Wednesday, 1 November 2023

Bills

Planning and Environment Amendment (Soil Protection) (Solar Power Generation Facilities) Bill 2023

Second reading

Debate resumed on motion of Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell:

That the bill be now read a second time.

Ryan BATCHELOR (Southern Metropolitan) (15:28): I am pleased to rise to make a contribution on the private members bill moved by Mrs Tyrrell, the Planning and Environment Amendment (Soil Protection) (Solar Power Generation Facilities) Bill 2023. The bill proposes to amend the Planning and Environment Act 1987 to provide for the mandatory consideration of soil and waterway protection when making a determination on applications for permits relating to solar energy generation facilities in the state of Victoria. It does this in a relatively succinct set of measures – it is a short private members bill – by inserting into the Planning and Environment Act mandatory requirements for planning authorities to consider a series of matters when making decisions on planning applications to grant or make a decision on permits that allow for the use or development of land for solar energy generation, and it seeks to require that for particular types of land where these solar generation facilities are proposed to be located these considerations would apply.

The land that the private members bill seeks to specify that these new planning provisions would apply to would be agricultural land, any land liable to flooding as it is defined in the Water Act 1989, bushfire-prone land as it is defined in the Building Act 1993 but also land in water supply areas – land on which water is required for domestic and stock use within the meaning of the Water Act where those certain facilities are located. The bill is an attempt to effectively change the planning framework ‍– and its effect would be to do this – to try and frustrate the development of new solar facilities in parts of Victoria. It essentially attempts to block or frustrate or put in place new, more onerous requirements for the construction of solar facilities in parts of the state where farming activities occur. That is the large intent of this bill.

The bill would have us believe that you cannot have solar energy production and you cannot have solar power generation and farming coexisting, particularly in areas that might be prone to bushfire risk or might be prone to flooding or in a water supply area. It is just not right that those two activities are incompatible, but it also has the real, practical effect of removing the opportunity for solar generation across large parts of Victoria and would stymie the development of new solar generation and new renewable energy in many parts of the state, particularly in many of our renewable energy zones. Solar production and agricultural production are not incompatible with one another. In fact they can work together to improve the productive use of agricultural land to make the production of our food on our agricultural land more efficient and cheaper through the use of the best free and renewable energy supply we have got in the sun. To prevent rural Victorians from taking advantage of solar energy would be to deny them the great opportunity that awaits them and this state more broadly.

Probably more problematic than just the perverse outcomes that are intended by this bill is that it is simply not based on any evidence whatsoever. It sets up a false choice: asking us to choose between the benefits of solar energy and energy transition or agricultural land use when the two things are not incompatible. In fact they are very much compatible and will enable great benefits across the state both for those involved with the agricultural sector and for Victorians more broadly. That is the fundamental reason why we on this side are opposed to this bill.

It is not just the government that believes that there is no incompatibility between solar energy production and use of our land in these sorts of areas. The Greater Shepparton City Council recently undertook some research into the impacts of large-scale solar farms in irrigated areas. One of the things that this bill seeks to do is to reduce the ability for solar energy production to occur in irrigated areas. The research done by the Greater Shepparton City Council – so not by the state government but by a local authority in one of these areas – found that the likely impact on the Goulburn–Murray irrigation district of solar farms in terms of the irrigation network integrity and future liability is negligible. It concluded that up to 20 large-scale solar farms could be accommodated in the Shepparton and the east Goulburn–Murray irrigation district area – not from the state government but from a local government on the ground in these communities doing independent research on whether solar production and agricultural land use are compatible, and they absolutely found that they were.

This goes to the fundamental core, the fundamental reason, why this bill is misguided. Protecting agricultural land does not require the exclusion of solar energy facilities, and we know from experience that large-scale solar farms can be complementary to farming and agricultural production, because agricultural production can benefit and does benefit from solar energy. There are a range of benefits that the construction of these facilities can provide in localised areas. They can do a range of things to assist farmers in the management of their land, but using the installation, putting solar arrays into their properties, can provide additional income sources for our food and fibre producers, providing for and improving the resilience of their financial arrangements so that they have things which are less vulnerable to the often too familiar ups and downs that may occur.

That is in the here and now, but we do know more broadly that in many respects farmers stand to lose the most from the negative effects of climate change. More broadly we know that as our climate changes and as our weather patterns change, it is those who rely on the land that have the potential to be some of the greatest-affected by those changes – whether that is by increased extreme weather events, higher incidence of flooding, more and more extensive drought – and that farmers are some of those groups that will be most affected by the rapid changes that we are seeing in our climate. So then not only does solar energy generation have the potential to benefit agricultural land production in the here and now, but doing our bit – and everyone doing their bit – to transition our economy away from carbon-intensive emissions energy production means that we can do our bit to slow the pace of our climate changing, and our agricultural sector will be a beneficiary of that change.

By allowing this bill to proceed we would eliminate the possibility of solar energy generation across a large share of Victoria’s agricultural lands, which would not only stop and prevent the diversification of farm production but also stand in the way of farmers using their land for the purposes that they deem most appropriate – I know matters that are dear to the hearts of many of his chamber, including you, Acting President McArthur. That is going to have wider benefits for the community and help our energy transition, which will benefit the agricultural production sector, our farming community, in the medium to long term.

The bill fundamentally is not in the interests of agricultural production, it is not in the interests of farmers and it is not in the interests of all Victorians, because all of us in this state, in this nation and in this world know that we need to do something about the fact that our climate is changing, that we need to take action to ensure that the energy we are using for our daily lives is transitioned away from carbon-intensive, emissions-intensive forms of generation – the burning of fossil fuels being the primary driver of that – and more towards renewable sources of energy, like solar and like wind. It is the direction for transition in our energy market which is demonstrating this government’s and the state’s commitment to taking action on climate change.

