Tuesday, 11 August 2026

 Matthew GUY (Bulleen) (17:34): Isn’t the chamber blessed this afternoon? They are going to get 30 minutes of discussion on energy from me, and I love talking about energy. From coal-fired power to solar to batteries to gas, there is so much to talk about when it comes to energy. With this bill there will be a bit of light and shade. Do not worry, I will make sure it is interesting for you. I know the member for Albert Park likes to give some interesting speeches as well. We are in the same boat on this, but we will give it our best shot for a Tuesday afternoon with three sitting weeks left before a state election, won’t we? Thirty minutes to go.

The Energy and Resources Legislation Amendment (VEET Strategic Review and Other Matters) Bill ‍2026 the coalition does not oppose, but we are going to move a reasoned amendment. I move:

That all the words after ‘That’ be omitted and replaced with the words ‘this house refuses to read this bill a second time until the government releases the strategic review of the Victorian energy upgrades scheme undertaken by the Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action.’

The reason we are moving that amendment – and I am going to come to the specifics of the bill later on; I will speak if I can early on to the reasoned amendment – is because, as it states, the Labor government has prepared modelling around the cost of its plans to remove gas out of domestic supply in metropolitan Melbourne and replace it mandatorily with electricity from 1 March next year. As the member in the upper house David Davis, who is the coalition’s energy spokesperson, has said, there has been modelling conducted on this pledge as to what it would cost the average consumer and what it would cost the average householder, and the government will not release it. Mr Davis and the coalition have numerous times sought, both in the chamber and through other means, the ability to be availed of this costing, as you would expect. This is modelling that has been prepared. It will show what this promise will do for household bills, and I think it is all fair that we see what it says. If the government believes in the commitment to phasing out gas, that is all well and good. I have a very different point of view, and so do my colleagues, but if the government believe in that and that is their commitment, then fair enough. If you have conducted a report as to how much it is going to cost the average Victorian, let us see it. And why wouldn’t they show it to us? Of course it is obvious. We know the answer to that. If they will not release it three months before a state election, we can all work it out. I do not think any of us need to be Einstein to work out that the cost to the average consumer is going to be quite great. In the middle of a cost-of-living crisis – and even if we were not in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis – forcing such great and dramatic costs upon the consumer, upon households, is bad policy that will lead to bad outcomes for many Victorians. Mandating policy like this has consequences.

I think from our side of the chamber we are simply saying the reason for this reasoned amendment is that we want to see the details. While we do not oppose the substance – we do not oppose the bill; we will not oppose it through this chamber – we are saying, in terms of the reasoned amendment, we want to see the details and we think Victorians have a right to see these details. Of course I think they do. Why would it be such a bad thing for Victorians to be shown by the government the modelling that says that the government’s commitment, which they have been espousing for some years now through numerous energy ministers, is going to be a cost-effective commitment for Victorians, which is why the Labor government made that commitment?

Let us take it on face value that the Labor government’s commentary is correct. If it is cost-effective, then what are the details in terms of cost? If it is cost-effective, I guess the question we would ask on this side of the house is: why has this work for plumbers and gasfitters been criminalised? Why would you need to criminalise work and put in huge penalties for plumbers and gasfitters? I know a number of them. In my own family there are a number of plumbers and gasfitters by trade on my dad’s side. The concept of saying to plumbers, ‘You do this work and you’ll be subject to huge legal penalty’ is ridiculous. However, that is where we have got to. That is what previous legislation we have debated in this chamber has enacted. If we are getting to the stage that we are providing penalties for tradies who are doing this kind of work, the question is why. If we are shutting off gas connections to new estates and to new major residential towers and permits are having to be taken back out of the department and rewritten because they have got potential gas supply mains brought into those constructions – the department is now demanding those plans be altered to have all that work taken out of them so that they are not put on the domestic gas market even for future connection – we have to ask why.

Again, all the reasoned amendment is asking – if you are doing all of that work, if we are proposing all of that kind of change and if we are going to legislate through this piece of legislation so that we then make these changes without having seen the domestic consumer cost – is why. The reasoned amendment asks that question. If we are going to refuse to say how much these changes will cost households, if there are not going to be any details provided in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis, if the government has previously passed legislation that will provide a penalty, potentially a criminal penalty, for plumbers and gasfitters who do this kind of work for any residential or private dwelling, then we have to ask that question again: why would you do all of that and not tell domestic consumers, the domestic market, average Victorians, whether it is a family, whether it is a business or whether it is somebody wanting to invest in our state, what the retail cost is.

The member for Narracan has come in. He is probably one of the very few, if not the last, tradies in this chamber by trade.

John Mullahy interjected.

Matthew GUY: Are there others? Sorry, I apologise. There are. I will leave it to the tradies to argue that out. The basic point is that I do not think the tradies who are doing these works should be penalised. That was a previous piece of legislation, so we will not have that debate again today. But the point is: why aren’t we allowing that material to be made public? Member in the upper house David Davis, who is the coalition’s Shadow Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction, has in fact has taken this debate to VCAT and has sought through freedom of information and through the Victorian Civil Administrative Tribunal to obtain details of this documentation. Of course, why wouldn’t he? I mean, anyone would want to see this, because we are again debating this today, and it has not been released. As he said just a month or so ago, the secret modelling has been paid for by taxpayers. Whether you agree with the outcome or not is irrelevant. It has been conducted, and as Mr Davis has said, it has been paid for by taxpayers. What do the government have to hide in the costings in their regulatory impact statement and decision to ban replacement gas hot water services for more than 1.5 million Victorians? He raises a very, very good question. What does the government have to hide? Why wouldn’t the government publicly release this material? Why wouldn’t the government want to spruik why it is doing it? Even if the costs were going to be dramatic or high or considerable, if that is what you have been espousing as government policy, which the Labor government has, as have the Greens, about phasing gas out – unlike the coalition, who do not agree with that point of view – then at least stand by what you are saying is a good policy and say, ‘This is what our modelling shows. This is the cost, but we think we’re doing it for the following reason.’ But of course they have not.

One must then question the legitimacy of the government’s argument behind it and whether they stand by it or not if they have paid taxpayers money for this kind of modelling then will not release it. Of course it is now just before an election, and we would on this side of the house say that now actually is probably the most important time to release it so Victorians know what they are going to get, because there is a difference on a point of view. The member for Gippsland South in the chamber and the member for Narracan are both supporters, as I am, of Victoria’s gas industries, and we believe those industries have got a future in this state, a very strong future. We have a fundamental difference of opinion with both the government and the Greens, who obviously do not agree with that. I accept that. It is politics. I respect that they have got a different point of view. I do not agree with it, but as I am going to say for the 15th time, modelling has been conducted, it has been paid for by the taxpayers, there is a difference of policy going into this election and Victorians deserve to see what the outcome of that modelling is.

The government has taken the opposition’s energy spokesman Mr Davis to VCAT. They have denied documents motions in the upper house. They have refused, by freedom-of-information request, to provide any of this material on the public record. Therefore, lo and behold, the government said it is a scare campaign, which I am sure following speakers may say. We are simply asking: what is in it? If you stand by your own policy, how about telling us what the details are. March next year – the 1st, in fact – is when Victorians will no longer be able to install new gas hot water and heating systems to replace existing ones. Even if you have got gas hot water, gas heating or a cooktop, because a lot of the cooktops in particular are older and nowadays, if the halogen lights go, you cannot even get a replacement and you have to replace the whole thing.

