Tuesday, 13 May 2025
Bills
Victorian Energy Efficiency Target Amendment (Energy Upgrades for the Future) Bill 2025
Victorian Energy Efficiency Target Amendment (Energy Upgrades for the Future) Bill 2025
Second reading
Council divided on motion:
Ayes (22): Ryan Batchelor, John Berger, Lizzie Blandthorn, Katherine Copsey, Enver Erdogan, Jacinta Ermacora, David Ettershank, Michael Galea, Anasina Gray-Barberio, Shaun Leane, 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 (16): Melina Bath, Gaelle Broad, Georgie Crozier, David Davis, Moira Deeming, Renee Heath, Ann-Marie Hermans, David Limbrick, Wendy Lovell, Trung Luu, Bev McArthur, Joe McCracken, Nick McGowan, Evan Mulholland, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell, Richard Welch
Motion agreed to.
Read second time.
Committed.
Committee
Clause 1 (18:04)
David DAVIS: I should indicate that the amendments and the running sheet do not quite align, so what I might do to expedite this matter for the chamber is explain the points that we are trying to achieve with a number of these steps here. One of the matters that we seek to deal with is the matter around the targets and the change in the targets. The second is around the strategic review. There is the discussion paper, the Victorian energy upgrades (VEU) strategic review. What I would foreshadow is that this set of steps can be tested in two ways. Firstly, the issues around the targets can be tested by amendment 1, and if we were successful in moving amendment 1, that would be a test for our matters around targets. And amendment 3would be a test for our view that the strategic review should be a more public process and should ultimately be tabled in Parliament.
I should bring to the chamber’s attention that amendment 3 has one small matter that attention should be drawn to, and that is: where it says ‘Clause 1’ and then talks about the insertion ‘(ba)’ to provide for completion of the strategic review of the Victorian energy upgrades scheme – instead of the Victorian energy efficiency target (VEET) scheme – there is just a typo in that amendment. These are my amendments on amendment sheet DD171C, to be precise.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: These are all to clause 1?
David DAVIS: Yes, they are, because they will effectively test the later points.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Do you wish to move them separately or do you wish to just vote on them as a block?
David DAVIS: No, I wish to move amendment 1 as a test for the target matter.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: So we will move 1, 2 and 3 separately?
David DAVIS: No, 1 and 3 are sufficient, I think, is my reading of it.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: We have to move 1 to 3; we cannot move 1 and 3 and not move 2.
David DAVIS: That is right, but I am conscious that I am looking for a test for each of the topics.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: So you want to vote on them separately.
David DAVIS: 1 and 3 on the amendment sheet.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes. So we have to vote on 1, 2 and 3 separately.
Mr Davis, can you move your amendments 1 to 3, please?
David DAVIS: I will move amendment 1. I move:
1. Clause 1, line 8, omit “target,” and insert “target; and”.
Ingrid STITT: I just want to indicate for the record that the government will not be supporting this amendment. This is a bit of a try-on, in our view, and it has been something that every time we have brought a bill to this place in relation to our strong transition plan for the energy system in Victoria the opposition have sought to play games with. I do not believe that they are committed to the work of the VEU. They do not want to assess the functioning of the VEU, they want to abolish the VEU; they have said that many times. They even tried to do that when they were last in government. So it is very clear to us that they do not have a positive thing to say about the VEU, even though this has been a highly successful and strongly subscribed scheme which has helped drive down the power bills for Victorians. We will not be supporting this amendment; in fact we will not be supporting any of Mr Davis’s amendments in relation to this bill.
