Wednesday, 14 May 2025


Committees

Economy and Infrastructure Committee


Katherine COPSEY, Sheena WATT, David DAVIS, Jacinta ERMACORA, David LIMBRICK, Richard WELCH, Tom McINTOSH, Sonja TERPSTRA, Melina BATH, Ryan BATCHELOR

Please do not quote

Proof only

Committees

Economy and Infrastructure Committee

Reference

Debate resumed.

Katherine COPSEY (Southern Metropolitan) (14:02): On top of the barriers that people face to one-way charging that I have spoken about, like having access to their own individual driveway or not, two-way chargers for electric vehicles are still a relatively new and thus expensive technology. If we as a state want our grid to benefit from the electricity that these car batteries can store and later provide, we do need to support households to buy and install the two-way chargers that they will need to help make that contribution. In addition to the consideration of charging infrastructure, we also need to think about the vehicles themselves and think about them through their full life cycle. Shifting our light vehicle fleet to all electric will be a crucial part of reducing our transport emissions over the medium term.

What needs to happen to encourage take-up of electric vehicles? Are there opportunities to manufacture key components of electric vehicles such as batteries right here in Victoria? What other opportunities are there? What will happen as batteries age? Electric car batteries are typically larger than home batteries, so there is lots of capacity available, but what does Victoria need to put in place to take advantage of this? Can we find ways to recondition electric vehicle batteries to extend their lives in vehicles or to reuse them as household or as community batteries?

In my relatively short contribution today I have touched on a range of the emerging questions that we have in relation to these technologies, the way that they can integrate with our state’s grid, the way that we can benefit and some of the issues that we should address if we want to avoid potential pitfalls as the uptake of this technology continues to advance.

The terms of reference for this inquiry will ask the Economy and Infrastructure Committee to inquire into, consider and report by 27 March 2026 on how Victoria can best harmonise electric vehicles with electricity supply and demand, including but not limited to:

(1) strategies to reduce EV charging during periods of peak demand on the grid and increase charging during periods of peak supply;

(2) whether public charging infrastructure is being installed at a sufficient rate in different parts of Victoria, including older suburbs where most people do not have access to off-street parking;

(3) the best role for electricity distribution businesses in rolling out EV charging infrastructure, and how distribution network tariffs should be set for EV chargers;

(4) strategies to facilitate the take-up of EV ownership, including the facilitation of bidirectional charging;

(5) whether old EV batteries could have a second life as household or community batteries after removal from vehicles;

(6) the barriers and opportunities to the manufacture, reconditioning and recycling of EV batteries, or other elements of the EV supply chain, in Victoria; and

(7) any other related matters the committee considers relevant.

There is a lot to explore in this very important area of emerging technology. I commend this motion to the chamber, and I do look forward to the consideration of these issues by the committee and the recommendations that will come out of this important inquiry, should my motion pass today.

Sheena WATT (Northern Metropolitan) (14:06): Thank you so much for the opportunity to rise today and make a contribution on the referral before us. Can I begin by speaking in strong support of the referral of this inquiry to the Economy and Infrastructure Committee. It is worth noting my strong support does include the fact that I am not a member of that committee, so to those that, if it shall pass, will ultimately investigate this subject, can I offer my thanks to you for the work that you may do, because this motion before us really does seek to examine how Victoria can best harmonise electric vehicles with our electric supply and the demand – and it really does demand some crucial thinking as we accelerate towards a cleaner, greener future. It is an opportunity, this motion before us and the referral, to build on Victoria’s proud record of climate action. It is an opportunity to tackle new challenges head-on, to support the communities we represent and to absolutely ensure that our state stays at the forefront of the clean economy. That is why the Allan Labor government will be supporting this motion.

Victoria has always led the way on climate action. I have spoken on it many times before, but this, excitingly, is an opportunity for us to reflect on the transition to zero-emission vehicles. Long, long, long before the Commonwealth government caught up, we here in Victoria were laying the foundations for the EV industry. In 2021 the Victorian government launched Victoria’sZero Emissions Vehicle Roadmap, a $100 million blueprint to drive down transport emissions and pave the way for net zero. That roadmap had a very ambitious target – 50 per cent of new light vehicle sales to be zero emissions by 2030 – and it was not just talk. There were some tangible investments and real policies and some Australia-first initiatives, including the launch of Australia’s first zero-emission vehicle subsidy program supporting over 10,000 Victorians to purchase an EV. That program alone sparked an increase of 310 per cent in EV sales in its first year. We trialled some zero-emission buses across Victoria, adding battery, electric and hydrogen fuel-cell buses to our public transport network. We have invested in public charging infrastructure through the acceleration of zero-emission vehicle adoption programs, ensuring that councils, businesses and communities have access to the chargers they need. And of course it is worth noting that the Victorian government has a large fleet, and in that is the big fleet transition and two commercial innovation funds. We have absolutely been relentless in driving this change.