That then would say that if a family or a pensioner or someone in the suburbs or in a country town is available for gas, if the cooktop goes and they are told by the plumber and gasfitter, ‘Well, you can’t replace the halogen light, so you either live without those or you replace the whole system’, no, under this system of the Labor government, you have to then convert your whole home system to electricity. Fair enough – that is the government, and it is going to this election with that as policy – sure, so what is the cost? We would say again: you have got the modelling. So what is the cost? What are we saying is the average cost to the average Victorian. The government are keen to spruik their energy – I hear them coming into question time trumpeting their 200 bucks back on electricity or whatever it is. It is a couple of hundred bucks back, but as the member for Narracan has said, it is over $30,000, on some estimates, to retrofit existing homes. The member for Narracan is saying it is over $30,000, but even if, let us say – and he is not an exaggerator – it is a tenth of that and it is $3000 to electrify a home that is currently on gas, $3000 as an up-front cost, go and throw a $3000 cost on a family that is going through a cost-of-living crisis today, paying more for their basic energy costs than ever before, throw in insurance, throw in food prices and all the rest, and that is an enormous amount to expect from people or pensioners, with no discounts when it comes to this kind of infrastructure cost upgrade.

Victorians have got an absolute right to say, ‘If you want to institute policy like this, give us the fundamentals on where we stand with this, right? Actually tell us what it looks like.’ Actually be up-front with us to say, ‘This is what it is going to cost’. Do not hide behind freedom of information or defeated documents motions by a number of the smaller parties outside of the Labor and Greens centre left bloc in the upper house, who have also voted with them to hide this documentation from Victorians. Let us be frank as to what this kind of policy is going to have as an impact on Victorians. We are going to the polls in less than four months – I think it is 109 days. So these questions are going to be all the more pertinent, and why wouldn’t they be? There is a difference of opinion. Why wouldn’t they be?

We are being very up-front on our side of the chamber. We are not misleading. We are not hiding behind policy. We are being up-front with Victorians to say, ‘This is our policy on gas’, right? We believe regarding the use of gas, particularly on the domestic market – as we have been saying for the last two elections – that there should be domestic supply caps like they have done through the Labor government in Western Australia. It is a good policy. It has been good policy in Western Australia. It has kept domestic gas prices at a regular level and at a more constant level than the east coast markets. We do not think that all Labor governments have got this wrong. I would go and look 4000 k’s west. From our point of view, we have capped wells which should be used, to move into a broader energy debate on this bill. I talk about gas for the obvious reason that there is a market in Victoria. It may not be offshore. Then you will hear the obvious from those on the left side of politics, ‘Oh, it’s all fracking, it’s all fracking’, which is absolute, total rubbish. We want to talk about scare campaigns, like the one we saw from the previous Premier. Now we have had three premiers in one term, which has never happened before in Victoria’s history.

A member interjected.

Matthew GUY: Not Premiers – never happened in Victoria’s history. There was a scare campaign about fracking. There are plenty of scare campaigns that that guy came out with, but that one was probably one of the better ones in terms of ridiculousness. So what we have got is a domestic gas supply market which has been crippled in Victoria when it could have been one which was energising jobs outside of the metropolitan area of Melbourne, particularly in Gippsland – energising jobs for our state’s future. We say on this side of the chamber that we will, if we come to government in just 109 ‍days time, be keen to re-energise that market with certainty of policy, not with what we have seen from the Labor government – you know, ‘Fracking’s bad, gas is bad.’ It is completely horrendous; it is horrible. You know, it is trying to me-too the Greens. Then in 2021, after a review, it ran around and said, ‘Oh, actually, it’s not too bad anymore’ – very quietly. Remember that? It said, ‘It’s not too bad anymore.’ Then later in this term, in 2023, the then energy minister, who I note is now retiring, came in and said, ‘We’re going to review and push back the gas ban in domestic homes to 2027.’ So it was horrendous, then it became bad and then it became bad but delayed. Now they are not sure at all, but they are not going to tell you how much it is going to cost anyway until after the election should they be re-elected.

We on this side of the house believe in certainty of policy when it comes to gas. We believe that domestic gas supplies have been positive for our economy historically. They have been good in terms of jobs and in terms of cost of energy, and, more to the point, we believe that gas has been good for our state historically and can be good for our state in the future. We are going to reinvest in our gas supply and gas markets, get jobs back to regional Victoria through gas industries, bring prices down for domestic gas in our metropolitan areas and put caps on to ensure that we have got domestic gas markets similar to Western Australia that keep prices down for Victorians, as opposed to the Labor Party, which wants to scrap it all, criminalise plumbers and gas fitters for installing it and make sure that you will pay tens of thousands of dollars to go from gas to electricity by force. We are going to scrap all of that because we believe in gas – simple. So you know where we stand, at least, and the chamber knows where we stand on this side of the house, and Victorians know where we stand going into an election in 109 days time. All of this stuff will be a moot point should there be a change of government, because we believe in ensuring that our energy industries are there for the future, not part of the past.

After a long talk about gas for 18 minutes I want to talk about our broader energy industries and how important they have been to Victoria. I think in this state we have allowed the demonisation of our energy industries and those who have built our state’s future off energy, including my own family and many members in this chamber who have got family out in Gippsland, who have worked their guts out to build our state post war, through the Latrobe Valley in particular and broader Gippsland and also through other parts of our state, like Mortlake, where there is a gas power plant, the Newport 500-meg gas power plant. Energy is something that has been a driver of jobs for our state for many decades, and the energy industries have been drivers of jobs in our state for many decades.

I heard earlier in debate in the chamber people talking about Loy Yang and the Loy Yang power station. Loy Yang A and B together, at just under 3500 megawatts, are not just the largest power station in Victoria; those two combined, A and B, are the largest power station in Australia. The member for Morwell, the member for Narracan and the member for Gippsland South know this, as most people should know it, because when you talk about the closure of these power stations, you are not removing something that is innocuous from the Victorian power supply grid. We were a net exporter of power just a decade or two ago. We used to export power. In fact Victoria supplied the majority of South Australia’s power before the Labor government over there ceremoniously blew up a power station – was it in Port Augusta or Port Pirie? They blew it up. That has gone well, because now South Australia, like Victoria, is a massive net importer of power, particularly baseload, particularly in peak demand. It never used to be. And of course what has happened to South Australian domestic prices of energy is the same thing that has happened to Victoria: they have gone through the roof.

When you do not value energy industries, you do not value those who work in them, you do not value the historical significance, you do not reinvest in them, you do not mandate that private companies reinvest in them with new technology to guarantee those jobs, to guarantee those towns’ futures that rely on them, to clean up some of the industries they have relied on and to look at new generation and methods of generation for those towns to reinvest in those towns, then you get to the circumstance we have got to in Victoria in the last decade where we now have uncertainty surrounding our energy supply industry, which we should never have had. But we have had a Premier for eight years who played politics with it, an imitation of that version for another three years who did not know what politics to play with it and another bloke for two weeks who cannot work out if he supports the last 11 ‍years or not. He does not know if he is supporting those 11 years or not supporting those 11 years. One day he says, ‘I was a big supporter of those 11 years,’ and the next day he is not a big supporter of those 11 years. He is this, he is that. He does not know; we do not know either, and nor do Victorians.

What we know on this side of the chamber is we back our energy industries, and we back the people and the towns who rely on them and work in them. I know the speakers on this side of the chamber who will get up, not just from Gippsland but south-west Victoria as well, will say the same thing as me: we will invest and reinvest in these towns, and particularly as the member for Gippsland South will say, through re-energising gas and our gas industries, which have the potential to re-energise so much and – I say again, because of sentimentality – particularly so much of Gippsland. The ability for us to decentralise jobs, to bring jobs to these new markets, to get some of these towns with not just existing workforces but for companies to reinvest through tertiary work for kids to have a future in those towns, for future families to have options to stay in those locations, for industry to locate to those locations with cheaper electricity, cheaper availability of gas – no, that is not on this government’s agenda. That is not on their agenda, because Labor cannot be, Labor will not be and Labor are not interested, and this side of the house is. We are interested in reinvesting in those towns.

The Latrobe Valley, as I have said many times in this chamber, was built off energy. We are not suggesting going back to opening new coalmines – we are not suggesting that. But what we are saying is that you have got to respect where these towns have come from; you have got to respect the work that has been done there. My grandfather worked in Yallourn – Yallourn A, Yallourn W. I have been down and driven a dredge in Yallourn W, and my uncle was a foreman. It was in the 1980s. It was some time ago. I suspect that workplaces were very different back then. I was moving the dredge as it went through the old town of Yallourn – I might add, where my parents were married and I was baptised, so I was probably digging up the Yallourn Methodist Church, which is not a good thing. But the point is that Gippsland was founded off those industries, and we all on this side respect those towns, the work that so many of those towns have built, their history and the historical basis that the brown coal industry committed to the economic success of Victoria. That I think provides all of us with a focus to reinvest in those towns and to reinvest with sincerity back into the valley. That does not mean saying that we can power metropolitan Melbourne, with great respect, off wind energy or solar. I support solar. I have got it at home. I have got an electric car – I support all of these things. But we need to be realistic. We are not powering a city of 5.5 million off wind power and solar – we are just not. We need baseload power, and we on this side say gas has got to be an important part of that.

The concept of saying, ‘We can just shut Yallourn W, and we’re not sure what’s going to come next,’ is absolutely ridiculous. To shut it with no plan B, taking 2500 megs out of the system with no plan B, is where the government’s at – no plan B. If it is 2028 with no plan B for the second-largest economy in the country, no plan B for the largest contiguous metropolitan area in Australia, as it is nowadays – they just say, ‘No, no, no. It’s all off. It’s okay. We’re going to put wind farms up in Ararat, and that’s going to fix the problem.’ That is absolutely ridiculous. Wind is fine and wind has a place, battery has a place, solar has a place – they all do. A mixed energy grid system is absolutely positive, and there are no arguments from this side on it. But you have got to be realistic about what you have got to power, and you must be realistic about where it leaves your state, because all of us, both industry and the domestic market, need certainty of policy. I think the point of all of this is that we have not seen certainty; we have seen mixed rhetoric with no certainty of policy from the current government for the last decade. What I mean by that is the rhetoric to demonise everything about our historical energy system has been sincere from the other side, until it changed, as I said, in about 2021, changed again in 2023 and faces an uncertain future in 2027 should the government be re-elected, because they are changing their goalposts all the way through. Credit to the Greens: they have said, ‘Shut the lot down,’ and they have never not had that point of view. I think that is even more ridiculous, but at least they have been consistent in being ridiculous. The government started ridiculous and now is bordering on absolutely ridiculous, mildly ridiculous and just fanciful. On this side of the house at least we are saying all of those positions need to be wiped off the table and we need to start again and have certainty when it comes to gas. At least from this side of the chamber we have been consistent, and we will continue to be consistent.

The VEET bill 2026 has 146 clauses and seven parts. Allow me to go through those 146 clauses.

Wayne Farnham interjected.

Matthew GUY: I just thought I would try that one. I was just seeing how many people were still listening – interestingly, only the member for Narracan, but he is a mate of mine, so I am sure he is. At 146 clauses, I am sure there is much to debate.

I make the coalition’s comments and I make my comments on this by just saying again, in conclusion, from this side of the house we absolutely think that Victorians need certainty of policy when it comes to energy. This is a critical area of government policy going into the next decade. It will continue to be a critical area of government policy. Our economy, our economic confidence and people’s willingness to invest in our state will depend heavily on this sector of governance, which is energy policy. If we do not have that right, if we do not have the consistency of message right, then people will not invest here; they will look to Queensland, where they have got a consistency of message. Therefore from this side of the house we believe our consistent messaging around ensuring we reinvest in gas and have a mix of policy through encouraging particularly domestic solar, through wind projects where they are closer to existing infrastructure and of course through battery technology where it is reasonable and can be availed is absolutely important as part of our energy mix, but we cannot sacrifice base load power for the sake of politics when we have nothing to replace that base load power. That would be crazy policy, irresponsible policy, policy of the Australian left wing. The Liberal and National parties believe that gas has an important role to play in energy generation into the future and in household supply. It will keep costs down for the cost of living and energy consumption in our homes, and we are absolutely supportive of recharging and re-energising our gas industry should we come to government in just four months time.

 Josh BULL (Sunbury) (18:02): I am pleased to have the opportunity to make a contribution to the Energy and Resources Legislation Amendment (VEET Strategic Review and Other Matters) Bill ‍2026. In the 30 minutes that the previous speaker had the opportunity to hold the floor he spoke at length about a range of different policy positions that have of course been looked at by this state and by the country. What the member spoke about in terms of policy consistency and certainty was policy consistency around the energy market, and he failed unfortunately to mention that period between 2010 and 2014 when there was a vacuum in this state when it comes to these matters. He failed to mention the near on decade from the previous federal government when we had the opportunity to seriously consider, invest in and advance the energy needs of our country – not just our state but our country – and we had nothing of the sort. Where I think the previous member landed was on a recognition that investing in solar and wind and all of the technologies that I will come to within this piece of legislation and the transition is not only the responsible thing to do but the right thing to do when it comes to the hip pocket of Victorians and of people right across the country.

I have just a couple of things to put on the record. The agenda that our government has brought to the table will create 68,000 jobs by 2040, 70 gigawatts of solar, wind and battery –

Paul Edbrooke interjected.

Josh BULL: Gigawatts, member for Frankston – the very fine member for Frankston. Seventy gigawatts of solar, wind and battery have been publicly announced, and of course there is more to come. That transition is serious and significant.

Before I go to some of the mechanisms and changes that are made with this piece of legislation in terms of both the review and the practical sense of the way that we are managing these matters, I do want to take up some of the thoughts from those opposite who, when they get the opportunity to come into this place, make all sorts of statements about what should be happening and what could have happened. The practical reality is that when they get the chance, whether that be from a federal level or those sort of measly opportunities from a state level, to make some serious reforms that go to protecting the environment and making sure we are driving down energy prices, they are of course driven by ideology. They put those ideologies in place and effectively just leave a policy vacuum. This of course is in stark contrast to what we have seen from this side of the house for more than 12 years: a strong, sustained and significant investment in renewables. We took the opportunity at each and every budget and in each and every review, initiative and project to provide for the community to come on board from a household perspective, a small business perspective and for larger scale operations and to go to these matters in a way that works towards that transition and invests in a cleaner, better future, adds more energy to the market and makes sure we are doing that in a responsible and sustainable way. We did not hear any of those points earlier in the previous contribution, but we did by the end. I think that if there is any part that we can agree on, it is indeed that the policy settings of this government are important and do matter when it comes to driving down the cost of energy and ensuring that we are providing a better future for all of us and indeed our youngest Victorians.

The changes are extensive and the changes that are in this piece of legislation are of course the matters around the strategic review, which was funded out of the 2024 budget, to ensure that the scheme remains fit for purpose and modernises as we continue through the transition. They make for the seamless and better functioning of the Victorian energy upgrades program and of course make sure we are providing for those amendments, whether that becomes the work done around certification and certificates or all of the work that is done to modernise those appliances and provide for solar, hot water or heating and cooling – those opportunities are really important.

I think it is fair to say that as members move around their local electorates and talk to people within local communities, we know and understand the importance of providing for more efficient and better energy use within the home. We know and understand that those needs have of course changed over time. Making for changing dynamics within the household and also a changing economy at a time where people are indeed feeling those cost-of-living challenges each and every day is something that is very, very important. We remain committed to a sense of practicality and a sense of purpose when it comes to these matters and to making sure we are continually improving for residential owners, small businesses and of course large-scale businesses as well.

The work that is being done in this space stands in stark contrast, unfortunately, to what we saw for that lost near-decade of failed energy policy from the former coalition government. There was of course a time when the nuclear policy was taken to the federal election, and that did not go so well. There was of course a time when we could not really get anything out of Canberra when it came to the renewable energy market. I am really pleased that we as a team, a collective and a government charted our own course and set forward a series of programs and initiatives to take this state forward. And to see the take-up from a household level, Deputy Speaker, as you are moving around your local streets, and member for Footscray, you as well, and all members on this side of the house, having that opportunity to see the community embrace that and take up the technology that is rapidly advancing is really important.

We have got an opportunity to be able to do that, whilst not disregarding the fact that there is a transition that is needed and there is a practicality that needs to be brought to these matters. We do not see that from the Greens political party; we see ideology not driven by practicality, and we see the same thing from those on the right. I am really pleased that we on this side of the house deal with those matters that stand before us in a way that is practical, sensible and evidence based. We talk to engineers, we talk to scientists and we talk to people who know what they are doing when it comes to energy. That stands in stark contrast to both of those outfits that I mentioned earlier, who are in fact just driven by some of those ideologies that really take us backwards.

We want to be here in however many years – 25, 50 or, maybe in your case, Deputy Speaker, another hundred years time. He is a healthy guy. We want to be here in years to come, and we want to make sure that we are providing for the best environment and the best planet that we can. The changes that are involved in this piece of legislation, the matters that I have gone to over the course of this contribution, go to providing for that work, and that is something that is really, really important. It is a hallmark of this government to be able to invest in these matters. What I think we heard from the previous speaker – I did not disagree with all of the things he said. I just disagreed with the way that they were framed in terms of what this government is bringing to the table compared to what we have seen from previous outfits. We remain committed to increasing supply, driving down cost, listening to the experts and making sure that at every single opportunity we will provide for the best energy system, framework and set of regulations that we can. I commend the bill to the house.

 Danny O’BRIEN (Gippsland South) (18:12): It is always fun to rise to speak on energy policy in this place and to follow someone like the member for Sunbury, who talks about failure of energy policy and how the Carroll Labor government has done such a wonderful job. Let us just say the Labor government, because we cannot keep up; I have only just got used to saying the Allan Labor government. I do not think Victorian households would necessarily agree that the government has done such a wonderful job when it comes to energy policy when we have seen our energy bills skyrocket for the best part of 12 years, when we have got inflation being driven by electricity cost increases in Victoria, when we have got more people than ever seeking payment plans for their electricity bills and when we have got a government that has failed dismally when it comes to gas. The member for Sunbury was talking about ideological positions on this side. Hello, have a look in the mirror, people over there. Have a look in the mirror about ideological positions that have driven Victoria to the brink in terms of an energy crisis.

As the member for Bulleen talked about before, there are serious problems that we are facing in the next couple of years in terms of lack of energy availability, with Yallourn scheduled to close in 2028 and with the lack of gas supply because we have had 12 years of a government that did not believe in gas for ideological reasons, that would not allow development and that never accepted that gas is a critical part of the transition. The government put all its eggs in the solar and wind basket, all of which it asked to be done in regional Victoria. Frankly, regional Victorians are sick of being asked to carry the can for the energy transition, and time and time again I have said this. We have had enough of being asked to carry the burden. I know there will be those on that side that will say how wonderful a job they have done with all the new wind turbines and all the new solar panels, but they do not have to put up with them in their electorates.

A member interjected.

Danny O’BRIEN: Going on the roof would be a really good idea. In fact, if you would like, you could pick up our policy. We have actually announced a policy to encourage solar on rooftops. There are thousands of hectares of rooftops on factories and warehouses in Melbourne in particular, but also in our regional cities, where you could put solar panels. We have announced a policy to encourage that, to actually make sure that if we are going to have renewable energy, we actually produce it in the areas where it is needed and we reduce the need for additional transmission lines, because that is another area of failure of this government, where transmission lines are seen as just a route to market and woe betide anyone who gets in the way. ‘We really don’t care,’ is what this Labor government says. We have seen that time and time again with their management of it.

I was at the bush summit last year in Ballarat, where both the Prime Minister and the then Premier, the member for Bendigo East, acknowledged that they had failed to properly bring the farming community along with them when it came to transmission lines. The then Premier did that the day after this Parliament passed additional legislation bringing in $12,000 fines for farmers who have the temerity to stop an authorised officer from coming onto their land. If that does not speak volumes about the lack of respect and about the inability of the government to actually bring the farming community and regional Victorians along with them on the journey, well, what does? And it continues under the current Premier, with farmers on the route of the VNI West proposed project in western Victoria in the last week – since Ben Carroll, the member for Niddrie, became the Premier – being issued with their first fines. They are fines that we will repeal. The Nationals and Liberals will repeal those fines because they are anti-democratic, they lack respect and they are absolutely a disgrace to this Labor government. It is a Labor government that does not care what happens in regional Victoria. It is a government that are only focused on wind and solar at all costs and looking good in the city to make sure that they highlight their green credentials, and to hell with the country people who have to put up with it. That is the approach they have taken.

We have a different view on this side. We absolutely have a different view. On that side, the Labor government proudly promotes its development facilitation plans to get more and more wind turbines and solar panels built. They do that, though, at the expense of the local communities. They have taken away the local communities’ ability to appeal against these projects at VCAT. We will give it back, because country people and farmers deserve to be able to have their voice heard. Some over there, and some in the regional areas also, might say, ‘But will it really matter?’ It absolutely does, because I can tell you from my own experience in the electorate of Gippsland South, the then Alberton wind farm was approved by this government, by the previous Labor government, and the local community took it to VCAT because they said there had been mistakes. VCAT upheld their complaint and that permit was revoked. The minister had made mistakes, the department had made mistakes and the developer had made mistakes that were not picked up by anyone but the local community taking it to VCAT. This mob has taken away the right of farmers to be able to do that. We will give it back to them because those people deserve to be able to have their say.

We will also reintroduce the 2-kilometre buffer zone for wind farms, and if that might have an impact on the number of wind farms we develop, well, so be it, because people need to be protected and their homes need to be protected. We absolutely need to give regional communities that certainty and that protection. Two kilometres is a fair distance, and it absolutely will be brought back. We will also overturn the compulsory acquisition powers. What a disgraceful effort that was, introduced by the former minister, the member for Mill Park, in the dead of night, literally with 24 hours notice. In an existing bill they added in some legislation that said they can compulsorily acquire your land even before a permit has been approved for a project or it has gone through an environment effects statement. That is the sort of thing that this government is doing to steamroll regional communities. We will not put up with it. We opposed that at the time, and we will repeal that legislation if we are elected. It is not good enough for the government to continue to steamroll regional areas like that.

We will also require audits of farmland before these projects go ahead to make sure we understand the impacts on good agricultural land, whether it is wind, whether it is solar, whether it is transmission lines. We actually need to be making sure we are looking after our farmland and making sure that we are looking after our food producers. This is critical. We have got to do it. We are going to do it for batteries as well, because I know there are those that are concerned about that too. So these projects need to go through the process, and the balance needs to be struck correctly for our regional communities.

Likewise, again we have the government spruiking all sorts of things like offshore wind. Yet when it comes to Gippsland, all the offshore wind is off Gippsland. All the issues will be borne by us. The transmission lines will all be coming through Gippsland. But the government goes and says, ‘Well, we’ll put the construction port at Hastings.’ Here we are again. Offshore wind was going to be the solution to help us when Yallourn energy goes offline in 2028. The Labor government has stuffed it up, because that renewable energy port at Hastings should have been underway by now and should be ready in a year or two’s time. Instead the federal Labor government knocked it back. They have not even started work on it yet, and there is no prospect now that there will be any offshore wind produced before Yallourn closes. Frankly, given the costs that go with offshore wind and the delays that have been caused by state and federal Labor governments, I am sceptical as to whether any offshore wind will actually get off the ground.

We need to have a transition plan. We need to actually understand that we will be in big trouble when Yallourn goes offline in 2028. That is why the Nationals and Liberals are supportive of gas. We need to develop our gas reserves. I was pleased to talk with Woodside Energy over the weekend, who have just taken over management of what were the Esso–BHP offshore gas plants and developments, and I am very optimistic that they will actually do more with the gas that might be available out there and that there are opportunities for a smaller, more lean company to actually get more development out of that. But more particularly, we want to actually develop our onshore and offshore gas reserves – not unconventional but conventional gas reserves – in Victoria. We also want to make sure Victorians have the chance to make a choice. We do not want governments saying you cannot have this appliance or that appliance. That is a choice that the Nationals and Liberals will give back to people. We will develop our gas reserves and get more energy into the market to make sure that we drive prices down. Supply is important and gas is an important part of that, and the Nationals and Liberals will make sure we have it.

 Anthony CIANFLONE (Pascoe Vale) (18:22): I rise with pleasure to support the Energy and Resources Legislation Amendment (VEET Strategic Review and Other Matters) Bill 2026, and I do so as someone on this side of the house putting on the record that we as a Labor government believe climate change is real. We believe that the ongoing burning of fossil fuels across the globe is having an impact and has continued to have an impact on global climate and on global temperatures, generating more extreme weather events for many years, which has only been continuing to compound over recent years, as we have seen the severity of floods, storms and severe weather events wreak havoc across the world, including in our own nation, whether it is bushfires or floods. If you believe in climate change, which we do, you then have to decide to take action and play a role in global efforts to take action to reduce emissions to build a healthier, cleaner and more sustainable community. We know that the leading cause of carbon emissions for many years has been the burning of fossil fuels, of gas, of oil, of things that compound climate change.

On this side of the house we are honest. We say we believe it and we want to take action, and we have been doing that at a state level, which I will take the house through very shortly as part of this bill, because this bill is one important component of that at the household and local community level. But the question I have for those opposite, for the Liberals, the Nationals and the One Nation coalition that they are intending to form, is: do they believe in climate change? I do not think they do. I do not think I have heard anyone as part of this debate –

Richard Riordan interjected.

Anthony CIANFLONE: It is not about believing me; it is about believing the overwhelming science that has been globally proven. It is a conspiracy theory, according to the member for Polwarth. It is a conspiracy theory, like so many other things, according to them. But this is the contrast that Victorians face this coming November: a government that is serious about taking action on climate change and doing its bit to help reduce emissions and, importantly, help support cheaper and affordable renewable energy, because that is the cheapest form of energy.

Members interjecting.

Anthony CIANFLONE: They laugh when I talk about renewable energy and giving people incentives. They laugh; they think it is an absolute joke, they do. The member for Polwarth has said they laugh when we talk about renewable energy, which is the cheapest form of energy. It is a fact. The wind blows, the turbines turn, and they generate electricity. The sun shines, the solar panels capture that, and they turn it into electricity. This is being reflected through many, many things, which I can take the house through, whether it is through the energy default offer or whether it is through the wholesale price, all of which continue to keep Victoria’s energy prices low – the lowest in the country on many metrics – because we are increasing investment. As we increase investment into renewable energy, we decrease the price of people’s energy bills. That is a fact.

I take the house to the fact that I have visited many people in my community who have taken advantage of solar homes and the Victorian energy upgrade program, which we are reforming and strengthening today, and the federal government’s battery program. Many people are paying zero dollars in energy bills across my community. I visited them with the Premier and with the Minister for Energy and Resources – the member for Mill Park – and a couple of those people are Jennifer and Melvin, who live in Connolly Avenue in Coburg. We had an amazing announcement that we made there in their home when Minister D’Ambrosio and I visited to talk about Victoria having the lowest energy default offer. They had taken advantage of all the various incentives to keep their power prices at record lows.

The other family that we visited was the Ziino family in Gordon Street in Coburg. Michelle, Jason, Rosina, Patrick and Rosemary have done amazing work to refit their homes with clean, renewable energy generation and storage. They admitted they are all paying lower prices than ever, and that is why we are providing incentives for households to make the transition. We know the up-front cost is hard for many people – it is expensive – but that is why we have these programs to help alleviate that up-front cost so they can then reap the long-term benefits.

What do the opposition do in stark contrast to that? They ridicule. They ridicule climate change and they ridicule our incentives that we continue to provide local households. This is also the opposition, when they were last in government, that continued to oppose serious action, particularly between 2010 and 2014, when it came to renewable energy and action on climate change. They voted against extending the Victorian energy upgrades program to 2045. When they were last in government they actually introduced legislation seeking to abolish its predecessor, a move that at the time threatened thousands of jobs and household savings. We would not be here today if they had still stayed in office, because this program would have been ancient history.

The contrast cannot be more stark politically when it comes to this particular issue. We believe in climate change. We have legislated that we want to achieve net zero. We have restored the State Electricity Commission and embedded it in our constitution so those opposite can never sell it off and privatise it again. We have legislated renewable energy targets. We support solar energy, we support wind energy, we support batteries, we support household electrification, and we support the benefits that are associated with each and every one of these initiatives from a climate perspective, a renewable perspective but also a cost-of-living perspective. These are all issues that are intertwined and complement one another; they are not exclusionary to one another.