David DAVIS: I just make a number of points. First of all, this change in the targeting that the government has set up is a bit of a play by the government to make a softer set of arrangements, a more flexible set of arrangements for them in the next couple of years; that is what that is all about, so they can publish separately from their previously stated publication arrangements and targets. They are actually seeking to add a new set of arrangements in there, so they are moving the goalposts, if I can put it that way – shifting the goalposts while the game that they have put in action is up and running. In response to the minister’s points about the energy upgrades scheme, I have made my points very clear on the energy upgrades scheme, and I did that in the second-reading debate at length. We support the idea of energy efficiency programs and sensible programs. This is a sensible concept, but it has to be delivered properly too. If you have got an absolute dog of a program – no-one would think that pink batts turned out a great program at a national level, for example. Kevin Rudd, frankly, through his program caused the death of a number of Australians. That was a shocking outcome. No-one thought that that was a good outcome, whatever the intent. We accept that the government’s intent with the VEU is a good one, but we do not think it has been implemented properly. Frankly, when you see the six fridges lined up outside the business it is very hard to see that that is a well-run program. Even the minister admitted that there were big problems. The doorknockers and the strange arrangements, people putting fans into people’s homes – all of this became a bit of a circus.
In response to the minister’s point about our view on the energy upgrades program, we support the idea of energy upgrades to achieve energy efficiency, but as I said, it has got to be run properly. When you look at the certificate prices in Victoria, they have escalated massively. About $700 million a year is being spent on the program – massive cross-subsidies. The question is: could this be done better? As I said in the second-reading debate, if you spent the same amount of money and you had an efficiently running program, you would have more abatement; you would actually abate more carbon dioxide. That seems to be the aim of the game. Alternatively, if you spent the money efficiently and abated the same amount of carbon dioxide, you could do it at a lesser cost. That basic understanding of these programs leads you to the conclusion that they have been poorly run. That is separate from a view that energy efficiency is not an important way of dealing with net zero challenges. We think it is a sensible way, and whether it is in government buildings or whether it is in a range of other areas, there are sensible steps that can be taken. So I reject the minister’s view that we are opposed to or we will abolish the energy upgrades program. We would want that program to run properly and efficiently. I do not think there is anything wrong with that; that is actually common sense. I make the point that the minister said this in response to this very first amendment, which is about prescribing the VEU scheme targets, and that is not quite the same as the energy efficiency program.
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 (22): Ryan Batchelor, John Berger, Lizzie Blandthorn, Katherine Copsey, Enver Erdogan, Jacinta Ermacora, David Ettershank, Michael Galea, Anasina Gray-Barberio, Shaun Leane, 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.
David DAVIS: I move:
3. Clause 1, page 2, before line 1 insert –
“(ba) to provide for completion of a strategic review of the VEU scheme and tabling requirements relating to a report of the strategic review; and”.
This is an insertion in the objectives. It is entirely consistent with the nature of the bill. The government is doing a strategic review. A discussion paper has been produced, but this has not been done transparently; the submissions are not public, and the department is doing a review on itself. With the department marking its own homework, we believe that there needs to be greater transparency here. With the energy efficiency upgrades program review being undertaken by the department, we say that this should be completed as soon as practicable, but we say particularly we want to see this made public and tabled at an early point.
Ingrid STITT: The government will not be supporting this amendment. As I indicated in my comments in the second-reading debate, the bill allows regulations to set targets in two-year tranches rather than every five years while the program undergoes its strategic review. The review is currently underway, and it will modernise and strengthen the program to ensure it continues to support Victorians to make the transition away from fossil fuel energy to renewables. The target-setting will go back to five-year tranches once we hit 2030 and any review outcomes have taken effect.
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 (22): Ryan Batchelor, John Berger, Lizzie Blandthorn, Katherine Copsey, Enver Erdogan, Jacinta Ermacora, David Ettershank, Michael Galea, Anasina Gray-Barberio, Shaun Leane, 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; clauses 2 to 61 agreed to.
Reported to house without amendment.
That the report be now adopted.
Motion agreed to.
Report adopted.
Third reading
That the bill be now read a third time and do pass.
Council divided on motion:
Ayes (22): Ryan Batchelor, John Berger, Lizzie Blandthorn, Katherine Copsey, Enver Erdogan, Jacinta Ermacora, David Ettershank, Michael Galea, Anasina Gray-Barberio, Shaun Leane, 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 (16): Melina Bath, Gaelle Broad, Georgie Crozier, David Davis, Moira Deeming, Renee Heath, Ann-Marie Hermans, David Limbrick, 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 without amendment.