The transitions that are underway in our energy sector are extremely significant. Victoria is absolutely leading the nation in transitioning our economy from one based on emissions-intensive energy production and electricity production to one focusing increasingly on renewable forms of energy. We have got in Victoria over 1 gigawatt of large-scale solar operating right now, with a further 1.7 gigawatts in the planning process. They are significant amounts of energy production from large-scale solar facilities right now in Victoria that are either operating or in the process of operating. To give you a sense of perspective, that is the equivalent of about two Yallourn power stations worth of additional capacity coming into the sector, coming into the energy market.

The government through its policy settings has enabled and is enabling our transition towards renewable energy generation. In fact across Victoria in total we have nearly 6 gigawatts of operating renewable energy capacity across solar, wind, battery and bioenergy, which is about three Hazelwood power stations worth of renewable energy going into our grid, powering our homes, powering our industry and powering our farms. That is exceptionally important to be a part of, and it is exceptionally important for the state to recognise the significant benefit that is having for our economy. It is also helping to keep our lights on. We know that increasingly the old coal-fired power stations that Victoria has relied on for so long are showing their age. They are having more problems meeting demand and they are having more problems keeping going because of their age and the outdated nature of their technologies, and we know that the operators of these existing coal-fired power stations have announced that they will be exiting by 2035. We need not to put more hurdles, as this bill would do, in the way of transitioning to a renewable-led energy sector, but to support it, so this bill would be incompatible with the policy direction that the state not only should be proceeding on but needs to be to make sure that we have got the energy system and the energy production necessary to meet our state’s needs as we move away from coal-fired power stations into the renewable sector.

The scope and pace of the transformation that we are seeing here in Victoria I think is something that does bear some remarking upon. We have a commitment, one of our many targets, that we want to make 95 per cent of renewable electricity here in Victoria by 2035. Last year we had already achieved 35 per cent of our electricity being generated from renewables here in Victoria, so in 2022 it was 35 per cent of our electricity generated in Victoria that came from renewable sources. Just to show you the impact that government policy has on this trajectory, in 2014 when the Labor government came to power it was just 10 per cent, so between 2014 and 2022 the percentage of our electricity generated from renewables went from 10 per cent to 35 per cent. And the pace of change continues. We are seeing this year so far 36.5 per cent of our grid made up of renewable energy, so it is absolutely without question that the state is on track and well on its way to meeting our target of 50 per cent renewable energy by 2030.

In articulating the pace of our success I want to acknowledge the extraordinary hard work and determination of the Minister for Energy and Resources, the member for Mill Park in the other place, Lily D’Ambrosio, who is an absolute powerhouse of renewable power. She is a powerhouse of renewable power for this state, and no-one is working harder than Minister D’Ambrosio to ensure that Victoria is generating the renewable energy we need to not only meet our climate goals but keep the lights on and be there for when the coal-fired power stations stop working.

Not only is this rapid transformation in our energy sector generating power, it is also creating jobs, and that has been part and parcel of what the Labor government has been focused on for the last eight, nearly nine, years – both a transformation of our electricity sector to meet our climate targets and making sure that Victorians get the benefit of that transformation with good, high-skilled jobs. We have created more than 5000 jobs in large-scale renewable energy since we were elected. This bill would put a hurdle on job creation in renewable energy in this state, and we are not willing to stand in the way of people getting jobs in renewable energy, which is exactly what this legislation would do.

Part of the challenge of transitioning our energy sector and our energy market away from its reliance on carbon-intensive sources of electricity generation, historically concentrated in certain parts of the state, is that we need to build renewable energy where the sources of that energy are best harnessed – places where the sun might shine, places where the wind might blow. In order to support those we have created six renewable energy zones, all the way from sunny Mildura to the very wild and windy coast off Gippsland. To support that, there is an investment in the grid, because there is no point generating the power if you cannot get it to the people who are using it, and that is why the government will invest $540 million over the next four years – more than any other state – to support these renewable energy zones and support the infrastructure that goes with them to ensure that the transformation that we are making in our energy production can bring that energy to our consumers, our households and our industry, to the people who need it and use it. This plan, with the renewable energy zones, has the potential to unlock around 10 gigawatts of new renewable energy across our energy system.

We know that the climate needs it. We know that renewable energy is cheaper and better for households and we know that it creates jobs, and to deliver it, not only do we need to transform the sources of production, which we are doing, which we are supporting and which this bill would put a roadblock and a hurdle in front of, but we are investing in the network infrastructure and in the grid connections to get that renewable energy from where it is being produced to where it is required. So I think we can say quite comprehensively that the policy framework around energy production that this government has been championing has made Victoria a nation leader. I should say, we are decarbonising as a consequence of the policy action that the state Labor government is undertaking, and we are decarbonising at the fastest rate in the country – most ambitious plan, fastest rates of decarbonisation – and this is all since the government was first elected in 2014. We have cut emissions more than any other state. I think this demonstrates to you the absolute benefits that you get when you have got a government that is committed to renewable energy transition, the jobs that it creates and the cheaper power bills that come with it and why the government resists moves like this in the legislation before it that would prevent those plans coming into fruition.

Obviously there are matters in the community that have led Mrs Tyrrell to propose this private members bill here, and I think it is important to take just a moment to dispel some of the myths that may exist in relation to how landowners – farmers – engage with the process of establishing large-scale solar facilities. In the context of the debate it was alleged that farmers are locked out of decision-making around solar farms on their land, and that is not true. Farmers are not forced to house renewable energy generation of any type on their land. Whilst some in the course of public debate might not like to acknowledge it, as I said before, we know that farmers are at the front line of climate change impacts, and that is what motivates many of them to choose to house solar on their property. The concern that I have with the framing of the debate in the way it has been done, both by those who moved this legislation in this place but also more broadly by those in the community who have raised fear about the renewable energy transition, is that it is just an exercise in localised fearmongering that is not founded in fact. There is no evidence, no case study – nothing – that warrants the passage of this legislation. It is just fearmongering not based in reality.

