we can truly confirm that these lights will be running off power that is generated in the Latrobe Valley. They are trying to adjourn the debate on the energy legislation and not give us a chance to actually talk about what these amendments in this legislation are going to mean for the Latrobe Valley. Since I arrived in this place we have been talking daily and trying to bring up that what it means is costing people their jobs in the Latrobe Valley, and enough is enough.

We have had rhetoric from the Minister for the State Electricity Commission, saying and confirming ‘We will be looking after those workers in the Latrobe Valley.’ Well, so far we have not seen a real lot happening down there. We have got a nice new shiny building, bringing back the SEC with some workers in there. I might add there are some good people working in that office trying to sell the government rhetoric about what the SEC means. But it is meant to bring 59,000 new jobs. It is meant to be now, as the minister said I think, 63,000-plus new jobs that our renewables and bringing back the SEC are meant to bring. We are not seeing those jobs flow through into the Latrobe Valley at the moment.

The Latrobe Valley was the heartland of Labor. If they were going to win elections, 99 per cent of the people in the Latrobe Valley would vote Labor. But now it has flipped. I am not sure what the actual number will be down there in Latrobe voting for Labor come November 2026, but they are disillusioned down there. They have sat by, as I have, looking at our work and our jobs not only in the power industry but in our manufacturing industry and looking at our roads and what we are missing out on. We talk about being able to access mental health facilities, health and that type of stuff. What they are seeing from this Jacinta Allan–led Labor government is this state Jacintegrating in front of our eyes, right across the board. It is Jacintegrating. It is as simple as that. They want to make sure that their livelihoods and jobs are guaranteed, but at the moment we are not seeing anything at all. We see maybe some batteries being built, we see solar panels going in. The government stand and tell us how many jobs that is going to create, but they only create jobs while they are being built.

There are no ongoing jobs of any significance. We are talking about thousands of workers whose jobs are on the line in the power industry, and for those thousands of workers that work in those jobs it is the village around them, it is the person that is supplying the food, it is the person that is fixing all the trucks and doing the dry-cleaning – something as simple as that. There are thousands and thousands of workers around that initial hub whose jobs this government has put on the line. I can see the looks on some people’s faces. They are thinking, ‘Oh no, it’s not.’ Well, mark my words: yes, it is. There is no infrastructure going in there. We have timelines of Yallourn shutting in two years time. We have timelines of Loy Yang A shutting in 2035. It is crunch time now for this government. Judgement day will be on 28 November this year, and as we see, the house of cards is going to fall because this state, as I said, is just Jacintegrating in front of our eyes.

 Nina TAYLOR (Albert Park) (15:46): I am a little bit surprised, because I know that the Leader of the Opposition has put health as one of the four pillars of issues that she is seeking to focus on and yet there is such reluctance by those opposite to speak to that today. When you compare this to our side, because we actually delivered the beautiful Frankston hospital, Footscray Hospital and a massive increase in our health workforce – 950 medical interns cracking into their careers in our Victorian hospital system – I kind of get why those opposite maybe do not want to talk about it. They know they cannot deliver and they might actually cut. If they were to get in, what would they snip? They would probably snip those jobs, the nurses’ jobs, the medical interns and other critical people in terms of maintaining the health of Victorians. That is why we would contend it is a really important matter to discuss, and we would urge those opposite to join with us in adjourning debate on the current bill until later this day, because health matters to Victorians and it certainly matters to our Allan Labor government. I mean, I get that there is some sensitivity by those opposite. They only have to look in the mirror when they have got a by-election pending because of the ejection of the member for Nepean.

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

Colin Brooks: On the point of order, Deputy Speaker, with the previous speaker from the opposition and maybe the member for Sunbury, the debate has been wideranging. I think we got to dry-cleaning on that side of the house. I think the member is entitled to respond.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The debate did get much wider than it probably should have. If we could continue it around the adjournment debate, that would be appreciated.

Nina TAYLOR: Thank you for your guidance, Deputy Speaker. But, again, why wouldn’t they want to talk about health? Certainly it would be a lot more comfortable than talking about cuddling up to One Nation. Focusing on that has got to be embarrassing for them. Talk about health, for goodness sake.

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

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Where is the context?

James Newbury: Attacking the opposition.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member to continue on the adjournment.

Nina TAYLOR: Again I thank you for your sound guidance. On this side of the house we would consider health to be a really important topic, and one other thing I just want to add, when it comes to the bill that we are seeking to adjourn, is there was a period where it was just government member after government member after government member. Arguably some came back in a bit later, but if there is such a sudden passion to speak on it, they certainly have had a lot of opportunity. I am just putting that out there. If we are going to look at this procedural motion and we are going to really examine it thoroughly, we should look at the opportunities that the opposition have had to transact the bill thoroughly today – certainly no pushback from here. But that being said, we on this side of the house do prioritise health. We are absolutely keen to speak on that matter and we are concerned for the welfare of all Victorians, because there is an $11.1 billion gaping black hole from those opposite. Where will those cuts come from? We have just really built up the health workforce, really upgrading our hospitals in this state. We do not want to put any of those at risk and we certainly do not want Victorians to be worse off as a result of that.

