Tuesday, 13 May 2025
Bills
Energy and Land Legislation Amendment (Energy Safety) Bill 2025
Please do not quote
Proof only
Energy and Land Legislation Amendment (Energy Safety) Bill 2025
Second reading
The ACTING PRESIDENT (Michael Galea): The question is:
That the bill be now read a second time.
Council divided on motion:
Ayes (23): Ryan Batchelor, John Berger, Lizzie Blandthorn, Katherine Copsey, Enver Erdogan, Jacinta Ermacora, David Ettershank, Michael Galea, Anasina Gray-Barberio, Shaun Leane, David Limbrick, Sarah Mansfield, Tom McIntosh, Rachel Payne, Aiv Puglielli, Georgie Purcell, Harriet Shing, Ingrid Stitt, Jaclyn Symes, Lee Tarlamis, Sonja Terpstra, Gayle Tierney, Sheena Watt
Noes (15): Melina Bath, Gaelle Broad, Georgie Crozier, David Davis, Moira Deeming, Renee Heath, Ann-Marie Hermans, Wendy Lovell, Trung Luu, Bev McArthur, Joe McCracken, Nick McGowan, Evan Mulholland, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell, Richard Welch
Motion agreed to.
Read second time.
Instruction to committee
The PRESIDENT (17:03): In consideration of amendments circulated by Minister Stitt, it is my view that the amendments are not within the scope of the bill. Therefore an instruction motion pursuant to standing order 14.11 is required.
That it be an instruction to the committee that they have power to consider amendments and new clauses to amend the Electricity Industry Act 2000 to enable licensees that sell electricity to more than 5000 customers, rather than the Essential Services Commission, to set the rate or rates at which those licensees purchase small renewable energy generation electricity from customers.
Motion agreed to.
Committed.
Committee
Clause 1 (17:05)
David DAVIS: Minister, the amendments you are making amend the Electricity Industry Act 2000 to enable licensees to sell electricity to more than 5000 customers, rather than the Essential Services Commission, and to set the rate or rates at which the licensees purchase small renewable energy generation electricity from customers. This is the feed-in tariff in effect, and the government has already reduced the feed-in tariff to half of squiddly did – it is not worth a pinch of salt. In a sense this is formalising the government’s execution of the feed-in tariff; I think this is in effect what is going on. I ask: has the government modelled the impact of this? Is there any modelling or understanding of what is going on with this? How is it likely, for example, to impact on what is paid to customers?
Ingrid STITT: Mr Davis, contrary to what you have put, the reality is that the real savings for consumers come via having solar in the first place. There is very little now because of the –
David DAVIS: Because it is very small. It has been reduced to next to nothing. It used to be larger.
Ingrid STITT: Well, the issue here is that having solar power is where consumers receive the savings. Because of the significant uptake of solar, the feed-in tariffs are not worth what they might have been worth originally when they were first introduced.
David DAVIS: Essentially, I think the minister is confirming what I have said – that now under the government’s regime, although many people installed solar photovoltaic (PV) systems in good faith, seeking to get what were at various points greater or lesser attraction in terms of feed-in tariffs, the feed-in tariffs in the recent round have been reduced to virtually nothing. They are just the tiniest amount – 0.4 cents or whatever it is. The only thing I would say about this amendment is it will not allow the feed-in tariffs to be less than zero. I think that is the truth of the matter. Minister, my question is: do you have any modelling of the impact on the financial position of consumers?
Ingrid STITT: Mr Davis, there is no specific modelling that has been undertaken, but what we are doing here is removing the minimum. That is not to say that energy companies will not provide a feed-in tariff, but we are removing the minimum. What we found in other jurisdictions –
David DAVIS: You are inserting a new minimum of zero.
Ingrid STITT: Yes, that is right.
David DAVIS: If I could just conclude this, I just really want to make a comment at this point. People have undertaken PV solar with good faith, and the government has not delivered on the undertakings and understandings there. The government has in fact reneged on many of those points. Now, I understand why the government is doing that. We are at certain points in the day awash with solar, and at other points we are very short of energy in different ways, but at points the government actually has the opposite problem in many respects now. It is important I think to note that the government is now doing this without modelling and in what I think would be fair to describe as a breach of good faith. Whether it is technically a breach is a different question, but it is certainly a breach of good faith for those who have in genuine steps embarked on solar PV with an understanding that they would get a feed-in tariff. That has now gone.