As we know, what is real are the effects that climate change is having on our community and the realisation that many are having that we need to make the changes that the government is doing to ensure that we have got the energy that we need to meet both our targets and also our obligations to keep enough electricity being generated in this state and across the national energy market to ensure that occurs. More broadly than just the issues around the matters that this bill seeks to deal with, the government absolutely is committed to protecting agricultural land, recognising and supporting irrigation districts and ensuring that our regions remain some of the world-leading producers of food and fibre that they are.

We already have mechanisms in place to ensure that the decision-making around the development of new large-scale solar facilities on land is done in an appropriate and considered way that takes into account the kind of issues that can legitimately concern people. It is a fact that any application for a solar energy facility is assessed against the requirements of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 and against state and local planning policy. We take into account the planning schemes, we take into account planning policy and the requirements of the Planning and Environment Act when assessing applications for new solar farms on all types of land, but it is clear that the state planning policy does not regard agriculture and renewable energy as incompatible land uses. Where a permit is required for a renewable energy facility, the Minister for Planning must consider the impact of the proposal on strategically important agricultural land, particularly within a declared irrigation district, and any proposals in the farming zone also require consideration against the requirements of the purpose of the zone, which is to encourage use and development of land based on comprehensive and sustainable land management practices and infrastructure provision.

The existing rules already require these matters to be taken into consideration. As I mentioned at the start of my contribution, we know that we have had independent studies undertaken by the City of Greater Shepparton that found there was no impact between the matters in the irrigation zones in their part of the world and the possibility of solar production occurring in the area. To suggest otherwise is not relying on facts, it is relying on fear, and we do not think that is a solid basis on which to legislate. We do not think that that is a solid basis on which we should be making decisions about how to best continue Victoria’s great strength in agricultural production and continue Victoria’s great strength in renewable energy generation.

As evidenced by this bill being here in the first place, it is clear that there are some in the community who have concerns. I hope that the contribution that I have made in the course of this debate and the contributions that other government members also make in the course of this debate will demonstrate that the government is fundamentally committed to supporting our farming community – our farming and agricultural sector – and that we recognise that farming practices are not incompatible with renewable energy generation whatsoever, that our planning regime already has requirements in it to take into account strategically important land use when making decisions about large-scale solar facilities and, more fundamentally and most fundamentally I think, that the government recognises that farmers stand to lose a lot from the effects of climate change.

The way our climate changes, as extreme weather events become more common, as rain falls more frequently and with greater intensity and as our summers get drier and bushfire risk increases, is making the ability to keep once productive land in the same productive use more difficult, and that is recognised across the board in the agricultural community. We can do our bit by transitioning our economy away from carbon-intensive electricity generation, and that is exactly what this government is doing faster than any other jurisdiction in this country. This bill will make that job harder, and that is why we do not support it.

Georgie CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan) (15:58): I rise to speak to the Planning and Environment Amendment (Soil Protection) (Solar Power Generation Facilities) Bill 2023, which has been introduced into this place by Mrs Tyrrell from One Nation in relation to concerns, I understand, that have been raised by constituents that she has been speaking with. What this bill plans to do is amend the Planning and Environment Act 1987 to provide for the mandatory consideration of soil and waterway protection when making the determination of applications for permits relating to solar energy generation facilities and for other purposes. As has been highlighted by Mrs Tyrrell, it primarily seeks to protect agricultural land, soils, waterways and the environment to ensure that land can be utilised to its best purposes.

The main purposes of this bill are to amend the Planning and Environment Act 1987, as I have said, to require responsible authorities to consider certain factors before granting a permit to use and develop land for the purposes of a solar energy generation facility and to prevent the grant of a permit to use or develop land for the purposes of a solar energy generation facility if that land meets certain specified criteria. That responsible authority must not grant a permit that allows the use or development of land for a solar energy generation facility if the land meets – I think the original bill said two criteria, but there is an amendment to be put to that – three of the criteria, as would be outlined in the bill, those criteria being that the land is agricultural land, the land is a water supply area, the land is bushfire-prone land and the land is an area of land liable to flooding. They are the absolutely well-meaning intents for what this bill is trying to protect – ensuring that, as I said, they meet three or more of those criteria that I have highlighted. We think that these are some very legitimate concerns.

In saying that, we do also understand that there is a need for renewable energy development and that solar farms are a part of that make-up, and solar farms are already in existence. But to go to the points that Mrs Tyrrell raises in terms of contamination and breakdown of those solar panels and what happens to soil and water contamination, I think they are very legitimate concerns, and any responsible landowner would also understand that. Landowners are very conscious of the degradation of their own land, and they do not want to diminish it in any way in almost all cases. So it is reasonable to be understanding the protections that need to be put in place.

Whilst there have been enormous improvements technologically around solar farms and solar panels over the years, there is that component around the contamination that has been raised. I know from my own personal experience, we had solar panels back in the late 1980s and early 90s that powered some of our energy needs on our farm. I grew up in a time when there was not electricity coming to the farm, but we would have a diesel generator, and blackouts were quite common. God forbid we go back to those days when blackouts occurred and you would have to crank up the kerosene stove and get out the candles and kerosene lamps, and that was how you powered your house – that was how you lit the house. But that was how we lived before powerlines were put across the state.

Saying that, I make the point because as we have evolved, so has technological advancement, and so too in solar. I note that the VFF, in terms of what they say about solar farms and renewable energy, want the state to create a strategic plan around renewable energy, and I think that is a prudent point for the VFF, the Victorian Farmers Federation, to make. Looking at those areas and looking at where land is not suitable to have solar farms, the loss of productive land and how to improve distribution systems are very much part of the concerns that they have highlighted as we work towards this renewable energy phase that the society that we live in is going through.

So there are proactive actions to generate energy, and that is all well and good. Landowners should have a say over how their land is used, as long as it is not infringing upon others in a vastly detrimental way, and there is debate about that in relation to wind farms and other things. We have had lots of debate about that and how that has impacted on communities, how it has divided communities and how concerns have been ignored by government, and I think it is to the detriment of government to ignore some of those concerns, especially around aspects that have impacted individuals and communities.

Nevertheless, it goes to the point of distribution lines, and I know that Mrs McArthur and others have spoken about distribution lines and what is going to have that impact on agricultural land, what the impact on those communities is, and for that productive land – about distribution lines and how that will be implemented. The government has fallen short on that. They have really not consulted with communities. They have not really brought communities along with them. It has been ‘my way or the highway’, and they have just pushed on. It is a contentious issue, in many instances, around how we manage this. I note that the government members think that they are pushing towards this and they are leading the way, but they are not bringing community with them in many instances. I think that is a pity. I think they could have done a lot better than just assuming they know best and pushing forward and rolling over communities without that consultation that I have mentioned.

To get back to this bill, it is, as I said, looking at a very important element around the contamination purposes of solar farms and the impact on productive land and how solar farms and solar panels, should they break down, can have an impact, and even the run-off of solar panels has an impact too on the environment through soil and water contamination. That is why the opposition has flagged that this bill should go off to a committee to look at these very aspects. It is a sensible measure to take in relation to having a look at the environmental impacts that renewable energy solar farms could have, and I do not think that that is an unreasonable ask for this house to support. What I would be proposing when we get to that point of the debate is that I move a motion, in Mr Davis’s name:

That this house:

(1) requires the Environment and Planning Committee to inquire into, consider and report, by 31 May 2024, on the Planning and Environment Amendment (Soil Protection) (Solar Power Generation Facilities) Bill 2023, including:

(a) the need to ensure key agricultural land has clear protections and what these protections should be;

(b) which of these protections should be included within the bill;

(c) the most appropriate planning and environmental protection regime for large-scale solar energy production to both protect the environment and agricultural land but also to provide certainty to the solar energy generation sector;

(d) the most appropriate planning and environmental arrangements for powerline transmission of expanded renewable energy production; and

(2) requests that, in undertaking this inquiry, the committee hold hearings and take evidence in regional Victoria.

It is a very sensible referral – around this bill that we are debating today – to have an inquiry to look into these aspects. Mrs Tyrrell has brought this bill into the house, and she has raised concerns. And actually, if you take that away, these concerns are concerns that many members of the Victorian community have. This inquiry would be able to undertake hearings with those affected communities to get their input and therefore look at the bill and use that as a basis, as a platform, for what needs to be done. Let that committee do its work and then come back to the house and amend this bill, if need be, depending on the hearings, findings and recommendations of the committee, and really get the house to debate that and have a look at it. I think that is a prudent way forward, and I think it would give certainty to a whole range of issues that Mrs Tyrrell has alluded to and raised in her debate around the protective mechanisms, what key protections agricultural land has and needs to have, what should be included in the bill and what impact the environmental planning and protection regime for these large-scale solar farms will have.

Some in this chamber understand that they are very large and they do have impacts on communities and their neighbours. If a bushfire gets through one of these big farms, it is hard. And what about the destruction of the panels? What happens in that instance? I am really not sure what the EPA and others have said about that, how it is managed or, as Mrs Tyrrell has raised, what the risk is to firefighters, the CFA and our volunteers and the impacts. The unions have a very strong stance around going into built-up environments and having protections against asbestos and other flammable materials when they are fighting fires. Well, why shouldn’t our CFA volunteers have those same protections? That is what this inquiry would look at and really tease out and determine – the risks to those volunteers and others if they do have to fight a fire where a large-scale solar farm is located. That would be a good thing. That is being proactive before these solar farms are actually in place and we have that impact. Now, we have just heard Mr Ryan talk about climate change and the impacts and why we need renewable energy.

Tom McIntosh: Mr Batchelor.

Georgie CROZIER: Mr Batchelor. Who did I say? Mr Ryan. Sorry, Mr Batchelor. Mr Batchelor was talking about renewable energy. That is all well and good, but there are these environmental impacts and there are health impacts to individuals who are going to be dealing with bushfires. Victoria is very prone to bushfires; this is nothing new. We have had bushfires since day dot. There will be bushfires this year. There will be bushfires in the years to come, but if you have got these large structures in place with flammable and potentially dangerous materials, then surely you want to know how to manage that. That is what this inquiry would look at. I think that is also an important aspect. And of course there is the powerline transmission for the expanded renewable energy production, which really the government has failed to address. It has been a very contentious issue and one that has many communities rightly railing against the government because of a lack of consultation and a lack of information and just the direction that the government continues to take without taking into consideration those concerns.

I would like to say that whilst there are many, many elements in this bill, the opposition does have concerns around the narrowness of the bill. That is why we think it needs to go to an inquiry – to tease out some of those concerns and make sure that the Parliament gets it right when passing legislation such as this. Again, I thank Mrs Tyrrell for bringing it to the house’s attention and for putting the debate forward. I think there are many important aspects, and I think that the community that it will be affecting will benefit greatly by having that ability to come before hearings conducted by the Parliament.

Jacinta ERMACORA (Western Victoria) (16:13): I speak today against this bill. Before I get into the reasons why, I would like to say from the outset that some of the broader themes and the principles that are drawn upon in the bill are absolutely worthwhile and not disputable. I too am passionate about ensuring our precious agricultural land is protected for future generations. Certainly being the child of several generations of European farmers, I know their story. I know intergenerational stories. There was a great focus on bringing the European approach to farming from my grandparents and my great-grandparents, and it was depending on the seasonal variation as to whether or not that worked. Occasionally using European farming methods worked brilliantly and other times it did not. Indeed in my part of the world in particular we host some of the most highly productive food and fibre land in the country. This is a big part of why the south-west and the Western District of Victoria is so special.

But while I identify with some of the overarching aims, it is in the substantive detail that this bill diverges for me. To imply that agricultural land and the livelihoods of many thousands of Victorian families is somehow under threat from solar farms is probably bordering on a bit of scaremongering. It is just out of proportion to what is actually going on on the ground. Our farmers and our farming communities deserve clear information and not scaremongering or fear for no reason. As others have mentioned – and I acknowledge Mr Batchelor’s contribution – the Clean Energy Council have done the maths on this issue. They found that in the incredibly unlikely scenario that solar alone were used to replace our aging coal-fired power stations, the amount of land needed across Australia for solar energy generation would be around 0.016 per cent of our nation’s total land area or about 0.027 per cent of the land currently used for agriculture. Those numbers bear repeating: in the most unlikely scenario possible, solar would require a total of 0.027 per cent of land currently used for agriculture. To put that in maybe a kilometre parallel, that is 36 kilometres out of 227,000 kilometres, so I think the word ‘proportion’ is the right way to think about this. It means that while the land potentially required for solar would be an incredibly small share of our nation, the impact of this bill on the state’s clean energy future would actually be enormous.

This bill would have us believe that the coexistence of solar and agriculture is impossible – that it needs to be a mutually exclusive choice between either solar and its benefits or preserving our precious farmland. And this is where I think we are facing a false dichotomy. As producers in my own district will say, our state’s solar energy efforts should not compromise our clean, green agricultural industry. In fact they can and often do cohabit quite happily. There is a long list of potential benefits for farmers ‍– providing livestock with shade and protection from weather and predators, improving growing conditions for certain crops – but for many of our food and fibre producers it is a simple dollars-and-cents proposition, with solar providing an additional and much-needed income. Where you have one of the farmers working off-farm, which is what we usually call it – for instance, working as a teacher or a nurse, off the farm – some farms and families benefit incredibly from that off-farm income. And there is no doubt that farmers benefit from the payments that they receive from wind turbines and in this case solar as well.

This bill also fails to recognise the impacts of climate change that are being felt first and foremost by our farmers. They are truly Victoria’s front line in this global crisis, witnessing firsthand our changing weather patterns and feeling deeply its impact on their land. Farmers are trialling native pastures, planting riparian zones along waterways and updating livestock-watering strategies, and this is why many farmers are actively choosing to be part of our state’s solar program. It is absolutely a choice. This bill suggests that farmers are somehow being locked out of the decision-making process, forced to host solar farms on their land, and this is simply not true. In fact if this bill had its way, there would be no decision-making process at all, entirely eliminating the possibility of solar across much of our state’s agricultural land.

This bill also fails to recognise the incredible and ongoing technological advancements in this space. Indeed, because of some of those advancements, land is not even necessary as a component for solar anymore. Around this time last year – I think it was a bit earlier actually; I cannot tell you the month ‍– I was very proud to host our brilliant Minister for Water on a visit to what will be Australia’s largest floating solar array in Warrnambool.

Members interjecting.

Jacinta ERMACORA: It sounds like it is a race. The floating solar panels are being constructed by Wannon Water on their raw water storage dam called Brierly Basin. Part of our commitment to supporting our state’s water corporations to reach net zero by 2035, this project will not only help reduce emissions but keep water bills low for local Wannon Water customers. Floating solar is already being used to great success around the world, particularly in nations that are short on suitable land for large-scale solar farms. The inherent benefits of this technology are pretty obvious, with panels harvesting significantly higher yields of energy because of the reflection of light from the water’s surface. Wannon Water’s $1.4 million investment at Brierly Basin is just one part of our much bigger renewable energy agenda under construction in the government sector and in the private sector across this state.

In 2022 more than one-third of electricity generated in our state came from renewables, more than tripling the 10 per cent we inherited when we came to government in 2014. In the year to date 36.5 per cent of Victoria’s grid is made up of renewable energy. Under our watch 59 new renewable energy projects, equivalent to more than 4400 megawatts, have come on line. A further nine projects are currently under construction across our state. That is something else this bill does not recognise – our investments in renewables are driving new regional jobs, and I note the acknowledgement of this by my colleague Mr Batchelor. More than 5000 jobs in large-scale renewable energy have been created since we came to government. That is thousands and thousands of Victorians who now have good, secure employment as a result of our investments. This bill would put those jobs at risk – it would most certainly put most of those jobs at risk – but it would also risk the long-term energy security of our state. Right now in Victoria there is more than 1 gigawatt of large-scale solar in operation, with an additional 1.7 gigawatts currently in the planning process, which has already been stated by my colleague. That is the equivalent of almost two Yallourn power stations. It means that across our state a combination of solar, wind, battery and bioenergy are quite literally keeping the lights on. Unlike this bill, the Allan Labor government understands that solar will be an essential part of Victoria’s sustainable and reliable energy future, because as those ageing coal-fired power stations retire in coming years, we need to replace them.

I am proud to say that the federal Labor government has begun work to establish Australia’s first offshore wind zones. There will be six new offshore wind zones around the country, and two of them will be in Victoria: one off, to quote Mr Batchelor, the very extremely windy Gippsland coast and the other off the not so windy but beautiful western coast.

Wendy Lovell interjected.

Jacinta ERMACORA: I had to say it, Wendy. These zones are dedicated to ensuring we have the renewable energy we need to continue powering our state while at the same time ensuring affordable and reliable electricity for Victorians. It is no coincidence that Victoria is proposed to get two of these zones. We are the state with the greatest carbon neutrality ambitions and targets, so it is no surprise that the investment is occurring in our state and no surprise that these investments are resulting in new jobs.

These zones are also underpinned by what this bill purports to care about – careful planning. For many of the reasons I and others have outlined, it is clear that, at best, this bill is a blunt instrument that will deny farmers the choice to receive revenue from solar farms if they want to. At worst, it is a veiled attempt at scaremongering, and I think accurate information is really important for everybody.

On this side of the chamber we refuse to be distracted. We know we can do both: continue to invest in the renewable energy that our state needs and continue to back our rural and outer regional Victorians and our food and fibre sector.

Sarah MANSFIELD (Western Victoria) (16:27): I rise to speak on the bill that has been presented by Mrs Tyrrell today. The Greens will not be supporting this bill, but I acknowledge the work that has gone into putting this forward. It is always a huge amount of effort to put a bill together.