Those opposite want to talk the big game on energy transition, and they supposedly have the licence when it comes to this issue. It was at the last federal election that the Australian people rejected that proposition – that alternative for nuclear energy. The Peter Dutton nuclear energy plan that was put to Victorian people was outright rejected. The federal Labor government returned to office with a record number of seats, and the opposition Liberal federal leader lost his bloody seat. I mean, how much more loudly can the Australian people speak when it comes to where they stand on energy policy? They do not want nuclear reactors, which those opposite were advocating for. As far as I am aware, they have not ruled out returning to that policy if they should come back to government. Has any one of them ever stood up and said they do not want a nuclear reactor in their community? We know they do not want wind turbines in their communities, but they would rather nuclear reactors in their communities. Common sense just totally fails these guys opposite on so many levels and so many metrics.

We are clear; we are honest here. We are saying this is our approach: renewable energy, reducing carbon emissions and incentivising households and communities to transition to that form of cheaper energy. What is the policy of those opposite? Are they going to return to nuclear energy? Do they want to go to nuclear energy? Do they want to keep and build more coal-fired, expensive power stations in Victoria? Do they want to return to fracking? Where is their policy?

Danny O’Brien: Did you actually listen at all to the previous speakers? Obviously not.

Anthony CIANFLONE: I did, and they did not make any sense. You have no policy. Your policy is to oppose what we as a government are doing in terms of real action. The other reason in all this is because they are held hostage to One Nation. They know they have to cosy up to One Nation because they are –

Danny O’Brien interjected.

Anthony CIANFLONE: Oh, mate, you can come to Pascoe Vale any day. I will buy you an almond latte at Pentridge. I tell you what, you have got to think about One Nation in your community, not mine, Leader of the Nationals. Let us talk about the Greens. I am happy to talk about the Greens when it comes to climate –

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Pascoe Vale, through the Chair.

Anthony CIANFLONE: Thank you, Deputy Speaker, for your guidance. Let us talk about the Greens as well. Where are they? They are never in this chamber. When they come in this chamber, they come here for a stunt or a TikTok. They talk about data centres. The reason why apparently we need more data centres is because they are the ones generating the demand for the data centres with their bloody prolific social media posting.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Unparliamentary language.

Anthony CIANFLONE: The Greens are nowhere to be seen when it comes to real action on climate change. They talk the big game, but let us never forget that it was the Greens that teamed up with the Liberals, the Nationals and Tony Abbott, former Prime Minister, and set back climate action in this country by a decade. They dumped the carbon pollution reduction scheme. Adam Bandt was leading that effort, and he also lost his seat. So whether it is Peter Dutton losing his seat, whether it is Tony Abbott losing the election, whether it is the Greens leader Adam Bandt losing his own seat and also the state Victorian Greens leader losing at the federal election as she attempted to run for Wills but was rejected, Labor has been consistent all the way through. We believe in climate change. We are investing in taking real action to combat climate change and help people with the transition.

We have brought back the SEC, the State Electricity Commission, which those opposite have opposed. And as we continue to roll out even more investments when it comes to renewable energy, I am proud to say it is the SEC that is helping oversee quite substantial portions of that, because our legislated renewable energy targets are nation leading and jurisdiction leading compared to many other parts of the world as well – 65 per cent by 2030, 95 per cent by 2035, with a net zero emissions target for 2045. And in 2025, last year, renewable generation provided 44.6 per cent of Victoria’s electricity, exceeding our 40 per cent target for that year. So, as I say, we can invest more in clean energy, we can support households to transition, we can put downward pressure on power prices, we can increase the jobs and the economic stimulus around the clean energy industry and we can do it through things like this bill here today, which I commend to the chamber.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I remind members, on unparliamentary language, that there are rulings from the Chair on the word that starts with ‘b’ and ends with ‘y’.

 Richard RIORDAN (Polwarth) (18:32): I rise to speak on the Energy and Resources Legislation Amendment (VEET Strategic Review and Other Matters) Bill 2026, but before I get into the detail of the bill I do want to make some comment on the member for Pascoe Vale’s sort of pixies-at-the-bottom-of-the-garden approach to energy generation, which of course is the mainstay of many of our colleagues opposite, who live in gated little suburbs where there is no solar, there is no wind, there are no batteries – there is nothing generating or keeping the country alive. They tend to gather around coffee shops and imagine the world that could be under their own rhetoric. As we sit here just after 6:30 pm in winter, let us just see how the government’s full-on strategy of solar and wind is working as replacement for having no gas and no coal in Victoria, this genius master plan that is afoot by this government after the last 12 years. Well, we can with great certainty say not one solar plant is working right now, at 6:30, in early August in 2026. They have all stopped. There is no solar generating the light to keep this fine establishment going.

Let us look at the wind and a little term that came up at Public Account and Estimates Committee hearings called dunkelflaute. And I suggest to my colleagues opposite that they might get the dictionary out and google a bit of dunkelflaute, because it is the thorn in the side of this government’s strategy, that when the sun goes down, we are going to have all this wind to keep us going. Well, let us have a look, because I know in my electorate, unlike my colleagues opposite who have barely got a bloody – I am sorry, I should not say it. They have barely got any generation at all, apart from a bit of rooftop solar on some houses. They are certainly not keeping our hospitals going. They are certainly not keeping our factories going. They are certainly not keeping employment going. They are certainly not processing anything. They are certainly not moving transport all over the country. No, they are not doing any of that.

But for the wind industry that this government has proliferated to an alarming extent in my own electorate – let us be very, very conservative – there is $5 billion just in the top part of my electorate. There is about $5 billion worth of investment. Let us see how that is going at 6:30 on a Tuesday night in the middle of winter. We have got the Dundonnell wind farm, for example, probably operating at about 10 per cent of capacity. Okay, that is pretty useful. We go to Golden Plains wind farm – that is another big one. Let us remind ourselves who owns that – that is right, the IKEA furniture factory, all profits going to Sweden. Ferrari motor cars – they are legendary for their humanitarian and environmental pursuits, so that is all going to Italy. And how is that going? For Golden Plains I think we have granted permits to dig massive holes in the ground. We have dug rock out. We have completely changed the landscape. We have killed off the brolgas. Wow, it is at about 10 per cent capacity. That is pretty impressive. That is going really well. We can go down a little bit further and look at Macarthur wind farm, for a time the largest wind farm in Australia, with a capacity of about 440 megawatts. What is it doing? It is doing 155, a whisker over 20 per cent of its capacity. Well, that is working really well. That is just a little run-through of the ones in my neighbourhood.

Let us have a look at what is actually working at nearly quarter to 6. Who is doing the heavy lifting? Loy Yang B – full bore, flat out, 570 megawatts. Loy Yang A – all one, two, three, four generators are going flat out. Well, that is pretty handy. What else have we got there? We have got Yallourn – the 350 and 375 are going flat out. Every coal generator in the state today, after literally tens of billions of dollars spent on your solution, is going flat out. And part of your solution is to get rid of them all in the next few years. What suggestion do the Einsteins opposite have to replace all that energy in the next couple of years? They do not have a solution.