David LIMBRICK: I also have a question about the feed-in tariff rate. I understand why the government would want to have a market rate instead of a minimum legislated rate, because at many times the value of that power going onto the network is effectively worthless, because it is not required. But we also have a problem where sometimes so much of that electricity has been put onto the network that we have negative rates. The government seems to have made a decision to insulate people from negative rates. Is it the case that when there are negative price events on the network because of setting the limit to zero, other users on the network will be paying for that cost of putting it onto the network?
Ingrid STITT: The solar feed-in tariff payments customers receive for the excess electricity that their solar panels generate and then send back to the electricity grid were hugely successful in encouraging the uptake of solar PV systems by households when they were introduced some 15 years ago. The Victorian government incentives for solar uptake started with the premium feed-in tariff, with further iterations of that obviously over a number of different years and moving to the current market-driven FIT arrangements. Since 2019 the amount of rooftop solar in Victoria has really increased significantly – by almost 78 per cent. We had around 793,000 systems as of 31 December 2024. This has both increased supply and reduced demand for electricity during the middle of the day, resulting in much cheaper daytime wholesale electricity prices and decreasing the value of the daytime solar exports. So really the market is driving this situation, which is why we are bringing the house amendment.
David LIMBRICK: Yes, I agree, it has lowered the value of that electricity exported to the point where not only is it sometimes worthless but sometimes it costs money to put it onto the network. But by setting the value at zero, the government is effectively insulating those solar panel owners from that negative pricing event when they occur, and they do occur sometimes. So who is paying for that? If it is not the solar panel owner, they are effectively getting a free service by dumping electricity onto the network on a negative price event. Who is paying for it? It cannot be the solar owner, surely.
Ingrid STITT: It still provides a really meaningful addition to our energy grid. As I said in answer to Mr Davis’s question, the real savings for consumers are in having renewable solar on their roof in the first place – that is, because they are generating their own electricity. Now with battery storage becoming so much more accessible through both technological improvements but also government incentives, this is really driving the situation that we have today with very low daytime wholesale electricity rates.
David DAVIS: On another matter, this bill removes a number of independent advisory committees. Where did the government receive advice to get rid of these committees? Is there a report? Is there an assessment that they decided to execute these committees, figuratively?
Ingrid STITT: Yes, the bill does abolish the statutory establishment of the Electric Line Clearance Consultative Committee (ELCCC) and the Victorian Electrolysis Committee. It is really being driven by a desire to streamline our governance and reduce administrative complexity but also to strengthen the operational efficiency, and these changes reflect a shift towards a more adaptable and responsive engagement method across the sector. The requirements of the formal committees prescribed in legislation involve quite significant administrative overheads, and they may not always be the most effective way to address emerging issues. Instead, Energy Safe Victoria (ESV) will engage with technical experts and with industry representatives and stakeholders through much more flexible, tailored consultation mechanisms. This is not radical. This is in line with the way in which a number of different entities and statutory bodies operate. The approach will enable faster, more targeted input, ensuring that decision-making processes remain informed by relevant expertise and stakeholder feedback without the procedural delays associated with standing committees.
David DAVIS: My question is: is there a report or an examination or advice that the minister was given, or the department was given, on these matters?
Ingrid STITT: Certainly the relevant department, the Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action (DEECA), has been consulting with industry and will as a result of these amendments continue to consult with relevant technical experts as and when the need arises.
David DAVIS: I do not know whether the minister is misunderstanding me, but was there a report or formal advice or some other material that was presented to the minister or the department advising that these committees be gotten rid of? Was there some examination? Was there an independent report? How did this come about?
Ingrid STITT: Consistent with the way I have already answered this, this was careful advice given to the minister by the department after consulting with Energy Safe Victoria and also with the committees that are the subject of your question.
David DAVIS: So there was not an independent report, it seems, from what you are saying.
Ingrid STITT: Well, not unusual for the minister to –
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Minister, Mr Davis has the call.
Ingrid STITT: I thought that was a question. Sorry.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Are you finished? Okay. Minister, you still need to wait for the call.
Ingrid STITT: My apologies, Deputy President. I thought that I had the call. Mr Davis, it is not unusual for ministers to have advice from their departments of these sorts of reforms, particularly when it comes to strengthening governance arrangements across government.