So you can see that there are really compelling reasons to properly transact this issue, because it could mean a real difference in the lives of Victorians across the state in all our communities. Again, I just do not understand why they would not want to transact it. Maybe it is because they would have to cut were they to come in, so it is better to avoid that topic and then they do not have to deal with that uncomfortableness. But then maybe the opposition leader might just take health off as one of those key issues if it is not a topic that the opposition really want to transact. I am just putting it out there. It is just something to be considered.

Certainly, as I said, on this side of the house we prioritise the health and wellbeing of Victorians, and we would urge those opposite to actually come forward and be really clean and up-front about what they would do were they to be elected as the government when it comes to our magnificent health system in Victoria. I have some concerns about it, so, yes, I can kind of see why they are baulking at that discussion today.

 Bridget VALLENCE (Evelyn) (15:51): We will be opposing this procedural motion to adjourn this debate to later this day, the reason being we actually want to save this Labor government from themselves and the embarrassment on display. This Labor government wants to shift the debate to talk about health. Let us talk about health. There are 64,000 Victorians on the elective surgery waitlist, waiting for vital surgery to help them in their everyday lives, but this Labor government are failing these Victorians. Let us talk about health. They talk about the Liberals cutting hospitals. We cannot cut the funding to hospitals if you have not funded the hospitals you have promised in multiple elections. Look at the Maroondah Hospital.

Colin Brooks: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, your previous ruling about this being a wideranging debate was correct, but the member is now debating the notice of motion on the paper, not the procedural motion that is in front of the house.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think the member was rebutting other members, so I will not uphold the point of order. However, I would encourage her not to jump into any motion that may be in the paper in the future.

Bridget VALLENCE: I really like the Minister for Creative Industries, but I think he has done himself a disservice. He knows how embarrassing it is that the Labor government is seeking to delay to later this day a very important piece of legislation, which I personally have not had a chance yet to discuss. I know the member for Sunbury, in his contribution on this procedural motion, said, ‘Well, I’ve had a chance to talk about the Energy and Other Legislation Amendment (Resilience Reforms and Other Matters) Bill 2026,’ as if that is a reason for us to move on, because he is so important, being a man over there. But, you know what, I want to be able to talk about that for my community.

Just like the member for Monbulk, we have shared challenges in the Yarra Ranges region when it comes to energy and resilience through the Yarra Ranges. We saw through those 2021 storms through the Yarra Ranges the devastation, and energy was at risk for so many people for weeks and weeks on end – they had no electricity. It was only through embarrassment that the former Deputy Premier James Merlino actually then came to assist his own community with generators, because he was copping so much backlash. The Black Saturday royal commission said that we should underground powerlines, but this Labor government has done nothing about that for my community. These are the kinds of things that I would like to be able to discuss in the energy bill.

Paul Edbrooke: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, as someone who actually sat through the Black Saturday royal commission, I ask: what is the relevance? This is a procedural debate.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member had strayed a little bit. Come back, please. I know it has been wide.

Bridget VALLENCE: I oppose going to later this day because ‘later this day’ is disingenuous. There will not be enough time later this day for people like me to talk about the Energy and Other Legislation Amendment (Resilience Reforms and Other Matters) Bill, which is what I want to do on behalf of the people that I represent, the Victorians that I represent. I hear that over there they are saying that we are wasting time. It is the Labor government wasting time by moving these silly adjournments to move to something else.

They are trying to gag us. They are trying to gag members on this side from talking about important energy legislation that might help us take a small step forward to improve the resilience of energy in my local community, through the Yarra Valley and the Dandenong Ranges, because it is fragile. It is not just the significant storms that we are exposed to, the natural disasters; we have blackouts too. In my home we have blackouts all the time. There is absolutely a failure of this Labor government when it comes to energy resilience, and that is precisely why I oppose the minister’s move to adjourn this debate to later this day. Again, as I say, it is entirely disingenuous for the Minister for Creative Industries to say ‘later this day’, because he knows full well it is nearly 4 o’clock and we adjourn at 5 ‍o’clock. There will not be enough time for those members on this side of the house, for non-government members, to be able to represent the people in their communities in this people’s house when it comes to energy and this legislation. I do not know why they are trying to hide from this legislation and why they are trying to gag people on this side of the house. It is just astonishing that what they want to move to is a bill about health, when in my community they are failing with the Maroondah Hospital.

Assembly divided on Colin Brooks’s motion: