Thursday, 2 May 2024

Bills

National Electricity (Victoria) Amendment (VicGrid) Bill 2024

Second reading

Debate resumed.

Gaelle BROAD (Northern Victoria) (14:02): I am pleased to stand and speak today on the National Electricity (Victoria) Amendment (VicGrid) Bill 2024. This bill amends the National Electricity (Victoria) Act 2005, and there are some key areas in the bill. It confirms transmission planning functions for renewable energy zones to the chief executive officer of VicGrid, provides a process for the declaration of an area within Victoria to be a renewable energy zone, requires the CEO of VicGrid to cooperate with the Australian Energy Market Operator in performing respective functions, provides for payments to landholders who host new transmission infrastructure through a scheme of annual payments for 25 years and enables recovery of the CEO VicGrid’s costs from end users through transmission use of system charges.

Victoria needs reliable energy transmission, and we know in places like Euroa – that town has experienced 17 unplanned power outages in just two months. That is what some regional areas are living with, and it is very frustrating. These are not just storms, they are unexplained outages because of a deteriorating network and single lines in some areas that pose a high risk. These interruptions to electricity do have a really big impact. They cause a lot of stress. People depend on electricity for mobile coverage and for financial transactions. We know of people that lost significant amounts of food in freezers. Businesses have had to close because of these constant power outages. I know Annabelle Cleeland, my Nationals colleague in the other house, has been a very strong advocate on this. She has met with people that have lost medication – very expensive medication. They have been stuck in electric wheelchairs, people with disabilities that have found that these outages have had a really big impact on them. People with sleep apnoea, their machines do not work. And cars – people have been in difficult or emergency situations and have not been able to get cars out of garages. When we do not have power, it does have a big impact on our everyday life.

I really want to commend Annabelle Cleeland, because she has done an incredible job advocating with the local community, and AusNet has since announced a $10 million Energy Resilience Community Fund in addition to making changes to prevent regular power outages happening across the region. But I note that this bill does pave the way for payments to landholders who host new transmission infrastructure through the scheme – annual payments for 25 years.

Now, an area of interest in Northern Victoria in particular is the VNI West. That is the Victoria to New South Wales interconnector, and it is a proposed new 500 kilovolt double-circuit transmission line connecting the high-voltage electricity grids in New South Wales and Victoria. The proposal, which has had numerous different pathways put forward, is causing a lot of stress in the electorate of Northern Victoria, particularly in areas like Charlton and Boort. I know the community consultation has been very poor; I have attended a number of those events, and there has been very limited opportunity for people to contribute. I spoke with a farmer who actually had people advise his family, in front of his children, that they could take their land and their farm, a farm that has been farmed for generations. That was very stressful and inaccurate for that information to be shared, but you can get a bit of an insight into the stress and pressure that this has been placing on regional communities, and it has been going on for a very long time now.

These new lines are an eyesore. They are proposed to go through prime agricultural land, through irrigated regions, and we have farmers today that use drone technology, and they will have an impact on some of these modern farming techniques. I have raised this with the minister. I have asked about the costs of this project, because they are far from accurate. I also sought a response from the minister following her commitment to review plan B. This was a proposal that my colleague Melina Bath talked about in her contribution on this bill. It was put forward by Professor Bruce Mountain and other leading experts, and this plan B proposal matches the transmission capacity of VNI West, but it seeks to upgrade existing transmission lines. It is clear from the minister’s response to my question that the state government are very keen to switch off any alternative plan to VNI West. To quote the minister:

The review completed by Jacobs in March 2024 and subsequently published on VicGrid’s website on 31 March, found Plan B to be an unviable alternative to replace VNI West …

Jacobs did the review, but I have significant doubts about how thorough this review actually was. On 2 April, Professor Mountain from Victoria University, on behalf of the plan B authors, published a statement in response:

The Government then appointed Jacobs, without consulting us. We asked to see the Terms of Reference of Jacobs’ appointment and we asked to be included in Jacobs’ meetings with VicGrid and the Government. Both requests were refused.

VicGrid did not ask a single question of us during this review. Beyond superficial details, Jacobs too had no questions and they did not ask to see our workings, which we were at pains to proffer. Jacobs told us they had no need to see our workings in order to reach their conclusions.

That seems to be a consistent theme with this government. It is just another example of this government’s style: they are keen to shut down any alternative views or any different perspectives from their own. They do not believe in consultation; they do like ‘consultold’. That seems to be a recurring theme across very different aspects – I am on a number of committees, and we have heard it time and time again.

The state government has also recently taken away the rights of regional communities to challenge or appeal transmission infrastructure through VCAT, again seeking to silence any opposition. The Minister for Planning, Sonya Kilkenny, has given herself full power for approvals of renewable energy projects, stripping local communities of their rights to be consulted or to appeal to VCAT on planning approvals for renewable energy projects statewide.

This change was brought about through backdoor regulations, not through the Parliament. Just yesterday the Liberals and Nationals put forward a motion to reverse this power, but unfortunately we did not have the numbers to succeed. Victoria once exported electricity, but under Labor we are now on track to import electricity. By 2040 – not that far away; we are going to be there before you know it – AEMO models that we will be importing 26 per cent of our electricity in Victoria. Instead of maximising our resources and producing our own energy, we will be dependent on other states.

There are a lot of questions around insurance. That remains a black hole for neighbouring properties of solar farms and big renewable energy projects. I have raised this matter in Parliament. I got a very poor response from the Assistant Treasurer, and I have written again on behalf of those local communities seeking answers on this issue.

The proposed lines pass through regions, but they provide very little benefit to those local communities. They can be very expensive, and it is not possible for local communities to tap into or contribute to that power. The bill provides for payments to landholders who host new transmission infrastructure through a scheme of annual payments for 25 years, but that is just the landholders.

Moira Deeming: On a point of order, Acting President, I am just struggling to hear my colleague speak, and I am just wondering about any danger of people being accused of making faces and gender-based aggression in the chamber, as happened the other day. We would not want that to happen again. So, if everyone could just be a bit quiet so I can hear the lovely member.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Bev McArthur): Thank you, Mrs Deeming. Mrs Broad, you continue.

Gaelle BROAD: Thank you very much. This bill, as I mentioned, provides for annual payments for 25 years, but that is just to the landholders, and these large transmission lines, with huge towers and concrete footings, will be in place well beyond 25 years. Will they ever be removed, and who will cover the cost if they ever are?

I have previously raised concerns with the minister about transmission lines and the impact on the local community, because when you think about it – I want you to think about the MCG and think about how high those light towers are – I tell you what, they can be seen for miles.

Moira Deeming: On a point of order, Acting President, I would ask that you direct the member to stop pointing aggressively.

Tom McIntosh interjected.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Bev McArthur): Mr McIntosh, perhaps you could be restrained.

Gaelle BROAD: These towers are as tall as the MCG lights and can be seen for miles, so it does have an impact on the communities and certainly the aesthetics, tourism and everything contributing to the region.

I have also been contacted by local residents, who are very concerned, as I mentioned, about these large solar farms and renewable energy projects, including battery storage, happening on prime agricultural land. This is in areas with good soil and access to water. It is interesting when you look at the AEMO website, their integrated system plan identified six Victorian REZs – that is, renewable energy zones. We see on the map central north, Gippsland, Murray River, Ovens–Murray, south-west Victoria and western Victoria. They are all located in regional areas, not Melbourne.

In Colbinabbin there is a big solar farm proposed for the area. It is a winery district, and you will see solar farms popping up on the map all over the place. It is very hard to compete when you think about the income that farmers generate. Energy is very expensive, and it is not surprising that some farmers close to retirement are very keen to lease their land to international companies looking to build solar farms. Renewables are an important part of the energy supply chain, but we cannot ignore the voices of local communities. People who have worked hard, people who live there, people whose families have contributed to those local communities for generations are the ones that need to live with this.

When I look at projects I think of the Bendigo Livestock Exchange. I spoke about the need to build a roof over that, as the saleyards there do not currently have any roof, but other main saleyards across Victoria do. This is where solar panels could be built on a huge roof space. That is the type of project that we should be investing in. We can see solar panels going in at supermarkets, at universities, at industrial sites and on sheds – so many opportunities to generate solar and contribute to our energy supply. But this bill talks about recovering the CEO of VicGrid’s cost from end users through transmission use of system charges. At the end of the day consumers will pay the cost and our electricity bills keep going up, yet we live in a state that has so many energy resources.

Victorians are paying the price for Labor’s inability to secure the state’s energy supplies. Recent figures released show a 40 per cent rise in the amount of people seeking assistance to pay for their gas and electricity bills compared to this time last year. These figures followed a recent St Vincent de Paul Society report that revealed Victorians have paid 22 per cent more for gas and 28 per cent more for electricity over the past year. To keep up with energy demand and a growing population we need to produce a huge amount of energy. Every form of energy has positives and negatives, and we need to get the balance right to deliver sustainable, reliable and affordable power for all Victorians.

David LIMBRICK (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (14:16): I also rise to speak on the National Electricity (Victoria) Amendment (VicGrid) Bill 2024. I will state from the outset that the Libertarian Party will not be opposing this bill. Although I think many of the things that it is doing are bad, the status quo is bad too, so I feel like we are stuck between a rock and hard place.

I will go back to some of the things that I have said about energy since coming to this place. In 2019 I spoke on another bill called the Renewable Energy (Jobs and Investment) Amendment Bill 2019. For the sake of clarity I referred to it as ‘the blackout bill’, noting that the government was driving us into the dark. Let us have a look at how we have gone on energy since 2019. If we look at the reported spot price of the 2019–20 financial year, it was $84 per megawatt hour – that is megawatt hour, not just megawatt. In the 2022–23 year that went to $114 per megawatt hour, a 34 per cent increase. So whatever savings we were promised in our bills clearly did not eventuate.

I also had an interesting discussion with a group representing dairy farmers recently. If you are not familiar with their power requirements, it is very important for dairy farms to maintain a reliable power supply for powering machinery, for refrigeration and for all that sort of thing. If it breaks down, it is catastrophic; they can lose their entire supply. So it is vitally critical to have a reliable power supply, and they were saying that power was becoming so unreliable that many dairy farmers were being forced to install very expensive backup equipment, which is probably the last thing that they need at the moment.

Also, recently the Victorian Chamber of Commerce and Industry said:

The biggest risk for Victorian businesses and consumers is the reliability, the security, and the affordability of energy …

In this new world that we are heading into, this renewables-focused world, we do not have many international examples to point to of places that have tried it. But one that has attempted it – and it has been a total disaster – is Germany. The CEO of RWE is Markus Krebber. He is the head of Germany’s largest energy company, and he warned that high prices for energy due to limited supply threaten the continued existence of the country’s industrial foundation:

We see the first signs of deindustrialisation …

They said one of the biggest drivers has been Germany’s net zero energy policy – a policy like what we are trying to implement – Energiewende. Under the country’s rapid move to variable renewables wind and solar for electric generation they necessarily require backup generating capacity since the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine all the time. That is usually provided by fossil fuels or nuclear power plants, but Germany also passed legislation in 2019 to shut down all its coal plants by 2038, and last year, rather foolishly, the country shuttered the last three plants of its once formidable nuclear fleet. In 1990, in fact, a quarter of electricity in Germany was produced by nuclear, but they have turned away from it. As a result, the country has been forced to import electricity and natural gas at substantially higher prices.

During the debate on the blackout bill, I also attempted to introduce an amendment to consider nuclear power, because I was sceptical at the time whether this bill had anything to do with carbon emissions or was rather providing corporate welfare to selected technologies. Of course I was right, because they refused to add that into it. I have also initiated an inquiry into nuclear here in Victoria and introduced a bill to repeal the prohibition on nuclear activities in Victoria. It is no secret that I am a fan of nuclear. I think it is a great technology, and in a land that is rich with uranium, it is crazy that we are not doing it ourselves but rather we are exporting our uranium for other countries to use.

I note that back in 1998 was when the federal ban was put in. It was not done through some big discussion process, and it was not actually done by the Labor Party either. What happened was that in the dead of night the Greens and the Democrats sneakily got together and put together an amendment. At the time the Labor Party was not antinuclear. Back in their glory days they had a lot to say about nuclear. Even now many unions are very enthusiastic about nuclear. Yes, AWU, CFMEU –

A member: Which ones?

David LIMBRICK: The AWU and the CFMEU. They put in submissions to the 2019 inquiry. You can go and read them. They are very, very good submissions, actually. I was very impressed with them, although I do note that the Electrical Trades Union did not share that view. So there you go. That is true. Anyway, it was not the Labor Party, it was the Greens and Democrats in the dead of night putting together and sneaking through an amendment. This was under a coalition government, and I am unsure whether the coalition did some deal with the Greens or whether they just were not paying attention. But somehow it got through, and so it was that under a coalition government we ended up prohibiting nuclear at the federal level.

The federal energy minister and the Labor Party in Victoria continually talk about how nuclear costs too much and takes too long. They probably said it back in 1998 as well. It is 26 years ago. Anyone that thinks that we could not build nuclear capacity in 26 years is seriously underestimating our country’s capacity, considering that UAE built its Barakah plant in under 10. Here is the thing. I am sceptical about the transmission infrastructure required in Victoria for our renewables rollout. Let us have a look at some of the delays. Let us not even talk about what is happening with the Snowy Hydro project. Let us look at VNI West. The Victoria Energy Policy Centre’s Professor Bruce Mountain and retired transmission expert Simon Bartlett produced a report on VNI West. Professor Mountain said:

… if VNI West goes ahead, it will be a giant public policy failure …

He said it could blow out to $11 billion, and that:

The only big winner is the developer and owner of the transmission infrastructure, who gets a regulated charge for the assets that they’ll build. Everyone else is paying a price. And that is surely not acceptable.

The Victoria Energy Policy Centre’s report also argues that AEMO’s extended VNI West plan will not do enough to help Victoria reach its target of 95 per cent renewable energy generation by 2035.

In January 2020 Transgrid first estimated HumeLink’s expense would be $1.35 billion. That rose to $3.3 billion in 2021, and now Transgrid is asking the Australian Energy Regulator to approve an outlay of $5 billion. As I noted before, rather surprisingly the new Leader of the Greens in this place acknowledged that there is local opposition and a lack of social licence for much of this infrastructure that is happening in regional Victoria. I think it is a very good thing that the Greens finally acknowledge this, because it is a big problem. I will quote some newspaper articles and a potato grower. This was in the Sydney Morning Herald in August last year:

Potato grower Glenden Watts, from Glengower between Bendigo and Ballarat, whose land could be traversed by the proposed VNI West transmission project, said farmers had marched on Melbourne because no one was listening to their concerns.

Another article says:

… the Victorian Farmers Federation has lodged its submission to the Government’s directions paper on the creation of the six new renewable energy zones calling for reforms so that farmers are not left to bear the burden of renewable energy.

And then there was also a report today on the government pulling back on the wind power auction. This is a quote from the Australian only today which says:

… the state government is considering a delay of at least a year amid concerns that it would attract few if any bids.

“In reality, maybe one project would be in a position to make bids and the government thinks that by putting it back a year it will mean the majority of those with a licence will be in a position to catch up,” said one source, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

So how are we doing in these five years since we had the blackout bill? You would have to say not great. Energy is more expensive, delays and blowouts are routine and community opposition is increasing, and it looks to me like this is just the beginning. If we only end up in a state like Germany, that could be a good outcome compared to the worst case scenario, where it goes so bad that we end up like South Africa. I really hope that is not the case.

I understand the need for this bill. The experts and the government have finally realised the scale of the task that they are attempting, just how complicated it is and how much infrastructure is required. They have realised that we are way behind where we need to be and they need to take the task seriously. But unless we want to continue to live in fantasy land, we also need to remember that the cost of this infrastructure is passed on to consumers. It is beyond just the cost of building, deploying and maintaining the infrastructure. There is also this sneaky government tax, the easement tax on transmission infrastructure. In the 2022–23 financial year the costs passed on to consumers just from this one small component was $55,919,000.

The overall approach of the government should be treated with scepticism. Let us recall that it was just a short time ago that a bill was passed through this place that set targets for energy storage which did not have a unit for energy but one for power. If the thousands of people working within the department could not get this basic fact right, I cannot see them managing the infrastructure either. I expect we will have far higher energy costs in the future and more blackouts to come.

Moira DEEMING (Western Metropolitan) (14:27): I would also like to speak on the National Electricity (Victoria) Amendment (VicGrid) Bill 2024. Again it appears to me that what this government do is set an unachievable and ideological target, and then they use that to justify changing the rules to concentrate the power in their own hands so that they can finally achieve this energy nirvana. But I would say to you that the ends do not justify the means. Property rights are not pesky, unjustifiable stumbling blocks in your way. They are fundamental human rights. They are important. Consultation rights are important. Communities have rights. We as communities have rights over land, not just the government. All these things are important, and I just keep seeing this government bulldoze them, remove them and take them for themselves. And what results do we get? We are in a cost-of-living crisis. Energy is so expensive that it is crushing families. Heads of charities that do not even get political normally have come out criticising the government. We all want to look after the environment, but you have to deal with reality. You cannot bulldoze human rights – not for any excuse.

Adem SOMYUREK (Northern Metropolitan) (14:28): I rise to speak on the bill before the house. In terms of the energy crisis, just at the outset I will say I will not be opposing the bill, but I will be supporting the opposition’s amendments with respect to community consultation. I think when you are doing reform it is always wise to consult. When you are legislating and when you are doing reform, I think you cannot do too much consultation, let me put it this way. The reforms and the amendments in this bill certainly warrant more consultation. There are also additional add-on costs which may be transferred to the consumer. With the cost-of-living crisis I think we have got to be very careful not to put families and businesses under more stress.

If I can just say a few words on the issue of energy, I was the shadow minister for industry from 2010 to 2014, and I have got to say I give it to the business community and to industry in particular: they were shouting at the top of their lungs about the oncoming energy crisis that they knew we were about to have in Australian and in Victoria in particular. When I went to industry as the shadow minister, I would say to them, ‘Well, what can government do for you?’ They would say, ‘Fix the impending energy crisis. That is our big problem. Otherwise get out of the way.’ That was coming our way from 2010, before we had the two-speed economy at that point too.

I think both the major parties and the Greens are guilty in not doing enough. In 2012 the Baillieu government imposed a moratorium on conventional gas exploration in Victoria, and the Labor Party did not repeal that for a very long time. As Mr Limbrick said, the unions were actually screaming about that moratorium and wanted the Labor Party to do something about it, but the Labor Party did not. The Labor Party at that point – as it continues to, although at that point more so – was trying to fight and not be outflanked by the Greens on the left. So I think it has been both the major parties – the Libs initially for imposing that moratorium on conventional gas exploration. There was no need to do that at all. I understand why they did it and the political sensibilities there. There was a report into the energy sector in the Victorian Parliament in 2016 where I did a minority report advocating for the moratorium on conventional gas exploration to be lifted, but nothing was done about that. So I think both parties have their hands dirty a little bit on this particular issue. This crisis was coming our way for a very, very long time. With that I again reiterate I will not be opposing the bill. I will also be supporting the opposition’s amendments.

Ingrid STITT (Western Metropolitan – Minister for Mental Health, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Multicultural Affairs) (14:32): Of course Victoria is undergoing one of the most rapid energy transitions in the world. Investment in renewables effectively ground to a halt under the previous Liberal government. But we have nearly quadrupled the share of renewable energy in power generation since 2014, hitting nearly 40 per cent in the year to date. We will hit 65 per cent by 2030 and 95 per cent by 2035, but to get there we need to unlock about 25 gigawatts of new capacity.

Victoria’s record investment in renewable energy already means that Victoria has the lowest wholesale electricity prices in the country, and that is an important point for people to absorb. To get this cheaper, cleaner and more reliable renewable energy to homes and businesses across the state we actually need to modernise and expand our electricity grid. The current legislative framework was never designed to accommodate a transformation of this scale. The last time we built a major new transmission line was more than 30 years ago, before the Liberals sold off all our energy assets to the private sector. The current arrangements simply are not fit for purpose. They do not allow for anticipatory planning and investment, they do not hold private companies that have built and own transmission assets accountable and they do not properly account for land use. Most importantly, they do not bring communities and traditional owners into the process early enough.

The bill will address these issues by implementing an entirely new way to plan and develop transmission and renewable energy zones in Victoria, known as the Victorian transmission investment framework. The VTIF will be implemented by the new government body VicGrid, which will be more accountable and more responsive to the needs of Victorians and the wishes of the community. It sets out an approach that creates investment certainty to foster renewable energy investment and ensure the coordinated development of electricity transmission and renewable energy generation infrastructure to deliver energy affordability, reliability and security for Victorians. The main components of the bill are the establishment of a new electricity transmission planning objective and supporting framework for the planning of major electricity transmission infrastructure in Victoria; the establishment of interim measures to enable the CEO of VicGrid to support the delivery of high-priority electricity transmission projects such as the Victoria to New South Wales interconnector, VNI West, Marinus Link, Western Renewables Link and transmission connections for offshore wind projects; the provision of cost recovery of VicGrid activities in electricity transmission infrastructure planning and project development, as is industry standard, allowing for the integration of the reforms into the existing national electricity transmission planning framework; and the provision for payments to landholders who host major new electricity transmission infrastructure easements.

There has been a lot said in this debate today about consultation, and what I think some of those contributing to the debate have failed to explain is how they expect to keep the lights on and the bills down as we transition to renewable energy. The reality is that the coal-fired power stations are leaving and we need to build this new transmission capacity. But those opposite do not have a plan. They have no plan for Victoria’s energy future. I note their contributions about community consultation in the transmission process, and that is exactly what the bill will achieve. I am so pleased that Acting President McArthur is listening to my contribution.

The draft VTIF was released two years ago and opened to public consultation for six weeks. VicGrid received over 100 submissions and 600 responses to the online survey. The final VTIF was published in June 2023, and this bill implements the first phase of this new framework. The VTIF puts community engagement at the very beginning of the transmission planning process, with a strategic land-use assessment to map land use across the state to identify the areas most suitable for new energy development. The strategic land-use assessment will feed into the Victorian transmission plan, which will be published in mid-2025. The development of the VTP will also involve the establishment of local and technical reference groups. They will include regional partnerships, agricultural representatives and energy industry representatives. The views of regional communities are crucial to this, and that is what this bill will achieve.

Any declarations of new renewable energy zones are subject to the views of communities, and any declaration must have the stakeholder feedback included, along with the reasoning for the decision. Consultation will also take place in relation to the community and traditional owner fund, which will complement the landowner payments included in this bill. In fact VicGrid have already arranged the first community workshops to be held across Victoria. Nine sessions will run in May and June. The VTIF already provide multiple avenues for public and stakeholder consultation. The community advisory committee, as proposed by the opposition, is therefore an unnecessary duplication.

The bill also provides for payments to landholders who host new transmission infrastructure through a scheme of annual payments for 25 years. The payments recognise the important role that host landowners play in the energy transition. The payments are in addition to any compensation that landholders are entitled to under the Land Acquisition and Compensation Act 1986, which covers any loss of land value. Our government has also publicly committed to developing renewable energy zone development funds for host regional communities and traditional owner funds. VicGrid will commence consultation on the structure of these funds in the coming weeks with further legislation expected later this year. The opposition’s attempt to specifically exclude traditional owners through their amendment is very disappointing. Every group that hosts this critical infrastructure should benefit directly from the energy transition.

To conclude, the bill completely reforms the way we plan and develop infrastructure in Victoria. All of these changes are about making sure that we can build the new energy infrastructure we need efficiently while ensuring that regional communities, traditional owners, landholders and others are considered in that process. I commend the bill to the house.

Motion agreed to.

Read second time.

Committed.

Committee

Clause 1 (14:41)

David DAVIS: I should just inform the committee that I have a number of questions on clause 1, but perhaps I should, with the leave of the committee, just quickly set the context. We have some amendments which have been circulated, one of which relates to the pass-through of costs for any traditional owner payments. We will seek to remove that section of the bill, and I will come to that when the time comes. There is also the establishment of a community advisory committee. Many in the chamber today have talked about the failure of the government, of VicGrid and indeed of the Australian Energy Market Operator to properly consult. The community advisory committee will be dealt with in clause 4, and if I am correct that will also be a test for the other aspects. So there will be one vote to test it there and then a second vote on the traditional owner aspect.

I should also indicate, as many have said, the opposition is very concerned about the pass-through of taxes and charges that are hitting families in a cost-of-living crisis. There are massive charges. I discussed in my contribution the land tax component that the state government is imposing, but there are also these traditional owner charges. Also in clause 8 of this bill there are a raft of charges under new section 67. That deals with AEMO and VicGrid and their ability to splice in whatever charges they want and to pass them through, and indeed in the case of AEMO they need not even consult on the matter. I am just putting the context here, and then I will come to the detail in a minute. In that context, we will oppose clause 8, which contains the offensive new section and allows the unrestrained pass-through of additional costs. At this point we have seen gas prices up, electricity prices up and huge surges across the board, and families and businesses are being slugged heavily. They are reeling in a cost-of-living crisis, and more taxes and charges are the last things they need.

As a genuine preliminary, I should note that as a member of the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee I am in possession of a letter from Lily D’Ambrosio, which I do not believe has been tabled in the chamber yet. It is a response to Gary Maas, the chair of the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee. It might be worthwhile, if I could be so bold as to suggest it, as it is not really mine to circulate, if the minister may wish, to circulate that for the chamber for the benefit of having Lily D’Ambrosio’s response to SARC’s questions circulated while this is proceeding. That is a matter for the minister, of course.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Davis, was that letter published in the digest or is it committee correspondence?

David DAVIS: It is correspondence to the committee. As I said, it is not mine to distribute. I am suggesting that it might be worthwhile for the chamber in committee to have the minister circulate a copy. Otherwise it will be tabled, as I understand it, with the next Alert Digest after the bill has passed.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I am advised that that is private committee correspondence and that it would be discourteous to the committee for –

David DAVIS: It is the minister’s correspondence. If the minister wanted to circulate it, she could circulate it to the world at large. It is her piece of paper, and she could send it, in my humble mode, to whomever she wished.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: That would be a matter for the government to decide whether they want to do that.

David DAVIS: That is why I am putting it to the minister in the chair that it would be useful. What I can say to the committee is it is my understanding that this relates to the issues of subordinate legislation and whether the matters in the National Electricity (Victoria) Act 2005 are disallowable, and it is mine that the minister may wish to confirm for me that matters or regulations made under that are disallowable in the normal way under the Subordinate Legislation Act 1994.

Ingrid STITT: My apologies for that taking a little bit of time, Mr Davis. What I can confirm, and I think this is contained in the correspondence that you are in possession of from the minister to the chair of SARC, is that regulations made under the National Electricity (Victoria) Act 2005 are subject to the Subordinate Legislation Act 1994. Part 5 of the SLA sets out the requirements for the disallowance of a statutory rule or part of a statutory rule. While the NEVA does not explicitly state that regulations made under that act are subject to disallowance by Parliament, section 23 of the SLA enables regulations to be disallowed by a house of Parliament by notice of a resolution following consideration of a report to each house by the committee that recommends the regulations be disallowed in whole or in part or a report by the committee on a failure to comply with section 15(1) or (1A) of the SLA.

David DAVIS: I wonder if you would also confirm that regulations made by the South Australian minister under the National Electricity Law applied to NEVA are largely machinery in nature and disallowance would not therefore be possible, given that the agreement of all states is required for that?

Ingrid STITT: I can confirm that regulations made by the South Australian minister under the National Electricity Law are largely machinery in nature and require unanimous agreement from the jurisdictions of Queensland, South Australia, New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania and the ACT and underpin the operation of the National Electricity Law. Therefore disallowance would be inappropriate.

David DAVIS: All right. Again, in terms of expedition here, or being as swift as possible, I might just ask the minister a number of overall questions. She may not be able to answer all of them now, but I would accept that she may be able to come back with details, not necessarily today but tomorrow or the next day.

This sets up a regime for recovery of fees and charges across a wide front by AEMO and by VicGrid. That is in the context of other charges and fees that are applied to or that are passed through into the bills of electricity consumers, both business and household. I wonder if the minister would be able to provide the aggregate level and the breakdown of all the taxes, charges and levies that are currently applied to power. For example, the land tax that is applied to the transmission lines is one of them; the traditional owner levy that is proposed in this but is also in other contexts as well is another one; and there are the current AEMO levies. I wonder if the minister would be able to provide a breakdown and an aggregation too of the different taxes, charges and levies that are applied to electricity. The importance of that is that we are erecting new charges and levies in this bill, and it is important to have the context of how much is already levied or charged.

Ingrid STITT: Mr Davis, I do not know whether that rather large piece of work that you have described would be something that we would be able to readily provide, but I will certainly give you the courtesy of checking whether that is possible. I would say that that is not within the scope of this bill, but I understand the point you are making about cost recovery. What I would point out, though, is that the CEO of VicGrid must publish VicGrid’s fees and charges on its website, and I am talking about the provisions of the bill before the house today. We are obviously constantly mindful of the impacts and cost-of-living pressures on Victorians, and so the charges will be recovered on a not-for-profit basis through transmission use of system charges. Currently AEMO, in its role as Victorian transmission planner, recovers the costs for planning the shared transmission network through directly connected customers, generally customers with large loads and distributors. Consistent with this practice, VicGrid will recover its ongoing renewable energy zones (REZ) planning function costs in a similar way.

David DAVIS: I thank the minister for that, and I certainly would be grateful if she could provide that base load of taxes and charges that are applied now, noting that this bill erects a new layer of taxes and charges on top. I accept what she is saying about publication of some of these details. They publish some fees and charges, but it is not easy to work out the aggregate amount of each category and then the aggregate of the current charges. So that is why I am seeking this information.

In terms of the community consultation, I heard what the minister said before about consultation. I will make the point that it is our view that the consultation is not adequate, and that is why we are moving this particular amendment. But I want to ask one simple question regarding the new transmission lines and new renewable energy zones. Will local councils or communities have the ability to say no if the government chooses an inappropriate location or VicGrid chooses an inappropriate location or inappropriate route?

Ingrid STITT: I think in my summing-up comments I took you through how the consultation would occur moving forward, and that consultation with the community, with landholders, with traditional owners and with farming communities would happen at the beginning of the process, which is, I guess, acknowledging that the current systems we have are not really fit for purpose given the scale of our renewable energy plans in Victoria. Local councils would be able to participate in those consultation processes. There would also obviously be the ability to see where the proposed corridors were, if you like, for renewable energy projects, and so it would be a much more robust and informed community consultation process. I will just take a second to ask the box specifically about any other –

David Davis: Can they say no?

Ingrid STITT: Yes, I heard what your question was, Mr Davis. We are enhancing community consultation at the front end of this process, but the normal planning processes would still apply. So there are all of the rights that any person or organisation would have under the normal planning approval process.

David DAVIS: The minister may remember yesterday in this chamber – it feels a little bit like groundhog day – that VC261 is a planning amendment which strips away precisely those powers and enables the Minister for Planning to proceed and provide permits for renewable infrastructure, for renewable transmission and for batteries without any consultation whatsoever. The normal processes would leave councils as the responsible authorities, but that is not the case under that amendment. Will the minister confirm that VC261 will be used for renewable infrastructure and will be used for renewable transmission lines?

Ingrid STITT: Thanks for your patience, Mr Davis. Utility installations, including infrastructure to transmit and distribute electricity, are eligible for streamlined assessment under the development facilitation program. However, most large transmission projects will still need to prepare an environment effects statement, requiring public exhibition and referral to an inquiry. Projects requiring an EES cannot apply for a permit under the DFP until this process is complete.

David DAVIS: It is divergent from what is written in VC261. It is very clear in that that actually transmission wires can go through that process. So if the government’s intention is to use a different process, perhaps they could publish a list of all the locations in which they will use a different process and avoid the confusion that appears to be there.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Davis, was there a question?

David DAVIS: No, that is it.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Just a statement. Thank you.

Bev McARTHUR: Minister, further on what Mr Davis has been asking you: local government currently has absolutely no role in renewable projects these days. They could perhaps put in a submission somewhere if they wanted to. It would probably go in the bin. You have just told us that local government will be consulted in the consultation process. Are you very clear that that is the case?

Ingrid STITT: They will be able to participate in the community consultation that I outlined. I am happy to outline it again.

Bev McARTHUR: Minister, how will this consultation process differ from the four years of an absolutely abhorrent consultation process that has gone on so far with the transmission projects?

Ingrid STITT: What I will do by way of answering your question, Mrs McArthur, is I will just take you through the public and stakeholder consultation associated with this bill that we are dealing with today. It implements the Victorian transmission investment framework and puts community consultation at the head of transmission and renewable energy zone development. The VTIF has been in development for some two years, and the draft VTIF was released for public consultation in July 2022. I think I had already indicated in my summing-up comments that that process resulted in a large number of submissions and responses to the online survey, and VicGrid incorporated that feedback and released the final –

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Sorry, Minister. I need to interrupt you there. The emergency sirens are sounding, so I ask everyone to evacuate. The bells will go to resume the sitting.

Sitting suspended 3:06 pm until 3:30 pm.

Ingrid STITT: I had been speaking about the process that was undertaken over the last two years. I was about to move on to one of the key elements of the strategic land use assessment that will map land use in Victoria, and this will involve in that part of the process going forward with the deep community consultation and identifying the most suitable areas for renewable energy development. This has never been done before in this way. The strategic land use assessment will feed into the Victorian transmission plan, which will be published in mid-2025. The development of the VTP will also involve the establishment of the local and technical reference groups. They will include regional partnerships, agricultural representatives and energy industry representatives. VicGrid will also commence public consultation on the community and traditional owner funds in the coming weeks. The VTIF already provides for multiple avenues for public and stakeholder consultation, and it is for those reasons that the government will not be supporting the opposition amendment that has been put forward by Mr Davis for our committee.

Bev McARTHUR: Minister, can you just describe what ‘deep community consultation’ means?

Ingrid STITT: Thorough.

Bev McARTHUR: So it is like it has never been before. Is that what you are saying, Minister? Because there has never been thorough consultation before.

Ingrid STITT: No, that would be putting words in my mouth, Mrs McArthur. I think that what the government has said in relation to the bill before the house is that the current systems are not fit for purpose given the scale and complexity of the transition we are going through. Therefore we have brought forward in this bill a process that will have consultation up-front in the process, much, much earlier with the community.

Bev McARTHUR: Well, Minister, I do not know whether you have ever been out to talk to any of the individuals, groups, stakeholders, farmers that are going to be afflicted by above-ground transmission lines to get their views on what consultation should really mean and what it has not meant. Have you ever spoken to any of them?

Ingrid STITT: I am not sure that is a relevant question. I am representing the Minister for Energy and Resources in the upper house. As Minister for Mental Health, Minister for Multicultural Affairs and Minister for Ageing, I do not have responsibility for this area of government policy.

Bev McARTHUR: I apologise, Minister. I understand you are only representing the other minister, who refuses to engage and has up to this point refused to engage with any community groups or any stakeholders involved in this whole project. Are you saying now the minister will get involved also in deep consultation?

Ingrid STITT: I think, Mrs McArthur, that the architecture of the bill that we are considering today establishes VicGrid to ensure the energy transition delivers the safe, reliable and affordable power that we need in our state. They are responsible and will host the opportunities for communities to have a real say in the planning of new transmission infrastructure so that we can get on with keeping the lights on and transitioning away from fossil fuels and to renewable energy, to avoid dangerous climate change.

Bev McARTHUR: And who will be the arbitrator of this consultation process? If the community and the stakeholders and everybody that is going to be afflicted by these projects are not satisfied with the consultation process, albeit robust as you are attempting to describe, who will then arbitrate and who will penalise those that are meant to be consulting properly?

Ingrid STITT: Under the provisions of the bill before us, Mrs McArthur, the CEO of VicGrid has a number of responsibilities, including consulting on the Victorian transmission planning guidelines.

Bev McARTHUR: So we are now going to be totally dependent on the CEO of VicGrid ensuring that the stakeholders involved in this process are able to have real input into this process, and if there is still no satisfaction, what happens after that?

Ingrid STITT: In answer to a question that Mr Davis asked earlier I did point out that normal planning approval processes apply on top of the processes outlined in this bill.

Bev McARTHUR: So, Minister, will that mean that those that are concerned can go to VCAT, or will they not be able to, as we learned yesterday with your regulation planning amendment VC261?

Ingrid STITT: Well, you are not really being very specific about what it is you say would need to be the subject of any appeal. If you could narrow it down a little bit, Mrs McArthur, I might be able to get some more targeted advice from the box on your question.

Bev McARTHUR: Well, the appalling consultation that has taken place so far has not only been the subject of much consternation by numerous groups, but it has been a subject in the Supreme Court. The minister changed the rules at the eleventh hour to make it even more difficult for stakeholders along transmission lines to get justice in the process. So are we going to say that everybody probably will just have to go to the Supreme Court? Is that what is going to be the end result of this?

The problem, Minister, is that in many areas where these transmission lines are proposed you are trespassing across fine agricultural land, across even biolinks, across reservoirs and across extraordinary situations, rendering many agricultural industries totally redundant, like the potato industry. These are well-documented concerns that have been going on for some time. What they would need to know is what is going to be different about the arbitration system in this new VicGrid proposal to what has occurred so far.

Ingrid STITT: I think I will just reiterate the point, Mrs McArthur, that the whole architecture contained in this bill is about setting up a process so that everyone with an interest, including landholders, can have their say. The bill also includes a process for an independent review of decisions about landholder payments. Persons who are aggrieved by a decision with respect to payments, including determinations of eligibility, may apply to VCAT for a review of the decision of the minister or CEO of VicGrid regarding landholder payments.

Bev McARTHUR: Another grave concern for many people is the fact that they can no longer get insurance on their properties and on their infrastructure where there is transmission infrastructure on the easements involved. How do you propose to rectify that?

Ingrid STITT: It is not within the scope of this bill, but I am seeking to get an answer to that question for you.

Bev McARTHUR: The other issue that I am sure people will be interested in is: you say there will be compensation provided for 25 years. Are you proposing to pull these towers down after 25 years, or what happens after that?

Ingrid STITT: The bill is quite clear in that it provides for payments to landholders on private land for 25 annual instalments, but the bill does not deal with any matters beyond that 25-year period, and of course we are not going to propose to tear down important infrastructure after that period of time.

Bev McARTHUR: Given that these transmission towers will be on land in perpetuity, given what you have just said, why is the compensation only for 25 years? There will be massive loss of productivity in many of these landholdings. I know that in some of them the farms which are small, because they are intensive farms, will be rendered unviable or the production will be cut by at least 50 per cent, and yet you are saying they will only get compensation for 25 years. How is that fair?

Ingrid STITT: I just wanted to check with my learned friends back there, Mrs McArthur, and it is as I anticipated, because that is effectively the predicted life of the asset, 25 years. I mean, 25 years ago we did not think we would have to phase out coal-fired power. So that is why 25 years has quite deliberately been determined in terms of the compensation arrangements in this bill.

Bev McARTHUR: That is quite extraordinary. While the life of a renewable project might be 25 years, you are suggesting that the infrastructure will remain – the transmission lines. No? So you are going to remove the transmission lines after 25 years?

Ingrid STITT: The life value of an asset is not the same issue that you are trying to conflate there, Mrs McArthur. The bill sets out compensation arrangements for 25 years – that is seen by the state as the appropriate length of time for compensation to be payable for the infrastructure on that private land.

Bev McARTHUR: I am sure all the stakeholders and landholders involved in this will now be comforted by the fact that they will only have compensation for 25 years yet they will have to put up with this infrastructure in perpetuity. Some of them, where transmission lines are now, have been there for 40 years, and you are saying 25 years is the limit for the compensation and they will just have to wear it. Is that what the government is saying?

Ingrid STITT: No, and do not seek to alarm people and make mischief with this issue, Mrs McArthur, because as you well know, landowners are already compensated for any loss of land value and loss of productivity. It is something that is provided for under the Land Acquisition and Compensation Act 1986. This 25 years of compensation is on top of the compensation that they already receive under that other act.

Bev McARTHUR: I am sure that is no comfort, Minister, honestly. The valuations that we can imagine will emerge will be absolutely less than adequate to compensate them for their loss of productivity and their loss of income over a period of time. In some instances in these properties 50 per cent of their productive land will be taken away where there is a transmission line plus the easements. In the potato growing area, boom sprayers are huge, and they will not be able to operate within an easement or anywhere near the transmission lines. They will lose half their productive land. You will not be able to compensate them up-front adequately, and if they are only going to get payment for 25 years, I am sure they will be most interested to learn that, and I wonder how your social licence will go.

Minister, you mentioned that regional partnerships would be involved in that sort of consultation group, or whatever you are calling it. Regional partnerships are not held in high regard in country areas –

David Davis: To put it mildly.

Bev McARTHUR: Absolutely to put it mildly, Mr Davis. The CEOs who have to be on them hate them; the councillors who are not on them find their role has been usurped; the other people who are on them are hand-picked government appointees; and the chair is always a government lackey. So suggesting that regional partnerships will be involved in this consultation process is no comfort to people in rural and regional Victoria. Why don’t you consider a fairer proposal for advocacy, as Mr Davis has suggested?

Ingrid STITT: Mrs McArthur, Victoria’s nine regional partnerships were established by the Victorian government in 2016, and they recognise that local communities are in the best position to understand the challenges that they face in regional Victoria. Through ongoing consultation the partnerships ensure that communities have a greater say. Are you suggesting that we should reduce that additional layer of communities being able to have input into government priorities and policies? It is a way for voices from those communities to be directly heard by the government. So I would reject the premise of your question.

Bev McARTHUR: Minister, thank you for that explanation. Regional partnerships have no community input apart from a few hand-picked appointed people. There are local councils, who are elected, who are the arbitrators of what goes on in their local areas. Local councils are not involved at all apart from the CEO of a council, who does not want to be on the regional partnership because it is a waste of time. And you are saying that –

David Davis interjected.

Bev McARTHUR: Yes, absolutely hamstrung by secrecy. That is quite farcical, but I will leave it there, because the minister will not elaborate any further, I am sure.

Ingrid STITT: Well, I’m happy to.

Bev McARTHUR: Good.

Ingrid STITT: I am very happy to elaborate, Mrs McArthur, and try to be helpful. I think that they are only one element of the number of different people that would be involved and groups that would be involved in consultation. VicGrid also have a significant role to play, and their staff are going to be out in the community and consulting widely. I would just note that what Mr Davis has put forward in his amendment, as you know, is a committee largely made up of peak bodies with only two community members on it. So I guess we are not agreeing here on what is the best model for consultation. The government has put forward a proposal in this bill, and we stand by that proposal.

Sarah MANSFIELD: Will the changes that are proposed in this bill and the role of VicGrid apply to VNI West and the Western Renewables Link?

Ingrid STITT: Dr Mansfield, the landholders would be eligible for the compensation payments associated with this bill, but because those projects are on foot we would not be proposing to apply all of the provisions of this bill to those projects that are already in train.

Sarah MANSFIELD: Will VicGrid play any role in consulting with those communities that will be affected by those projects?

Ingrid STITT: Yes, they will.

Sarah MANSFIELD: Can you provide any detail? Given that they have obviously missed their very early planning stages that future projects will hopefully work through with VicGrid, what sort of engagement is VicGrid going to undertake with the specific communities that are affected by the VNI West and Western Renewables Link projects?

Ingrid STITT: VicGrid staff are on the ground attending community information sessions, they are meeting landowners, they are holding regular meetings with important stakeholders like the Victorian Farmers Federation and so on. And VicGrid is already providing oversight of AEMO’s Transmission Company Victoria’s activities on VNI West.

Sarah MANSFIELD: We understand that there is a second tranche of VicGrid legislation coming that will introduce community benefit schemes or it will provide for some form of community benefit programs. When will this legislation be introduced?

Ingrid STITT: It is still subject to development and government processes. I am not in a position to be able to say, I am sorry, Dr Mansfield.

Sarah MANSFIELD: Are you at least able to provide some information on whether and how you are consulting on the development of those community benefit proposals?

Ingrid STITT: I am further advised, Dr Mansfield, that the second tranche of legislation will most likely be late this year or early next year, but that will be following consultation.

Sarah MANSFIELD: Are you able to provide some more detail about that consultation – who is being consulted, what information is the government considering in the development of that?

Ingrid STITT: I will certainly check that for you.

I am just trying to put my hands on that information for you, Dr Mansfield. I think I had mentioned earlier in answer to another question from another member that there were a number of regional workshops that were going to be undertaken – about nine across the regions. That was in relation to the setting up of the traditional owner and community fund. That work will be ongoing. We do not have any concrete information available for you right now, but I can certainly see whether or not we would be able to get any further information. But there are some details about those workshops on the Engage Victoria website already.

Clause agreed to; clauses 2 and 3 agreed to.

Clause 4 (15:57)

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Davis, I would invite you to move your amendments 1 to 3, which test your amendments 6 to 8.

David DAVIS: I move:

1. Clause 4, line 4, omit “definition” and insert “definitions”.

2. Clause 4, line 6, omit ‘52;”.’ and insert “52;”.

3. Clause 4, after line 6 insert –

‘Community Advisory Committee means the Community Advisory Committee established under section 88;”.’.

This is the establishment of a community advisory committee. As the Deputy President has outlined, this is a test for the other amendments related to the community advisory committee, including the matters in clause 8 of the amendments, which deals with the composition of the community advisory committee. I see the minister would like more people on the committee. We would not have been opposed to that, if the minister wanted to move an amendment to our amendment; we would be certainly open to that if that is where she wanted to go. But this is on top of any consultation the government is intending to undertake. Consultation to date has been poor, and I think it is widely accepted that AEMO and VicGrid have not adequately consulted with the community, so this is an additional layer to make sure that there are actually some voices heard. I would urge the crossbench and others to support these amendments. They would establish a community advisory committee which the minister and the CEO of VicGrid must consult with, and it would have a series of representatives. We have crafted that with respect to groups that have not had the input that is required – farmers, industry, the Municipal Association of Victoria.

We have heard here from the minister that regional partnerships would be involved. Well, none of us have great enthusiasm or much belief that the regional partnerships actually reflect the views of the community or rural councils, for example. We think that small business needs to be represented, and the seafood industry, and one of my colleagues is very determined to see that. A number of the lines that will connect to offshore wind actually reflect matters around the seafood industry. But we certainly would be interested to see if the government wanted to add additional people to it. We would be very open.

But this is just a further attempt to try and have some genuine community input into the way this is operating. It is a well-accepted point that the government’s community consultation has not been adequate. In any event, I accept the government is not going to support this, but that is our proposal.

Sheena WATT: Mr Davis, in relation to the community consultation committee, you have 11 seats on the committee, and I note that none of those are for traditional owner representatives. For me, I am not particularly happy about that. Are Victorian energy consumers only 18 per cent as important as lobbyist groups? I ask because they make up only 18 per cent of the 11 seats on this committee. I am interested in your perspective on that.

David DAVIS: You are correct that traditional owners are not represented on that committee. They have other mechanisms of representation, as you are well aware, and there are other mechanisms outlined in the bill that will deal with their input. But having said that, the advisory committee is in addition to what is in the bill already. It would improve it. But if you were to move an amendment to add additional consumers, we would certainly be prepared to consider that.

Sheena WATT: I would just like to make it clear that traditional owners are not only consumers of energy but also rights holders when it comes to land in this state, and I think that is worthy of knowledge. I also just want to ask a question about the consumer advocacy groups. Have you in fact met with consumer advocacy groups around proposals for the make-up of this consumer committee?

David DAVIS: We have met with a number of groups, but we have not met with every consumer advocacy group. It is very clear that many of the groups have had their rights trampled on and have not been properly consulted. This is an attempt for them to be represented here in a way that ensures their voices are heard.

Ingrid STITT: I will just make a few comments about the opposition’s amendment, if I can. Of course, as I have already indicated in the committee stage, one of the key elements of the Victorian transmission investment framework is a strategic land use assessment. That will map land use in Victoria, and that will involve significant community consultation. This has never been done before, and I think that it is an important element of this bill going forward. It is important for that information and consultation to feed into Victoria’s transmission plan, which will then in turn be published in 2025. The development of the VTP will also include the establishment of local and technical reference groups. We have already had some discussion about the role of regional partnerships and other representatives, including agricultural and energy industry representatives. VicGrid will also commence public consultation with the community, and the VTIF already provides multiple avenues for public and stakeholder consultation. For those reasons and because of the robust provisions of the bill, we will not be supporting the opposition’s amendment.

David DAVIS: Look, I respect the minister’s view, but with the greatest of respect, this has been drafted as an additional guarantee for significant groups that have not been properly consulted. We are responsive to the fact that these groups have been overridden, and this is an attempt to have some greater level of consultation. There is no need to claim that this is everything for consultation, but the question is: will it improve the input? Our view is that it would.

Council divided on amendments:

Ayes (16): Melina Bath, Gaelle Broad, Georgie Crozier, David Davis, Moira Deeming, Renee Heath, David Limbrick, Wendy Lovell, Trung Luu, Bev McArthur, Joe McCracken, Nick McGowan, Evan Mulholland, Adem Somyurek, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell, Richard Welch

Noes (20): Ryan Batchelor, John Berger, Lizzie Blandthorn, Katherine Copsey, Enver Erdogan, Jacinta Ermacora, David Ettershank, Michael Galea, Shaun Leane, Sarah Mansfield, Tom McIntosh, Rachel Payne, Georgie Purcell, Samantha Ratnam, Harriet Shing, Ingrid Stitt, Lee Tarlamis, Sonja Terpstra, Gayle Tierney, Sheena Watt

Amendments negatived.

Clause agreed to; clauses 5 to 7 agreed to.

Clause 8 (16:11)

David DAVIS: Clause 8 inserts a number of new sections, and I would specifically like to talk about new section 67, which starts on page 18 of the bill:

67 Recovery of fees and charges

(1) VicGrid fees and charges may be recovered by the CEO VicGrid, subject to, and in accordance with, Chapter 6A of the Rules as modified by this section.

It goes on to say this can be for the performance of the CEO in planning functions, so this is a bureaucratic function, and:

… costs incurred by AEMO are taken to include VicGrid fees and charges …

AEMO must pay amounts it collects to VicGrid. It goes on at (2)(e):

… fees and charges form part of AEMO’s maximum allowed revenue …

It goes on further, and I will be quite specific here:

(g) despite anything to the contrary in the Rules –

(i) AEMO may publish amended prices for prescribed shared transmission services for the regulatory year that commenced on 1 January 2024 to take effect from 1 July 2024 –

so this is a little bit retrospective –

to include VicGrid fees and charges; and

(ii) AEMO may amend its revenue methodology for the regulatory year that commenced on 1 January 2024 and each subsequent regulatory year to include VicGrid fees and charges; and

(iii) AEMO is not required to consult the public in respect of any amendment that is required to its revenue methodology to provide for VicGrid fees and charges.

As I read it, VicGrid will be in a position to impose fees and charges almost at will, and indeed AEMO will be in a position to impose fees and charges. Indeed in the case of AEMO it will not even need to consult. Will the minister confirm, perhaps section 67(2)(g)(iii):

AEMO is not required to consult the public in respect of any amendment that is required to its revenue methodology to provide for VicGrid fees and charges.

Does that mean what I think it means – that you can impose charges and there will be no consultation whatsoever if that is what AEMO and VicGrid deem?

Ingrid STITT: I can confirm, Mr Davis, that the CEO of VicGrid must publish VicGrid’s fees and charges on its website, but I am just going to seek a little bit of clarity from the box around the question you have asked about AEMO.

Mr Davis, AEMO are not required to publish that now. This is entirely consistent with the way that it operates currently. The charges will be recovered on a not-for-profit basis through transmission use of system charges. Currently AEMO in its role as Victorian transmission planner recovers the costs for planning the shared transmission network through direct connected customers, but that is generally customers with large loads and distributors. Consistent with this practice, VicGrid will recover its ongoing REZ planning function costs in a similar way.

David DAVIS: If I can just put on record that this is precisely what I understood: that VicGrid will be able to recover as it wishes and AEMO will be able to recover as they wish. They will have to publish it, I accept that, but those costs will be paid by whom, Minister? Who will pay those costs?

Ingrid STITT: I just want to, before I get to that, reiterate that the bill enables the CEO of VicGrid, following consultation with the Premier, Treasurer and minister, to determine fees and charges for performing the CEO’s VicGrid REZ planning functions. I mean, we are obviously mindful and aware of the price pressures on Victorian electricity consumers, but at the same time it is critical to recognise that transmission planning arrangements need to respond to the broader energy sector context in order to continue delivering secure, reliable and affordable electricity. While there will be changes, this will be offset by benefits to electricity consumers from the timely coordination, transmission, generation and storage infrastructure required to deliver affordable power. I would point out that we have the lowest wholesale prices in the country in Victoria.

David DAVIS: Because of coal.

Ingrid STITT: No, in fact the reason that the retail prices have been going up is actually as a result of coal-fired power and international events beyond the control of anybody in Australia in, for example, the Ukraine. The reason why our wholesale price is so much lower than anybody else’s in the country is because of renewables.

David DAVIS: We will just have to agree to disagree about that matter. But leaving that aside, essentially my question to the minister is: who will these costs be passed through to? It is a fact I think, Minister, isn’t it, that households and businesses – that is, consumers – will pay all of these costs? Because they are all straight pass-through matters.

Ingrid STITT: Well, transmission charges are passed through to distributors, as you know, and they are repackaged into network charges, which are then passed on to retailers. That is the way the system operates – a system that you privatised.

David DAVIS: In fact this will also incorporate the planning functions and every other function, including the zones. All the costs there will be passed through to households and businesses – that is, consumers. That is a fact, isn’t it, Minister?

Ingrid STITT: Well, I can see where you are going here, Mr Davis. What I will reiterate to you is that this is the next bill to deliver the transmission infrastructure that we need. AEMO does that planning now, and these costs already exist. So what you are trying to do here is actually present that this bill will somehow change that, and it does not.

David DAVIS: Minister, with the currently planned infrastructure – you know, VNI and so forth, the currently announced infrastructure – how much is the cost of those projects, and how much will be passed through?

Ingrid STITT: The cost of planning, building and maintaining energy infrastructure is borne by consumers, and the establishment of VicGrid will ensure that they are not paying more than they need to into the future, because VicGrid will have the power to plan and deliver that infrastructure in a more considered and coordinated way than it has in the past. That is the primary driver behind the government bringing this bill, because the current processes are not fit for purpose.

David DAVIS: I thank the minister for her answer, and I note that a figure has not been provided for the announced infrastructure. I understand the minister may not have that figure, but she could undertake to provide it. My question therefore moves to a separate set of infrastructure. At the briefing – and I thank the minister for the briefing, which was provided very late in the piece I might add – we asked about additional planned long-distance transmission, and the bureaucrats indicated on top of the announced projects new long-distance transmission of 550 kilometres of line. I ask the minister whether that also would be a set of costs that are passed through to consumers – that is, businesses and families.

Ingrid STITT: Sorry, are we still on clause 8, Mr Davis?

David DAVIS: Yes.

Ingrid STITT: It is the same answer, Mr Davis.

David DAVIS: Minister, I thank you for your answer there, and I do invite you to reconsider that earlier option of the announced structure, to have the cost estimates and the pass-through costs provided to the committee. That would be helpful, but I accept that the unannounced infrastructure is not yet planned and the costs are therefore not known. But I do accept what you are saying, that the principle is that those costs will all be passed through to consumers – that is, families and businesses.

Ingrid STITT: Well, Mr Davis, what I have clearly said is that processes that are going to be undertaken as part of our significant infrastructure planning and delivery – in terms of how the costs are borne, there is absolutely no difference between how that currently operates and how it will operate in the future. But again I would just make the point that putting downward pressure on costs is one of the many benefits of renewable projects of this magnitude.

David DAVIS: I am not sure about the downward pressure. Prices have been going up, Minister. But I will leave it there, and we will just have to –

Members interjecting.

David DAVIS: Well, you know, 28 per cent for electricity last year and 22 per cent for gas – those are the St Vincent’s figures. I do not think anyone thinks that is trivial. Just as a statement, I think this is going to be a huge surge of additional costs onto families and onto businesses. The state government has had years to plan for this, and now it is going to come in a very significant rush and the costs are going to be enormous and passed through in full. But I will leave it there in the interests of time.

Bev McARTHUR: Minister, clause 53 refers to the CEO having regard to the most recent Gas Statement of Opportunities published by AEMO. The 2024 AEMO Gas Statement of Opportunities highlights risks of peak-day shortfalls on some days under extreme weather conditions from 2025 and the potential for small seasonal supply gaps from 2026 in southern states. So, Minister, will the CEO be able to advise the government to unlock and invest in Victorian gas projects and reverse the ban on gas, or does the CEO have to have regard to the statement but keep quiet and make no comment on the impact on the Victorian power network?

Ingrid STITT: I will not comment on the commentary you have just provided at the end of your question, Mrs McArthur – you are very good – but I would just indicate to you that that is not part of the role of the CEO of VicGrid.

Bev McARTHUR: Minister, it distinctly refers to the Gas Statement of Opportunities published by AEMO under section 8 of the National Gas (Victoria) Law. So you are saying that the CEO will have no role in this whatsoever?

Ingrid STITT: Perhaps I will answer it this way. The CEO will have the following responsibilities under this bill: recommending to the minister geographical areas in Victoria to be considered for declaration as renewable energy zones – I might note that gas is not a renewable; planning and the development of major transmission infrastructure within the renewable energy zones; planning for the connection of major transmission infrastructure to the declared shared network; and planning for the connection of generation and storage within the renewable energy zone through the preparation and publication of the Victorian transmission plan. In addition, the bill provides for further functions to be conferred on the CEO of VicGrid by an order under section 16Y of the National Electricity (Victoria) Act to empower VicGrid to assist the Australian Energy Market Operator in the performance of its functions, enabling VicGrid to help facilitate the pace of development required to meet net zero. One of AEMO’s roles is to plan for and manage supply constraints in the gas market, which you would be well aware of, I am sure.

Bev McARTHUR: Clause 56 states:

The Victorian transmission planning objective is, in relation to Victoria –

…

(b) the delivery of transmission services consistent with a least-regrets development pathway …

Minister, AEMO’s VNI West modelling results show that from 2030 Victoria will be a net importer of around one-sixth of its electricity annually, mainly from New South Wales, and one-quarter by 2035 onwards. Specifically, the modelling shows Victoria will depend on New South Wales for around 40 per cent of its typical electricity needs during more than 20 per cent of all hours by 2040, rising to 35 per cent of all hours by 2050. Will the CEO of VicGrid be directed to accept this scenario or to provide an alternative which does not leave Victoria more dependent on New South Wales as a result of this expensive and unnecessary interconnector?

Ingrid STITT: I feel like I am in question time. I stand by my previous answer as to the specific role in the bill for the CEO of VicGrid.

Bev McARTHUR: Clause 57 states:

The CEO VicGrid must –

publish the Victorian transmission plan guidelines no later than 30 September 2024 …

Minister, will this transmission plan still be termed ‘Victoria’s first transmission plan’, as it has been during the consultation? If so, do you have any understanding of how angry that makes those affected by the Western Renewables Link and the VNI West project? Why was the first transmission plan not done before their communities were blighted?

Ingrid STITT: I am just not accepting the premise of that question, Mrs McArthur. I am happy to outline what the timetable is for VicGrid publishing their transmission plan, the first one and then subsequent ones, but I do not accept the proposition that you are putting forward in your question.

Bev McARTHUR: Minister, clause 57(3)(b) refers to VicGrid’s CEO undertaking a strategic land use assessment as part of the transmission plan. Will this strategic land use assessment include the percentage of Victorian agricultural land required for the renewables generation to meet the government’s 95 per cent target?

Ingrid STITT: Unlike previous planning in this space, this assessment will consider key land use and environmental and community issues early in the planning process, well ahead of project identifications or approvals. It will be the first Victorian-specific plan. AEMO publish a national plan every two years. The process outlined in this bill will allow planners to identify the most appropriate geographic areas for generation and transmission development across the whole state while avoiding highly sensitive areas. I think I have a sense of your question, and I think it might relate to an out-of-date report. If you want to go into agriculture a little further for me, I can get you the answer that you are seeking, Mrs McArthur.

Bev McARTHUR: You may be referring to the information that we do have that says that 75 per cent of agricultural land will be needed if you are to meet your renewables energy target. Is this being scrapped?

David Davis: This is the disappearing report.

Bev McARTHUR: It is not on the website, but it was there.

Ingrid STITT: It is because it is out of date and modelling that is no longer relevant for the purposes of this exercise. Implementation statements have replaced this, and we have three implementation statements on the website and publicly available, Mrs McArthur. So that is something I think it is important for the community to understand: that figure you have quoted is outdated and irrelevant for the purposes of this work.

Bev McARTHUR: Thank you, Minister. That is most encouraging. So what is the percentage of agricultural land that will be required to meet your renewable energy target? You must have a figure.

Ingrid STITT: I have pointed to the publicly available statements on the website, and I further indicate that the 70 per cent figure was based on a wild overestimate and it was not relevant.

Bev McARTHUR: It was your material, Minister, nevertheless. You have pared it down, have you? Clause 60, ‘Preparing and publishing Victorian transmission plan’. The question, Minister, is in regard to 60(2)(e), which says the CEO of VicGrid ‘may have regard to any other relevant information’ in preparation of the transmission plan. Will this include an assessment of plan B, the alternative transmission proposal by Professor Bruce Mountain and Simon Bartlett that we have debated here and mentioned, which takes a different approach, less reliant on interconnection, and reinforces and augments the existing grid with minimal sections of new transmission, instead of endorsing AEMO’s organisational obsession with a nationwide, high-voltage AC network, which is unlikely to be in the interests of Victoria?

Ingrid STITT: Mrs McArthur, after careful and serious consideration, the independent review found that plan B just did not stack up. It would result in less renewable generation, long periods of power system disruption during construction and lower reliability and would likely require the acquisition of homes in Ballarat and Bendigo, something I am sure you would be absolutely opposed to.

Bev McARTHUR: Clause 63, ‘Declaration of renewable energy zones’ – this section says the minister must publish ‘engagement requirements and expectations of project proponents during project development’. What is the mechanism here if those engagement requirements are not met?

Ingrid STITT: Sorry, can you just repeat that, Mrs McArthur – the end bit?

Bev McARTHUR: The preamble is:

engagement requirements and expectations of project proponents during project development.

What is the mechanism here if those engagement requirements are not met?

Ingrid STITT: Perhaps the way I can answer this, Mrs McArthur, is to just set out what the process is for those declarations. In preparing a REZ order, the minister must have regard to the Victorian transmission planning objective, the current VTP and any other relevant information. The minister must publish a draft of the order and invite stakeholder feedback so that the Minister for Energy and Resources by order may declare an area of Victoria as a REZ, and the minister must publish a declaration together with reasons in the Government Gazette. The REZ declaration will set out preferred corridors for siting new transmission infrastructure within a REZ, as well as between the REZ and the existing network. It is obviously a significant decision that requires balancing a range of objectives, land use and economic factors, and the decision will guide infrastructure development in regional communities and councils, First Nations communities and for farmers and industry, and therefore it is appropriate that such a decision is made by the minister. Hopefully that gives you a bit more of a sense of the process.

Bev McARTHUR: Well, Minister, the consultation process and the failures of AusNet are apparent for all to see. What happens if this is repeated? What is the sanction?

Ingrid STITT: VicGrid will coordinate consultation, not AusNet, but it is not a relevant question. It is outside the scope of this bill.

Sarah MANSFIELD: Just regarding new section 59, will you engage environmental NGOs, community and landholders in the development of the multicriteria analysis that is going to then be used to undertake land use assessments?

Ingrid STITT: Yes.

David DAVIS: I have listened carefully to the contribution of the minister in response to many of the questions in this part. This is clause 8, and there are a significant number of insertions there, but in particular the pass-through components are ill defined and the community will be hit heavily with increased charges and costs. These will be passed through without restraint to businesses and to households. Households are suffering very significantly at the moment, and the government appears to have no idea of the actual costs and no idea of how much will be passed through to consumers – households – in a cost-of-living crisis. In those circumstances we will not support the clause but will seek to oppose the clause and delete the clause to protect consumers, businesses and households from the massive pass through that reflects the government’s lethargy over the last 10 years in actually putting in place proper steps that would have dealt with these infrastructure requirements.

Ingrid STITT: Just in response to that little flourish, I reject the embellishment contained in that contribution. Mr Davis, I have already explained on about three occasions that the cost recovery processes will be identical to those that currently exist.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The question is that clause 8 stand part of the bill. Mr Davis is seeking to omit this clause, so if you agree with him, you should vote no to the clause. If you agree with the government on this clause, vote yes.

Council divided on clause:

Ayes (20): Ryan Batchelor, John Berger, Lizzie Blandthorn, Katherine Copsey, Enver Erdogan, Jacinta Ermacora, David Ettershank, Michael Galea, Shaun Leane, Sarah Mansfield, Tom McIntosh, Rachel Payne, Georgie Purcell, Samantha Ratnam, Harriet Shing, Ingrid Stitt, Lee Tarlamis, Sonja Terpstra, Gayle Tierney, Sheena Watt

Noes (16): Melina Bath, Gaelle Broad, Georgie Crozier, David Davis, Moira Deeming, Renee Heath, David Limbrick, Wendy Lovell, Trung Luu, Bev McArthur, Joe McCracken, Nick McGowan, Evan Mulholland, Adem Somyurek, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell, Richard Welch

Clause agreed to.

Clause 9 (16:49)

David DAVIS: I move:

4. Clause 9, line 3, before “Before section” insert “(1)”.

5. Clause 9, after line 12 insert –

‘(2) After section 12A(4) of the Principal Act insert –

“(4A) Regulations made for the purposes of section 75(1) must not provide that a traditional owner right within the meaning of the Traditional Owner Settlement Act 2010 is a prescribed interest in public land.”.’.

These amendments will amend clause 9. Consistent with our concern earlier about the pass through of costs, we are concerned about the pass through of payments to traditional owners, and we are also concerned about the pass through of all costs through to consumers, to those who are in business, to those who are households, and in that sense we would seek to move this to prevent the payment of these fees or charges by the operators, who will ultimately pass these costs through to consumers – to households and businesses.