David DAVIS: I am going to put on record that we do not think it does strengthen governance arrangements; we think it in fact clearly directly weakens the governance arrangements. But the electric line clearance committee in particular has given advice that the minister and department have not enjoyed, have been at odds with. Isn’t the truth of the matter that this is an attempt just to nobble a committee that has given advice the government does not like?
Ingrid STITT: Certainly not.
David DAVIS: Well, I am just going to put on record again, having read through the minutes and agendas of the electric line clearance committee, that I think the committee has done very good work and I think the committee’s approach is exemplary, and I think it is very unfortunate that the government, which is at odds with it on at least one matter, has decided to abolish the committee part way through some of its attempted reforms, and in that sense that is why we are moving amendments to protect those independent committees.
Ingrid STITT: I have already indicated very clearly that that is absolutely not the case, Mr Davis, and your assertions are factually incorrect.
David LIMBRICK: I would just like to ask a couple of questions about clauses 21 and 22 related to powers of entry. Firstly, when utilising these powers of entry, will authorised officers or enforcement officers be required to comply with the Essential Service Commission’s Land Access Code of Practice?
Ingrid STITT: No, Mr Limbrick, there is no requirement for officers to comply with the Essential Services Commission’s Land Access Code of Practice. The ESC Land Access Code of Practice regulates the rules and processes that licensed electricity transmission companies must follow when they are accessing or seeking to access private land using statutory powers under the Electricity Industry Act 2000. When exercising a power of entry, an authorised officer must comply with provisions related to that power of entry under the relevant act and the conditions of the applicable search warrant or other warrants, if any. In contrast, authorised officers access land and premises on behalf of the regulator to undertake compliance and enforcement activities under the energy safety legislation.
David LIMBRICK: The bill lowers the bar for applying for a warrant to enter premises. Can the government explain the rationale for lowering that bar? My understanding is that it lowers the bar from a section 130 standard to a proposed section 130A standard, and this no longer requires that the authorised officer has reasonable grounds that evidence of an offence exists; they only need to suspect on reasonable grounds that there is a risk to personal property or that someone is not complying with a direction. What is the rationale for lowering that bar?
Ingrid STITT: I have got an example here, Mr Limbrick, that I hope will illustrate and answer your question. This is an example that shows why Energy Safe need the new power to enter premises with a warrant. This is an actual example. Energy Safe was notified by Powercor of an unsafe electrical situation at a residential property in Clifton Springs and by Victoria Police of an equivalent in Werribee. The unsafe electrical situations involved DIY battery systems, and they presented a real risk of electrocution and also a risk to people and property. Energy Safe entered each of the premises with the owner-occupier’s consent, made the situation safe and then issued directions requiring the owner-occupier to ensure the battery system was not connected to the property or electricity supply unless a licensed person attended and carried out necessary work to make it safe, connect it and issue a prescribed certificate of electrical safety. Under Energy Safe’s existing powers they can enter residential properties only with the consent of the owner and they can issue directions. However, the existing powers of entry rely on cooperation with the owner-occupier, and that may not always be provided. Also, directions powers do not currently provide for Energy Safe to return and enter to check compliance with the directions that have been issued.
The bill proposes new powers that will allow an authorised Energy Safe officer to apply to a magistrate for the issuing of a warrant to enter any land or premises, including residential premises, where there is a risk to safety or a significant risk of property damage or to check compliance with a direction. That is the scenario, if you like, which explains why, with the court’s approval, a warrant would be needed in order to ensure public safety and compliance with directions.
David LIMBRICK: In that particular example that the minister gave, is it the position of the government that if consent was not provided, the current powers would be such that they could not enter, because even though they were informed by the police and the power company that something existed they did not actually have evidence other than that someone said they thought there was a homemade battery there? Under this situation, because they have reasonable grounds – and the reasonable grounds are being informed by police or the energy company – therefore this is a more appropriate situation, and in the example provided, if consent was not given, they would have been unable to do their job?
Ingrid STITT: Spot on, Mr Limbrick.
David LIMBRICK: I thank the minister for that clarification. I am satisfied with that level of safeguard.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Davis, I would invite you to move your amendment 1, which tests your amendments 2 to 12.
David DAVIS: I move:
1. Clause 1, lines 8 to 10, omit all words and expressions on these lines.
For the convenience of members in the chamber, it is the first amendment, and it seeks to prevent the abolition of the independent committees that have statutory underpinning: the electric line clearance committee and the electrolysis committee.
We firmly believe that properly constituted committees that have some legislative protection have a role in providing advice to government and ministers. It may be highly convenient for ministers to get rid of troublesome committees, but we do not think it is good practice. We have heard that there has been no formal assessment of this in any way. It has been dreamed up in the department. There has been no sensible set of steps to show that this is necessary. In fact we think it actually weakens the independent technical advice. These are highly technical committees; it is technicians and specialists who are on the committees. This minister in particular – not this minister, the minister in the other chamber – would much prefer to choose her own people and do it in a way where she can pick and choose the exact advice she wants at a particular point.
David LIMBRICK: I just have a question to the minister. What would be the cost saving of abolishing these committees?
Ingrid STITT:My advice on that question is that the cost for taxpayers is around $180,000 per annum to comply with the rules in the Electricity Safety Act 1998 dealing with the two committees. The main costs are around recruitment and appointment processes for those committees.
David LIMBRICK: The Libertarian Party is happy to abolish these committees and will not be supporting this amendment.
Ingrid STITT: I will just put a few things on the record in opposing Mr Davis’s amendments 1 to 12. The ELCCC’s purpose is redundant. The ELCCC used to advise ESV when remaking the code of practice in the electric line clearance regulations, but ESV no longer has this role. DEECA is now responsible for preparing for the consultation and the making of regulations as the policymaker, which is best practice. ESV will continue to need to consult on line clearance and electrolysis matters once the committees are no longer prescribed in the act. This is not about cutting out consultation; it is about improving flexibility, cutting red tape and reducing administrative cost and burden.
As I just indicated in the answer to Mr Limbrick’s question, the committees cost around $180,000 per annum to comply with the rules in the Electricity Safety Act dealing with the Electric Line Clearance Consultative Committee and, in addition, $80,000 per annum to comply with the Victorian Electrolysis Committee. I am just not clear why the opposition would want to allow the regulator to not better use their funds to keep Victorians safe, because that is what the reforms and the amendments are all about.
David DAVIS: I think it is important to put on record that if the government is going to have these technical inputs, which it will need from time to time, it is going to have to appoint committees in any event, if that is what the government’s argument is. If the government is happy to run without those technical inputs, well, there you are. It indicates that the government is prepared to not have that technical input. I think here they are caught either way. They either intend to use technical experts, as they are asserting, or not. If they are intending to use them, the saving will not be there. If they are not intending to use them, there are a range of questions as to why they would not.
Ingrid STITT: At the risk of labouring this, Mr Davis, these are not technical inputs, they are interested parties, and I have already explained how the department will ensure that technical advice is sought and received.
Council divided on amendment:
Ayes (15): Melina Bath, Gaelle Broad, Georgie Crozier, David Davis, Moira Deeming, Renee Heath, Ann-Marie Hermans, Wendy Lovell, Trung Luu, Bev McArthur, Joe McCracken, Nick McGowan, Evan Mulholland, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell, Richard Welch
Noes (23): Ryan Batchelor, John Berger, Lizzie Blandthorn, Katherine Copsey, Enver Erdogan, Jacinta Ermacora, David Ettershank, Michael Galea, Anasina Gray-Barberio, Shaun Leane, David Limbrick, Sarah Mansfield, Tom McIntosh, Rachel Payne, Aiv Puglielli, Georgie Purcell, Harriet Shing, Ingrid Stitt, Jaclyn Symes, Lee Tarlamis, Sonja Terpstra, Gayle Tierney, Sheena Watt
Amendment negatived.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Minister, I invite you to move your amendment, which tests all your remaining amendments.
Ingrid STITT: I move:
1. Clause 1, page 3, after line 13 insert –
“(ea) to amend the Electricity Industry Act 2000 to enable licensees that sell electricity to more than 5000 customers, rather than the Essential Services Commission, to set the rate or rates at which those licensees purchase small renewable energy generation electricity from customers; and”.
Amendment agreed to; amended clause agreed to.
Clause 2 (17:45)
Ingrid STITT: I move:
2. Clause 2, line 17, after “7” insert “, 7A”.
Amendment agreed to; amended clause agreed to; clauses 3 to 91 agreed to.
Clause 92 (17:45)
David DAVIS: I move:
13. Clause 92, after line 33 insert –
‘(6) After section 19(5) of the Energy Safe Victoria Act 2005 insert –
“(5A) Subject to subsection (5B), Energy Safe Victoria must publish a copy of the completed plan, as existing from time to time, on its Internet site.