I think I will start by clearing up some misconceptions just very briefly about solar generation facilities. We have heard from a number of other speakers about some of those misconceptions, but I think it is important because discussions like this can lead to potentially some misinformation that is not always helpful in the discussion about what the pros and cons of these sorts of facilities are. We acknowledge that no form of energy production is completely free of impacts on the environment. However, solar panels have a much lower risk of toxicity to the land and waterways than coal production, so we have to remember that. I really welcome the coalition’s new-found interest in the environment and protecting our soil and waterways. It is somewhat curious that it has only emerged very recently in the context of renewables and the impact that they may have on the environment, because it was not there recently when we debated mining legislation. It has not been there when we have debated water policy on many occasions. It has not been there with native forest logging, with the protection of habitat from pests and feral animals. And all the while they have continued to support the fossil fuel industry, including heavily subsidising it over decades. So I really welcome this change and this turnaround. I hope it continues. We would love to work with you on strengthened environmental protections, but forgive me if I am somewhat cynical about the motivations for this one.

Bev McArthur: Shame you didn’t support the transmission line inquiry. That really would have affected the environment.

Sarah MANSFIELD: It is very similar, Mrs McArthur. While it is reasonable to have concerns about heavy metals such as cadmium telluride, or CdTe, it is important to keep this in perspective. Only about 5 per cent of solar panels in Australia are made with CdTe, and it is encapsulated in glass when it is in operation. The key concerns around contamination arise during disposal or destruction of panels, and I know this was mentioned by Mrs Tyrrell. This is another area where we agree more could be done around the safe disposal of solar panels, but it is not something that is addressed by this bill. It is also worth recognising that innovation in conservation and agricultural production alongside solar infrastructure is growing. There are new opportunities for agrivoltaic farming or agrisolar, particularly alongside sheep grazing. I believe that further symbiosis between renewables and farming will be developed as innovations progress.

Fundamental to our opposition to this bill are concerns that, given the broad-ranging definitions it uses of ‘agriculture’, ‘water supply’, ‘bushfire’ and ‘flooding’, it would in effect prevent development of new solar projects in most of Victoria, even with some changes to that threshold. Rather than assess each project on its merits, this bill uses a blunt approach, as Ms Ermacora alluded to earlier. It would stop many projects before they even get a chance to be looked at in detail, and it would deter investment in renewables, which we cannot afford given the current climate emergency.

This bill also takes away the rights of landholders to decide the best use of their land, which is something that I think many MPs with farming ties should be concerned about. It removes their ability to take advantage of landholder payments and benefit schemes put in place by renewable energy projects. Part of adaptation and the journey towards renewables has got to be working alongside communities and the environment. We do not dispute that, and the government needs to be doing a better job of this. We have advocated strongly for improved consultation and collaboration with traditional owners, landholders, regional communities and environmental groups and a more proactive and transparent information-sharing process to prevent voids that can be filled and are being filled with misinformation.

Social licence is a key factor that will facilitate the renewables transition, but we do not believe that the prescriptive nature of this legislation or the effect of it is the best way to deal with these issues, and for all of these reasons we will not be supporting the bill.

Wendy LOVELL (Northern Victoria) (16:32): I rise to speak to this debate, and I wholeheartedly support the recommendation to refer this bill to a committee for it to be looked at more holistically. Like Mrs Tyrrell, I share some concerns around the location of solar farms on prime agricultural land. In fact I received an email from the Meadow Creek Agricultural Community Action Group, from John Conroy and Ange Godley, just last Friday encouraging support for this particular bill. They said that they were calling for strong government regulations to be put in place to stop scenarios like this particular solar farm at Meadow Creek, which is a rather large facility that is going in there, from going ahead. They said that they did acknowledge the importance of a net zero goal but that they have grave concerns about sacrificing prime agricultural land, and they also said that they did not advocate for halting power generation efforts but called for foresight in preserving vital agriculture and water catchment assets, and I think that is where I am actually at. I certainly, like all of my colleagues in the Liberals and the Nationals, support solar generation and the progress of solar-generated power, but I am very concerned about the impact that this is having in my region.

I know that Mrs Tyrrell mentioned the Bobinawarrah facility in her second-reading speech and that it covers 566 hectares, which is a very large area, comprises portions of Wangaratta’s domestic catchment supply, has bushfire-prone overlays and flood zones and is land that has previously been earmarked as strategic agricultural land in the Hume Regional Growth Plan. This area is in the very highly productive King Valley, and of course the King Valley producers are concerned about this proposal. This is not the first proposal that I have seen people concerned about on prime agricultural land. In many of the applications from around Greater Shepparton there has been grave concern about it, because not only is it on prime agricultural land, it is on prime irrigated agricultural land. As we know, the government have reduced the footprint of the irrigation area significantly and we now have far less irrigated agricultural land, and our country is going to need more food into the future. We are going to be required to produce more food on a smaller portion of the land, so it is very important that that land that is irrigated is protected for agricultural production. But of course as we know, those who are proponents of new solar farms are always wanting to be close to the grid and close to the substations for feeding the power into the grid, so therefore they do not care about what the land is currently being used for. There are large swathes of land in my electorate that would be perfect for solar farms. We have more sunshine than anywhere else in this state, and this could be a great growth opportunity for us in the north. But we do have to be very careful about protecting our prime agricultural land and particularly our prime irrigated agricultural land.

Mrs Tyrrell raised that the CFA have raised with her their concerns around some of these facilities and their ability to deal with these facilities should there be a fire. The CFA have not actually raised this with me about solar farms, but they have raised their concerns around solar batteries and their ability to extinguish those. I would imagine this is very similar to the solar farms if there was a fire – the ability to put a fire out on those facilities. Also, these facilities go for acres and acres and acres. I am not sure that all of our CFA brigades would have the capacity to fight a fire on such a large scale and over such a large area. We know that aerial appliances are needed when we have a fire in some of our coolstores et cetera. A fire on one of these large solar farms could be quite difficult for them to deal with.