Ingrid STITT: The bill is about making sure everyone in regional communities, including farmers and traditional owners, can share the benefits of renewable energy transition. As I have already indicated, it is very disappointing that the opposition is attempting to specifically exclude traditional owners through their amendments, and we will be opposing the amendments.

Sheena WATT: I just think it is worth noting that the Victorian transmission infrastructure framework embeds benefit sharing for everyone in the communities that will host this infrastructure, including farmers, regional towns and traditional owners. I have a question for Mr Davis. Why would you specifically exclude traditional owners from an equal share of the benefits with everyone else?

David DAVIS: On public land, we think that additional costs generated will be passed through and we are concerned about all of the pass-through of costs. We have sought to exclude some of those pass-throughs in the recent clause that we just voted on.

Harriet SHING: Mr Davis, I have just heard the question that was asked around the pass-through of benefit on the one hand and the answer that you appear to be giving is the one directed to the pass-through of costs. Now, I am concerned that you are actually not understanding the link between public land on the one hand and traditional owner rights as they accrue in that space on the other. The question that Ms Watt has asked about is the extent to which benefit will be conferred upon traditional owners unless your amendment operates to exclude them from that benefit.

David DAVIS: We are concerned about costs being passed through, and this will prevent some costs being passed through. We are looking at a number of different aspects of this, and we are very concerned about the costs on a broad front. The minister will recall earlier in this proceeding we asked about the costs in a broader context, and all of these costs are concerning.

Harriet SHING: Mr Davis, based on your answer just now then, is it an intended or unintended consequence that as a result of your amendment traditional owners will be excluded from the operation of a framework that would confer them benefit?

David DAVIS: It is our intention to lower costs for consumers, so the pass-through of costs is what concerns us.

Harriet SHING: Just for the record, I would take that as a yes. It is your intention to exclude traditional owners from this framework.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Ms Shing, we do not verbal in committee. The answers given by the minister or by the person proposing the amendment are the answers, not what people interpret them to be.

Harriet SHING: As you would be aware and as the house well understands from the operation of convention and the rules in the committee stage, I am in a position to be able to put a comment and in a position to be able to put a proposition to Mr Davis. He should feel free to refute that, and you yourself, Deputy President, are aware that Mr Davis is never, ever backward in coming forward in that regard. It is an inescapable conclusion to my mind, having heard what you have said, Mr Davis, that it is your express intention to exclude traditional owners from the conferral of any benefit as a consequence of your amendment. Mr Davis, I would ask that if in fact it is not your intention that you put that on the record or otherwise clarify the position for the public record given your amendment and the discussion that we are having at the moment. That is my question, Deputy President. If I can put that to Mr Davis in terms as plain as possible: yes or no, Mr Davis?

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: That was a better way of phrasing it. Thank you.

David DAVIS: I will be as plain as I can here. We are concerned about the pass-through of costs. This will lower costs to consumers. It will lower the costs to a range of businesses and households. We are concerned on a number of fronts, as has been indicated through this process, about costs that are being passed through to consumers.

Sheena WATT: Mr Davis, you have said you are concerned about costs, but you are only wanting to exclude traditional owners. My question is: why are only traditional owners and not other groups in this proposal?

David DAVIS: As I have indicated in the earlier stages here, we have actually highlighted the costs being passed through on a number of fronts and have sought through the opposition to clause 8 to deal with a number of those matters that are being passed through. That is specifically what we have done on a number of different fronts. We are concerned about the costs that will be passed through.

Sheena WATT: Mr Davis, I wonder if you have in fact met with any traditional owner groups or representatives of traditional owners before the drafting of this amendment where you decided to exclude them. I am interested in some feedback on that, because having met with some representatives earlier today regarding this amendment, they certainly have not heard from you. I am wondering if you can furnish me with some details on your consultation with traditional owners on this amendment.

David DAVIS: We have consulted widely on this, but let me be clear: if the member has people that she wishes me to speak to, I am happy to do that and happy to do that at future points.

Sheena WATT: There are certainly traditional owners in this state that have rights under the Traditional Owner Settlement Act 2010 that I think are probably worthy of consultation throughout this process, including the peak body for Victorian traditional owners, and I would certainly make that recommendation. But I have got a further question for the opposition: do you believe that traditional owners should also be excluded from other aspects of transmission planning, along with consultation?

David DAVIS: Well, if I can make a more general point, we are worried about the framework on the consultation by both AEMO and VicGrid, as we have outlined repeatedly through this debate – not just me but a range of others. We do have issues with the government’s approach to consultation here. We did have one attempt to improve it through the consultation committee, but I am open to other ways that we could improve consultation on a broader front. I think, yes, it can be on a broader front.

Sheena WATT: I would just highlight that I certainly cannot support these amendments that are before us today from Mr Davis. I will say that, in light of the Yoorrook Justice Commission and what has come out only this week, having talked to a range of representatives they are indeed quite upset with this amendment before us. I would like it noted that there is a difference between Aboriginal people being consumers of energy, as you mentioned earlier, and actual rights holders of the public land estate. I think that that needs to be particularly acknowledged as we continue our committee stage on this bill. That is it for my questions.

Council divided on amendments:

Ayes (12): Georgie Crozier, David Davis, Renee Heath, Wendy Lovell, Trung Luu, Bev McArthur, Joe McCracken, Nick McGowan, Evan Mulholland, Adem Somyurek, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell, Richard Welch

Noes (20): Ryan Batchelor, John Berger, Lizzie Blandthorn, Katherine Copsey, Enver Erdogan, Jacinta Ermacora, David Ettershank, Michael Galea, Shaun Leane, Sarah Mansfield, Tom McIntosh, Rachel Payne, Georgie Purcell, Samantha Ratnam, Harriet Shing, Ingrid Stitt, Lee Tarlamis, Sonja Terpstra, Gayle Tierney, Sheena Watt

Amendments negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 10 (17:06)

Sarah MANSFIELD: I am just curious to understand, Minister, why the government chose to legislate the exact figure of landholder payments? Why was that put in legislation and not done via regulation?

Ingrid STITT: We wanted to provide certainty and be transparent; therefore we included it in the bill, Dr Mansfield.

Sarah MANSFIELD: I thank the minister for that response. I am trying to understand as well why a per kilometre approach was used for these payments, because you might have a scenario where you have a farmer, say, with agricultural land that might not be high-value or it is something that they can easily continue their normal operations on, like grazing, so it will not have a huge impact on the productivity of that farm and they are going to be paid the same rate as another farmer where that infrastructure might be cutting across highly productive agricultural land, like a potato farm or something like that, or disrupt the structure of their farm. They are being paid the same amount as the other farmer because it is a flat rate per kilometre. That fails to recognise, I guess, the loss of productivity and the agricultural value of that land. So I am trying to understand the rationale for using this approach and not something that better reflects the actual loss of the productive value of that land.

Ingrid STITT: There are two separate components to the compensation. One is the compensation payable under the Land Acquisition and Compensation Act and that is the act that delivers compensation associated with any loss of land value. The per kilometre payments in compensation are over and above that. The reason why we chose to provide a per kilometre amount indexed and paid over 25 years is because it is consistent with New South Wales, and it ensures that landowners on each side of the border are being treated equally.

Sarah MANSFIELD: I understand that other piece of legislation looks at the value of the land – I am assuming it is if you were to sell that land, what it would be worth – but there is also, for the person who is staying on that land, the ongoing productivity of the land, if you are a farmer, that you are losing, which is not just about the loss of income that you may have generated from, say, growing potatoes or some other form of produce that is now being completely lost and disrupted. Is there going to be some other way of recognising the loss of ongoing productive value of land for some landholders who are affected by this infrastructure? Is that something that might, for example, be a consideration of the next round of VicGrid legislation?

Ingrid STITT: The landholder payments established by the bill that we are dealing with today are separate to any compensation under existing arrangements, including for transmission easements acquired compulsorily under the Land Acquisition and Compensation Act. The act ensures that property owners are fairly paid for the acquisition of their land or an interest in their land, including the impact of any business operations undertaken on the land and the cost to landholders of the acquisition process. VicGrid also recognise that some properties neighbouring transmission line developments may still be affected, even after mitigation actions associated with project siting and screening are undertaken, so they are developing guidance to further consider this issue, which will be released later in the year.

Clause agreed to; clause 11 agreed to.

Reported to house without amendment.

Ingrid STITT (Western Metropolitan – Minister for Mental Health, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Multicultural Affairs) (17:13): I move:

That the report be now adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

Third reading

Ingrid STITT (Western Metropolitan – Minister for Mental Health, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Multicultural Affairs) (17:13): I move:

That the bill be now read a third time.

The PRESIDENT: The question is:

That the bill be now read a third time and do pass.

Council divided on question:

Ayes (20): Ryan Batchelor, John Berger, Lizzie Blandthorn, Katherine Copsey, Enver Erdogan, Jacinta Ermacora, David Ettershank, Michael Galea, Shaun Leane, Sarah Mansfield, Tom McIntosh, Rachel Payne, Georgie Purcell, Samantha Ratnam, Harriet Shing, Ingrid Stitt, Lee Tarlamis, Sonja Terpstra, Gayle Tierney, Sheena Watt

Noes (12): Melina Bath, Gaelle Broad, Georgie Crozier, David Davis, Renee Heath, Wendy Lovell, Trung Luu, Bev McArthur, Joe McCracken, Evan Mulholland, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell, Richard Welch

Question agreed to.

Read third time.

The PRESIDENT: Pursuant to standing order 14.28, the bill will be returned to the Assembly with a message informing them that the Council have agreed to the bill without amendment.