(5B) The copy of the plan published under subsection (5A) must not contain any information of a confidential or commercially-sensitive nature.”.
(7) For section 19(6) of the Energy Safe Victoria Act 2005 substitute –
“(6) Energy Safe Victoria must consult with the Minister before publishing or making available a corporate plan for the purposes of this Division.”.’.
This is to ensure that if there are modifications to the corporate plan this is published.
Ingrid STITT: Forcing ESV to publish an annual corporate plan only increases administrative costs without increasing accountability. On this side of the house we want ESV to be able to direct their resources where they see fit and reduce administrative burden. Moving this requirement to every three years makes sense, and Energy Safe Victoria’s annual report is the primary mechanism for public accountability. The bill makes no change to the annual report process, which is produced annually, tabled in Parliament and published. Energy Safe already voluntarily publishes its corporate plan, and other regulators do not face additional prescription as proposed in the house amendment. A number of similar regulators – for example, the Environment Protection Authority Victoria and the Essential Services Commission – do not have any statutory requirements to prepare corporate plans. Other regulators such as Dairy Food Safety Victoria under the Dairy Act 2000 are only required to submit a corporate plan every five years. It is clear that those opposite are happy to see ESV’s resources tied up where they are not needed rather than ensuring Victorians are safe.
David DAVIS: The authority could well simply put it on its website. It might take a few moments.
Council divided on amendment:
Ayes (15): Melina Bath, Gaelle Broad, Georgie Crozier, David Davis, Moira Deeming, Renee Heath, Ann-Marie Hermans, Wendy Lovell, Trung Luu, Bev McArthur, Joe McCracken, Nick McGowan, Evan Mulholland, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell, Richard Welch
Noes (23): Ryan Batchelor, John Berger, Lizzie Blandthorn, Katherine Copsey, Enver Erdogan, Jacinta Ermacora, David Ettershank, Michael Galea, Anasina Gray-Barberio, Shaun Leane, David Limbrick, Sarah Mansfield, Tom McIntosh, Rachel Payne, Aiv Puglielli, Georgie Purcell, Harriet Shing, Ingrid Stitt, Jaclyn Symes, Lee Tarlamis, Sonja Terpstra, Gayle Tierney, Sheena Watt
Amendment negatived.
Clause agreed to; clause 93 agreed to.
Clause 94 (17:50)
David DAVIS: I move:
14. Clause 94, lines 27 to 31, omit all words and expressions on these lines and insert –
“(3) Energy Safe Victoria must consult with the Minister before publishing or making available an annual update for the purposes of this Division.”.
15. Clause 94, page 74, after line 4 insert –
“(4A) Subject to subsection (4B), Energy Safe Victoria must publish a copy of the annual update, as existing from time to time, on its Internet site.
(4B) The copy of the annual update published under subsection (4A) must not contain any information of a confidential or commercially-sensitive nature.”.
We have discussed the principles here, so this would require any publication of any annual update.
Ingrid STITT: The government will not be supporting Mr Davis’s amendments for the reasons already outlined.
Amendments negatived; clause agreed to; clauses 95 and 96 agreed to.
Clause 97 (17:51)
David DAVIS: I move:
16. Clause 97, line 8, before “Nothing” insert “(1)”.
17. Clause 97, line 17, omit ‘(a).”.’ and insert “(a).”.
18. Clause 97, after line 17 insert –
‘(2) If the Minister enters into an agreement to lease land referred to in subsection (1)(a), the Minister must, no later than the day on which the Minister enters into a lease pursuant to that agreement, publish on the Internet site of the Department a notice specifying –
(a) the market value of the rights granted by the lease at the time the agreement to lease is entered into; and
(b) the market value of the rights granted by the lease at the time the lease is to be entered into pursuant to the agreement (if different from the value referred to in paragraph (a)); and
(c) the method used to calculate the values referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b); and
(d) any other information that the Minister considers appropriate.”.’.
This set of amendments requires publication of the value of the rights that are transferred.