These are not things that we should decide within this chamber just based on what we are thinking at the time. These are things that we should really look into. That is why I support the motion to refer this bill to the Environment and Planning Committee – so that we can look at all of this further, so that we can look at the effects that solar facilities being located on prime agricultural land may have on our ability to produce food in this state and the impact on agriculture, so we can look at what it might do. One of the concerns that was raised with me by some orchardists in the Goulburn Valley about a solar farm that was planned next to them was that they claimed it would raise the ambient temperature in the area and so the adjoining orchards could be severely impacted. These are things that we should look at in detail. We should refer this to the committee so that the committee can look at the impact on agriculture and so that it can look at the impact on soils. And certainly if it is right that these facilities could be leaking into our soils and into our water supplies, then it should be something that we are all very, very concerned about, and that is why it should be looked at in further detail. So with those few words, I say that I support the motion to refer this to the Environment and Planning Committee.

Tom McINTOSH (Eastern Victoria) (16:38): I stand to speak against the bill that is before us today. I do so with respect to those that have put it together. However, I want to start with the problem. I want to start with the situation that has been coming at us like a slow-moving train – and that train is getting faster and faster – for the last 30 or 40 years, and that is climate change. One of the big groups of people who are going to be impacted most significantly through climate change – and we are already seeing the impacts – are farmers. It is critically important not only to our farmers but to their communities and to the economic productivity of our state, of our nation, that our farmers have the conditions they need to grow crops, to run livestock for their produce and to do it in the most consistent manner possible, that being with the least amount of drought and the most stable climate possible to grow their produce, because as we have seen, when we have drought, farmers do not make profit. When we have prolonged drought, farms are sold. Generations of farmers are cut straight through the middle.

The predictions so far around the science of climate change have not only been accurate, they have probably been under-recognising or under-diagnosing what is coming our way. I think when it comes to supporting farmers, the absolute first point is we have to recognise the problem and commit to action on the problem of climate change. Have a look at a map of Australia; you can pull out Google Maps on your phone right now. Have a look at the colour of the majority of Australia; it is yellow, it is orange, it is red. You get out to the perimeter and that is green. That is our most productive, viable agricultural land. As seawater levels rise, water is going to be coming in from the outside, and as temperatures increase, that orange, red and yellow zone is going to expand out to the perimeter. So first of all, we are going to see crops being less productive. We are going to see livestock not growing to the full weight that we would have expected in the last century. This is going to have the effect of cutting away at farmers year after year. As we move to a doubling-of-drought scenario under a 1.5-degree temperature increase and at 2 degrees a 2½ times likelihood of drought – so they will be coming in five out of every 10 years – not only will we see farmers being chipped away at through lessening of conditions in those droughts, but then they will be getting smashed. And the economic resilience of our farmers every time this happens is just getting chipped away at and chipped away at until they will be no longer there.

And all of us need them there, because without food security, without affordable food, we get very, very bad consequences. We get consequences we have seen around the world where there is drought. Nations end up in really, really disastrous places, whether that is famine or war. It is all right for us as a nation to stand here and say, ‘Well, that’s not us; that’s not our problem.’ Another country with an A at the start and an A at the end and about the same number of letters I think, Argentina, was in a very, very strong economic position 60 or 70 years ago, and it is now not. So more broadly from an economic perspective we always need to be very mindful that we are protecting our economic conditions to maintain our economic strength, and absolutely part of that is protecting the climate we and our farmers all work within to produce our products that we depend on for a food source but also, as we acknowledge, depend on so much for an agricultural economic output.

I want to come to a few points closer to the bill. I think mixed-use farming cannot be overlooked. One thing for me: I have had generations off the farms, I grew up on farms and I am talking to farmers in this role, and I do not get a sense that farmers want more regulation put upon them. To come in and say to farmers what avenue of revenue they can bring in for their farm and put a limit on that – I do not think farmers are going to be really impressed with that. Coming back to those drought situations, when we have drought and we have sustained drought, we actually get lots of sunshine. What do you get when you get lots of sunshine with PV? You get good economic outcomes for the farmers. That is a lot of power to export. That power could be used onsite. As we were discussing before about water becoming less abundant, the ability to pump water and to have that power there to pump water and the ability to support the farm – we have got energy-intensive farming; we have got new models of farming emerging all the time – to have that abundant energy source there is like manufacturing for our towns and cities. To have cheap, affordable power at the source is an incredible opportunity.

I was down at Dromana, at Volt Farmer, on the weekend, and they are looking to put in 4 megawatts and have that alongside hothouses. There is treated water running by. They want to capture the resources that are there through that energy to electricity, treat that water and use it in the hothouses – there are livestock running there as well – to get the most out of everything that is there. We were talking the other day about farmers grazing animals on the sides of the road. That is getting the most out of the resources available. I think we need to leave political ideologies about ‘This group’s all on the left and this group’s all on the right’. It is about how we definitely, safely and responsibly extract the most out of the resources that are available to get the most production and the most economic benefit for our farmers, our communities and our broader state and nation.

Just coming back that point – and I have some notes here which I might come back to if I get time later – we have regulations around solar farms. I think the other side quite often complain we have too much regulation around a lot of industries, but regulation is really important, and I too want regulation around solar farms. I do not want to see workers who have never touched a tool in their lives get brought in to assemble solar farms and wire them up. I want to see qualified tradespeople doing that work. I want to see them getting good wages. I do not want to see them living in squalor in a house out the back of God knows where. We cannot cut corners. We have an incredible issue we have got to resolve – climate change – as quickly as possible, and I have spoken many times in here about how proud I am of the work this government is doing to achieve that. But we cannot cut corners on worker safety, pay and conditions, so we have got to get that right. As far as the regulations go for, I think it is, 1-megawatt-plus installations, we have those. The Minister for Planning has those regulations in the act from 2019. Coming back to that point, if this conversation is about inserting more regulation and more red tape and less freedom and decision-making in what our farmers can do with their land and the investments they can make, then I do not know if a lot of farmers are up for that conversation. But I will leave it there. I think I have made my point.