They have got the renewable transmission line. I have been in Parliament now for the 10 years you have been talking about it, and you have not struck a blow. You have not even got a finalised plan for that yet. Without the Western Renewables Link you cannot get your renewable energy back to Melbourne, but that seems to have been lost on you, doesn’t it? You are a little bit lost on that idea. I mean, if you are going to generate electricity out in the middle of paddocks and farms all over Australia, you have got to get it to the city, and you have not even been able to get your transmission lines built. You have not even got the plans ready. You have not even yet properly consulted with the communities about how you are going to do that. It is a flawed, immature plan. In fact some might go so far as to say you have got the year 9 kids on a school project trying to design the energy system here in Victoria, because you just have not done the hard work to make it happen. It is impossible at the rate you are going at.

What is not impossible is to actually allow the private sector and a few others to get the solutions on track that will make a difference. For example, in the last 12 years you have issued one permit for gas exploration. The government of the day have issued one permit. There is gas galore out there, and the infrastructure. That is what you call low-cost energy to market – when the infrastructure is already there so you do not have to go and build new pipelines. The pipelines are already there, and you can access them. All you have got to do is get your pen out and sign an approval. They have done all the environment effects statements, which is something this government has an aversion to when it comes to wind farms and solar farms. We have seen the former minister, the now retiring ‘taking the golden handshake’ minister, approve some of these projects without even completing the environment effects statement. It is actually an outrage. We have got this government that views the renewable energy industry as if it is owned and operated by and a fully paid-up subsidiary of the Mother Teresa corporation. They believe they can do no wrong and that they are a bunch of saints that have only the best interests of Victorians at heart. Can I tell you, nothing could be further from the truth. They are just big money-making corporations, like all big money-making corporations.

On the Liberal Party side, we have no problem with companies making money and operating for profit; it is a good thing. But this government is under a delusion that with these guys, just because they are importing large 283-metre-high towers from China, it is okay to give them a free kick and that they are somehow spiritually more divine than the rest of us. But they are not. They are just big companies out making profits, and they need to be properly managed and regulated like any other large company in an area as critical as energy supply. So this bill, like most energy bills this government has put forward, does little to deal with the hard issues at play on something as important to Victorians as good, reliable, safe, clean energy, which is something we all want. But we want a mature government to allow that to grow and develop in a sustainable way, and that simply does not happen.

In the last minute that I have, this bill also deals with mine rehabilitation. Unlike my friends in Pascoe Vale and down in South Melbourne and other elite little areas that do not have to worry about these important industries, I have got a coalmine that this government, in its wisdom, closed in around 2015. Now, in that time, not only has the community wanted something to happen to the old coalmine but the former tenant Alcoa Australia have had tens of millions of dollars allocated for rehabilitation and further future use for that space, and what has this government achieved in the now 11 years since that coalmine was closed? Absolutely zip, nada, nothing – no benefit to society and no benefit to the community. You have got tens of millions of dollars that has been allocated for mine rehabilitation and we have had international groups wanting to repurpose the site for tourism and nature and all sorts of other great purposes that would help reinvigorate the community, and yet this government has not been able to progress a thing.

In conclusion, renewable energy and the transition that we have in our energy sector require a mature government and people that can see all elements, who are working toward the future to make sure the supply is there and who when we are closing up and finishing up with old sources clean up and finish up in a proper, considered way that delivers benefits and long-term outcomes for the community, not half-finished projects going nowhere.

 Nina TAYLOR (Albert Park) (18:42): What is very evident from some of the displays we have seen today is that those opposite absolutely hate the Victorian energy upgrades (VEU) program. They have always detested it and have always opposed it, and this is just another example of them being renewable energy phobic. It is clearly ideological. They talk about how we should have cleaner energy alternatives, and I do not know exactly what that means, because the member for Bulleen was talking about fracking in the Latrobe Valley. We know that on this side we banned fracking, and we made sure that ban was implemented in the constitution. Fracking and farming do not go hand in hand. You cannot say ‘We’re all for farmers’ and then ‘We’re going to frack.’ If that is the opposition’s example of cleaner energy, I am a little confused. I think they might want to revise that, and I have a feeling some people in their seats will not like that either. But maybe I am wrong.

I think the previous member was having a go at Albert Park being somehow elite, but let me tell you, we have a lot of people who live in public housing in my seat. On that note, because of our government I have visited lots of people in public housing, and I have seen where their energy – the gas – has been transitioned to electricity so that they have cheaper energy supply. We actually helped implement these changes, and based on the escalation of gas prices, we can see that our government was thinking ahead of time on behalf of those constituents. So I think we should be a little bit careful about how we are typecasting seats.

I know there are also other constituents in my electorate who are wanting to use their rooftops. I know those opposite think that in our electorates we are all vehemently opposed to having solar and wind in our electorates – wrong. It could not be more wrong, because I have to say I have had a number of constituents regularly talking to me about how they can implement that, whether it is batteries or solar, on their roofs, where they have those big buildings, and if there could be capacity on those roofs to then share the energy with neighbours and so forth. So I think there is a bit of a misconception about the attitude of those in the inner city – and I am just reflecting on where I live, for instance – to renewable energy.

I just want to clarify a few other points pursuant to those interesting opinions, I will say, that were raised opposite. I am not sure there was a lot of fact in them, but I am going to just put it out there that they seemed to be more opinions than facts. The Australian Energy Market Operator have pushed out their predicted gas peak shortfall from 2029 to 2030 due to reduced gas demand because – wait for it ‍– our programs are lowering gas demand. Surely that is a good thing. Are you opposed to that? Do you want us to keep escalating gas demand?

A member interjected.

Nina TAYLOR: Well, yes, it is one choice or the other. There is one way or another you can go with that. I should also say, when we are talking about the acquiring of gas exploration licences, the reason that they are not being issued is because private companies are not actually applying for them, because gas is depleting, as we have been saying. This is a geological question, not an ideological question. I think, again, facts should be the basis upon which we debate these very serious issues. If those opposite are so focused on energy, as they say they are, then perhaps they may want to check the actual residual elements of gas. We are not making this up. Private companies would take advantage, but those resources are depleting. They are not renewable, fundamentally, and that is part of the incentive – I should say a huge incentive – let alone the fact that we want Victorians to actually save. We are here and we are focused on slashing their energy bills, and hence this is a big part of the imperative to transition.

I will also commend other government speakers who have spoken to the fact that climate change is real, but I think those opposite are climate sceptics, because let me tell you, you only have to mention the word ‘wind’. If you just voice it even as the softest and the lowest little note, they freak out – they lose their minds – because they just hate it so much. Yet on the other hand, they really, really warm to the issue of nukes. But let me tell you, if I had the option of a wind farm next to me or a nuclear energy plant, I know which one I would be choosing, because in the event of an incident, one is absolutely catastrophic and takes generations to fully recover – if ever. Having seen a number of factual replications – for instance, the Fukushima Netflix series; I could not believe how bad that was – once it happens, you cannot take it back. People say, ‘Yes, but if they’d done this and they’d done that’ – no, no, no; we have to be really realistic about the danger that is posed by nuclear energy. We do not gloss over it on this side of the house. We also know that having had those catastrophic incidents, it takes many, many years to actually set up nuclear power plants, because in order to make them as safe as possible – and I would not use the word ‘safe’ – it just inevitably ends up blowing out, even with the small modular reactors. I was part of the nuclear energy inquiry into changing where Victoria sits in terms of the exploration of uranium in this state. I have to say it was almost ironic that halfway through the inquiry one of the SMR manufacturers was wanting to launch, but oh no, it all went very bad because they had another setback, and many, many years later these wonderful SMRs that everyone loves the idea of are still not commercially viable. So when you are talking about nuclear, you might want to have a few runs on the board and know that it is a proven entity. When we are talking about SMRs, they are not where they need to be.