Ingrid STITT: The Land Act 1958 already requires that privately negotiated leases must be advertised not less than 14 days before the day the lease is to be granted in the Government Gazette and in a newspaper circulating in the area in which the land is situated. Additionally, rent value must be compliant with the Victorian government land transactions policy to ensure conduct of all land transactions across government is done in a consistent, accountable and transparent way. Through this amendment the opposition are publicly advocating for worse negotiated outcomes for the Victorian state. They want us to be worse off compared to our interstate competitors by weakening our negotiating position. It is bad public policy, frankly, and this amendment would reduce investment appetite in our state as it would give commercial competitors an unfair advantage in terms of knowledge of at least one of the inputs into the proponent’s business model. It is also clear in negotiations with commercial proponents that maintaining commercial-in-confidence practices is incredibly important for their investment. So the government will not be supporting these amendments. They are simply inappropriate, and we will not be supporting them.
David LIMBRICK: Although I appreciate what the opposition is trying to do here, I actually share the government’s concerns about putting Victoria in a much weaker negotiating position. Therefore the Libertarian Party will not be supporting this amendment.
David DAVIS: This is a transparency measure with the alienation of public land in this way, and there is nothing wrong with seeing the value that is transferred in this way. It may be inconvenient for governments from time to time; I mean, this government hates transparency and frankly loves commercial-in-confidence excuses and a secretive approach. We know what they are up to. We know the scale.
Amendments negatived; clause agreed to.
New clauses (17:54)
Ingrid STITT: I move:
3. Insert the following New Part after Part 7 –
‘Part 7A – Amendment of Electricity Industry Act 2000
97A Section 40FBA substituted
For section 40FBA of the Electricity Industry Act 2000 substitute –
“40FBA Rates for purchases of small renewable energy generation electricity
For the purposes of section 40FB(2)(a), in each financial year the amount to be credited against the charges payable to a relevant licensee by a customer who is a relevant generator is the amount determined at the rate or rates published as part of the general renewable energy feed-in terms and conditions under section 40G.”.
97B Section 40FBB repealed
Section 40FBB of the Electricity Industry Act 2000 is repealed.
97C Retailer licence condition relating to purchase of small renewable energy generation electricity
(1) For section 40G(1)(a) of the Electricity Industry Act 2000 substitute –
“(a) to publish general renewable energy feed-in terms and conditions including, but not limited to, a rate or rates for the purposes of section 40FBA; and”.
(2) After section 40G(1) of the Electricity Industry Act 2000 insert –
“(1A) A rate included in the general renewable energy feed-in terms and conditions for the purposes of section 40FBA must not be less than $0.00 per kilowatt-hour.”.
97D New section 124 inserted
After section 123 of the Electricity Industry Act 2000 insert –
“124 Savings provision – Energy and Land Legislation Amendment (Energy Safety) Act 2025
(1) Despite the amendments made to this Act by Part 7A of the amending Act, the rate or rates applying for the 2024 financial year under section 40FBA (as in force immediately before the commencement of section 97A of the amending Act) for the purposes of section 40FB(2)(a) are taken to continue to apply until 30 June 2025 for the purposes of section 40FB(2)(a).
(2) This section does not affect or take away from the Interpretation of Legislation Act 1984.
(3) In this section –
amending Act means the Energy and Land Legislation Amendment (Energy Safety) Act 2025.”.’.
New clauses agreed to; clause 98 agreed to; schedules 1 to 3 agreed to.
Long title (17:55)
Ingrid STITT: I move:
4. Long title, omit “and the Land Act 1958” and insert “, the Land Act 1958 and the Electricity Industry Act 2000”.
This is an excellent amendment, and I commend it to the house.
Amendment agreed to; amended long title agreed to.
Reported to house with amendments, including amended long title.
That the report be now adopted.
Motion agreed to.
Report adopted.
Third reading
That the bill now be read a third time and do pass.
Council divided on motion:
Ayes (23): Ryan Batchelor, John Berger, Lizzie Blandthorn, Katherine Copsey, Enver Erdogan, Jacinta Ermacora, David Ettershank, Michael Galea, Anasina Gray-Barberio, Shaun Leane, David Limbrick, Sarah Mansfield, Tom McIntosh, Rachel Payne, Aiv Puglielli, Georgie Purcell, Harriet Shing, Ingrid Stitt, Jaclyn Symes, Lee Tarlamis, Sonja Terpstra, Gayle Tierney, Sheena Watt
Noes (15): Melina Bath, Gaelle Broad, Georgie Crozier, David Davis, Moira Deeming, Renee Heath, Ann-Marie Hermans, Wendy Lovell, Trung Luu, Bev McArthur, Joe McCracken, Nick McGowan, Evan Mulholland, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell, Richard Welch
Motion 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 with amendment.