We have to get moving. Transitioning our energy generation to renewables is incredibly complicated. I have spoken in here before about how this government has a plan to achieve it, which is that mix of generation, the mix of transmission and the mix of storage. There are going to be a whole lot of things that collectively over the next one to two decades we as a society need to figure out, and we need to get the best outcomes as technology emerges and as our usage changes. Ms Crozier made mention earlier about kerosene and whatnot. None of us want to be burning kerosene lamps; I think we can all agree on that. So how do we ensure an absolutely reliable 100 per cent clean energy driven system that will deliver us to where we need to be?

The next part is that it is not just our energy system. We have transport, but we also have agriculture. So how do we work with our farmers to help reduce emissions in a way that does not see them unfairly and unnecessarily hurt? Mrs McArthur has raised this many times in this place and various committees: farmers have a lot of challenges with it and with the market they go to. So we do not want to be in a place where we get down the track in 10 or 15 years and farmers are being hit by both sides: getting hit by what the weather is doing to them, their bottom line, their productivity and their outputs and also by what we do as a state and as a nation, as a world, because this is going to be global very, very quickly. The globe is moving in one direction, and we are talking tariffs and we are talking walls that are going to go up to those that are not on board. How do we set our farmers up for success? I think that is the work that particularly Minister Tierney did in her role as Minister for Agriculture, working with farmers to talk about measures, whether it be for crop breeding or genetic breeding, so that our livestock and our crops are better suited for these changes. I think if we can get to a point where we acknowledge that changes are coming and they are real and ask how we best deal with them, then as I said before, we are setting our farmers up for that success.

On the issue of generation on farms, I grew up in an area where windfarms went in, and most farmers want them. It is actually politically motivated groups externally who are raising a lot of these issues. If you talk to farmers on the ground, it is like, ‘Hey, do you want an extra’ – insert dollar figure – ‘per year to have something on your property?’ ‘Yeah, absolutely I do.’ ‘Do you want to have two? Do you want to have three?’ ‘How many can I get?’ If you talk to the local footy club: ‘Do you want an extra 20, 30, 40 grand a year to go out and get players and win a premiership?’ ‘Yeah, absolutely we do.’ And if you talk to the pub and the school and all these places, do they want to see that? Absolutely they do. There are so many benefits.

Absolutely, we have to always be mindful that a practice is not going to be bad for the local environment. I remember, growing up as a kid, they wanted to put cyanide into the water under the local area to extract the gold.

Harriet Shing interjected.

Tom McINTOSH: Yes, and it was actually someone from the political class who was absolutely backing it at the time, and I will not mention her name – from that side perhaps – telling locals there was no problem: ‘Put it through the veins underneath the waterways and rip that gold out; everything will be right as rain.’ Do not worry about the fact that farms like ours were relying on a bore. I definitely agree with the fact that as new technology, new industries, whatever, are coming – we have seen this with coal seam gas; we have seen how farmers have reacted to coal seam gas – we absolutely have to respect the environment of every farm, but collectively we acknowledge that the climate is bigger than what is at the end of the farm gate. We are all in it together.

I am going to finish up. I just want to say that I do not support this bill. Where there are points of difference, let us work through them. But on the issue of climate change, if we can acknowledge the problem together, acknowledge the threats that it brings to our farmers, the threats it brings to those generational families and the threats it brings to our economy and what it is going to cost for food on the shelves – and we have seen that in the last few years with the prices of various items – then we have just got to push together in the same direction to meet what are huge but possible challenges.

David ETTERSHANK (Western Metropolitan) (16:54): I rise to make a brief contribution on the Planning and Environment Amendment (Soil Protection) (Solar Power Generation Facilities) Bill 2023. In her second-reading speech Mrs Tyrrell raised some really important issues that should concern us all. In the necessary race to transition the state to renewable energy it is prudent to consider the future ramifications of these technologies. These include the placement of these facilities on land that would otherwise be used for food production, the risk of land and waterway contamination from chemicals used in battery energy storage systems and the risks faced by firefighters in fighting bushfires in renewable energy facility areas. These are all salient matters that should be addressed, and the risks faced by firefighters in fighting bushfires in areas that contain renewable energy facilities is an issue that is being considered around the world as more and more of these facilities are being built. Unfortunately, the bill does not actually address these issues.

The bill seeks to provide for the mandatory consideration of soil and waterway protection when determining applications for permits relating to solar energy generation facilities. Before deciding on an application for a permit that allows the use or development of land for a solar energy generation facility, the responsible authority must consider any significant effects and must not grant a permit if the land meets three or more of the following criteria: if the land is agricultural land, is a water supply area, is a bushfire-prone area or is subject to inundation or liable to flooding. The definitions of ‘agricultural land’, ‘bushfire prone land’ and ‘land liable to flooding’ are incredibly broad. The combination of these wideranging definitions, along with the provision prohibiting planning permits, removes pretty much most of Victoria from possible renewable energy developments, including existing renewable energy zones, many of which are of course works in progress. Stakeholders we consulted in relation to this bill, including the Clean Energy Council, pointed out that the planning approval process for solar farms was extremely robust, to put it kindly. They were also concerned that the extremely broad definition of ‘solar energy generation facility’ in the bill could prohibit construction of residential solar.

In practice the bill would effectively ban new solar farms in Victoria, which would be disastrous. The bill would also remove the power of landowners to control what happens on their land and to profit from hosting renewable energy projects. For these reasons Legalise Cannabis Victoria will not be supporting the bill. While we might be inclined to support an inquiry that looked into the broader issues that Mrs Tyrrell raised in her second-reading speech, the opposition amendments do not consider these issues, so we will not be supporting them. There are valid concerns around arable land being used for renewable energy facilities in place of food production and the risks associated with lithium battery storage technologies. The bill’s broad definition and siting considerations seem unnecessary given the planning limitations already in place. There is no question that Victoria needs to be transitioning towards renewable energy as a matter of urgency. We fear the bill would have a chilling effect on investment in the state’s renewable energy sector, which is not what this state needs.

Lee TARLAMIS (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (16:57): I move:

That debate on this bill be adjourned until the next day of meeting.

Motion agreed to and debate adjourned until next day of meeting.