The other thing I want to say is that I think the opposition might be underestimating Victorians as well. It is almost insulting them, I should say. The VEU is the largest energy efficiency scheme in the country and has helped more than – get this – 2.4 million households and 180,000 businesses to become more energy-efficient and saved over 96 million tonnes of carbon emissions in the process, saving Victorians on their bills every year. I do not think 2.4 million Victorian households have got it wrong. If you listen to those opposite, you would say they had, but I think there is a little bit of wisdom ‍– actually a lot of wisdom – circulating there, because Victorians can see for themselves the benefits, and they also care about their kids and future generations.

I think we should give our fellow Victorian constituents some credit for their investment and their faith in the Victorian energy upgrades scheme. In 2025 alone more than 147,000 households and 13,000 ‍businesses – are they all wrong as well? I do not think so – received discounted energy-efficient products and services through the VEU. Instead of mocking and jibing at the VEU scheme, maybe go out there and listen to some of the Victorians who have actually benefited from this. I have certainly had the pleasure of visiting some in my seat who, whether they have upgraded to the heat pumps or invested in battery technology through the VEU scheme, are really, really happy about it. They know on the one hand they are saving money, but they are doing something really terrific for the planet as well. I should say in 2025, in the same year, the VEU program cut Victoria’s emissions by 6.9 million tonnes and delivered more than 340,000 discounted energy-efficient upgrades. More than 70,000 ‍households accessed discounted heating and cooling upgrades, a record uptake under the VEU program. In the same year 32,000 households updated their gas hot water systems through the program. Again, 32,000 households – I do not think they have got it wrong; I think they have got it right.

I do want to pay deepest respect to the former Minister for Climate Action and Minister for Energy and Resources Lily D’Ambrosio. She had to stand up to these fossil fuel fools, I should say – fossil fuels and fossil fools – for many a year, but she withstood that pressure. She used science and also the market to back it in, because, guess what, when we are actually talking about –

Members interjecting.

Nina TAYLOR: Yes, that is right. There is actually money to be made in renewables. But also the market is actually what helping us get out of coal; the market is what is driving that. Instead of just saying it is the government – although there are obviously environmental benefits to transitioning from coal to cleaner energy – the market is driving this. Those opposite claim to be the party of private enterprise, but they do not want it when it comes to energy – ‘No, we’ll just ignore the businesses that own coal operators et cetera. We’ll ignore them on that point, because that’s inconvenient. We’ll pick it out when it suits us.’ Well, facts are facts, and I am so pleased the VEU is going strong into the future.

 Martin CAMERON (Morwell) (18:52): What an afternoon it has been. I rise to talk on the Energy and Resources Legislation Amendment (VEET Strategic Review and Other Matters) Bill 2026 going through at the moment. As the member for Morwell, I have three coal-fired power stations in my electorate. I also have the home of the much-vaunted SEC in Morwell. So a lot of the stuff that has been spoken about by members on their feet previously is in my heartland. There are some on the other side that have used a lot of facts and figures that may have some truth or may not have any truth, because you can make figures do and say what you would like them to. I could say that coal, as in lignite, actually comes from trees, which is a renewable product, over thousands of years. So if we want to try and use facts and figures to confuse the situation, we can try and do that in that way.

In the electorate of Morwell in Latrobe Valley, as I said, we do have coal-fired power stations. We will have Yallourn coal-fired power station, which currently provides 22 per cent of our electricity in Victoria, shutting in under two years now. With the transition into renewables, the government in the four years I have been here has been telling us that once the coal-fired power stations shut we will have enough energy in the system. That was all well and good, but it seems to have stalled. Now, when I talk to our energy providers – I do go to Yallourn and I do go to Loy Yang A and Loy Yang B and actually stand in the control room and see where the power comes from and where it is going to, because we do still provide energy to other parts of the state – about what the shortfall is going to be when we lose 20 per cent of our energy system, they have a different aspect on what the government is saying.

We can stand here and we can throw barbs at each other from across the room, but what we are going to find out for certain, come the middle of 2028, is who was right and who was wrong, because at the moment our renewable catch-up, whether it be offshore wind – some of these offshore wind towers that we do talk about are taller than the Rialto building. The Rialto building stands at 251 metres tall, and we are talking about wind turbines that are over 300 metres tall. Currently there are no ships made in the world that can carry the proposed offshore wind components that we do need. We were talking about having them come out of the Port of Hastings. We do not know if that is going to be the case. It could come to fruition that the ships for our offshore wind that is going to help Victoria are going to be coming out of Tasmania, which does not really make any sense at all. There is a long way to go, and we have a short, short, short timeframe, which is ticking down, to see who is right and who is wrong. Unfortunately, with these short timeframes that the Labor government has put on, we have painted ourselves into a corner.

We have generated power for over a hundred years in the Latrobe Valley, and we will continue to do it for another hundred years moving forward, because we have all the infrastructure there, we have the power stations and we have the start of the transmission lines, which feed into metropolitan Melbourne, so we have all the components there. We are going to be using coal-fired power stations into the future, with Loy Yang A and Loy Yang B. Loy Yang A is running until 2035, so we do have another nine years before that one shuts. That is why we will be having to rely heavily on those coal-fired power stations until they do shut.

One of the parts of this legislation which I would like to talk on is part 6, clauses 141 to 145. I might be the only one that is going to talk on this. It is the extended rehabilitation and bond obligations to former authority holders. This takes into account Hazelwood mine. I was at Hazelwood mine late last week, and we were actually talking about the rehabilitation of the mine. We all talk about transitioning out of coal-fired power stations, but on the flip side, which we do not get a lot of rhetoric on from the Labor government, there is the actual rehabilitation of the mines, because we need to return them to what they were as we speak. One of the issues with the environment effects statement on the Hazelwood mine at the moment is that they are still waiting for it to be passed here in Parliament. ENGIE, who are doing the rehabilitation of the mine, are getting very close to the point where they have actually done a lot of mine rehabilitation. I am not sure if you have been past the old Hazelwood mine site. It is absolutely massive. The amount of work they have done is a credit to them so far. But the stalling of the EES is going to make it very hard for them to keep the workforce and to continue that work. Even though we are talking on energy and resources here today, we do need to turn an eye to make sure that the rehabilitation of the mine does not get caught up with the election and slowed down. It does not matter which side wins government, we need to make sure that that EES travels along as prudently as possible so works can continue on the mine.

Turning my attention with what little time we do have left to the bringing back of the SEC, I have got this beautiful, big, shiny building in Morwell with limited staff members, and we really are flummoxed a little bit about what it actually does provide for our community.

Business interrupted under sessional orders.