But I understand that policy cannot stand still – the world of EV cars is rapidly evolving. What was cutting edge in 2021 is fast becoming baseline today. The global EV market has absolutely exploded. The price of EVs has plummeted, with Australians now able to buy an EV for under $30,000, a far cry from even a few years ago, and the number of models available – because that was something I heard many times, ‘There’s just not much of a choice’ – has changed, because it has skyrocketed from six in 2018 to over 100 today. Internationally, nations like China have invested hundreds of billions into EV production and exports. Here at home the Commonwealth has taken some really significant steps with the passage of the national vehicle efficiency standard reshaping the policy landscape for states and territories.

But importantly, the legal context has also shifted. The High Court’s decision in the Vanderstock case last year fundamentally changed what states can do to support EV uptake. These developments demand that we pause, we take stock and we ensure our policies remain fit for purpose, and that is why this inquiry matters. So thank you, Ms Copsey and your colleagues, for bringing this before us, because it gives us a chance to examine the harmonisations of EVs with our electricity grid, ensuring that charging aligns with periods of peak supply and eases strain during peak demand. It allows us to scrutinise whether public charging infrastructure is being rolled out equitably, not just in a few new estates or the affluent suburbs but in older communities where off-street parking is scarce. It prompts us to consider the role of electricity distribution businesses in this transition. Should they play a bigger role in rolling out charging infrastructure? How should network tariffs be structured to incentivise smart and efficient charging? This inquiry, I am excited to say, will also delve into bidirectional charging, a technology game changer. I have got to tell you, I am actually very much excited by this, because imagine a future – and it is already here – where your car is not just a vehicle but also a battery for your home, feeding power back into the grid when needed. That future is not far off, and Victoria, we have got to be ready for it.

There are critical questions around the second life of EV batteries. Once their life on the road ends, these batteries still hold really significant capacity. Repurposing them for households or for community energy storage could be a game-changing solution for distributed energy resilience. We know that Victoria stands to benefit from local manufacturing, reconditioning and recycling of EV batteries. It is not just an environmental imperative, it is an economic opportunity. Developing these industries here supports jobs, skills and economic growth, especially in our regions. Let me just say I could talk about those opposite, but I just really want to talk about what we have done, because there is such a big list and I cannot help it, because since coming into office in 2014 Labor has driven the decarbonisation of our state faster than any other state. We have set ambitious emissions reductions targets, and we have met every single one of them, Mr Davis. What an exciting thing to share with the chamber today. We have smashed our 2020 target. We have achieved an over 30 per cent reduction, when the goal was just 15 to 20 per cent. As of 2022 we had already hit 31.3 per cent emissions cuts, well within our range for 2025. It is a legacy that we are building on today, and this inquiry before us is a chance to make sure that Victoria’s leadership continues, that we stay ahead of the curve and that we respond to new challenges with clarity and purpose.

For the people of the mighty northern suburbs, this work is especially important. Our community includes diverse urban suburbs, many with very limited off-street parking and high-density living. Ensuring equitable access to EV charging infrastructure is not just a policy detail, in fact it is a matter of fairness. We cannot have a future where only some Victorians benefit from the transition to clean transport, and this inquiry must consider how we support EV uptake in areas where private charging is not feasible and public charging is essential. I have said it before: I am in an old apartment, and there is no way that I would not be considering EV, but maybe there are some things that we could do better so that my neighbours and I can take it up too. There is an opportunity to explore how EVs can be integrated into our broader energy strategy. The growth of rooftop solar and home batteries has been a Victorian success story. Now, as bidirectional charging becomes viable, we have the chance to supercharge these benefits. Cars parked at home or workplaces during the day can store excess solar generation and feed it back to the grid in the evening, providing flexibility, resilience and of course cost savings.

We must ensure our regulatory frameworks, our tariff structure and our infrastructure planning are aligned to the future. This inquiry will also provide critical insight into workforce needs. Transitioning to a zero-emissions transport future requires skilled workers – electricians, technicians, manufacturers, service providers – and that is why the Allan Labor government is absolutely investing in programs like the Clean Economy Workforce Capacity Building Fund, ensuring we have the skills pipeline available to meet the industry demand. There are so many developments. From critical minerals to battery recycling, from innovation grants to direct infrastructure investment, Victoria is absolutely positioning itself to capture the economic benefits of this transition.

But we must continue to listen, to learn and ultimately – the Victorian way – to lead. This is the value of this parliamentary inquiry: it allows us to bring together experts, industry, communities and policymakers to chart the next steps with evidence and engagement. It is not just about technology, this is also about people. It is about ensuring that Victorians have affordable, reliable and sustainable transport options. I have got to say in supporting this inquiry we absolutely are reaffirming our commitment to real climate action. We acknowledge that while we have come very far there is still more to do. The landscape has changed, but our resolve remains as strong as ever. Victoria will continue to lead; we will continue to innovate, to invest and to deliver for our communities; and we will make sure, as is the Labor way, that no-one is left behind as we accelerate to a zero-emissions future. I commend this motion to the house.

David DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan) (14:16): I am pleased to rise and make a contribution to Ms Copsey’s motion 923. This seeks to establish an inquiry at the Economy and Infrastructure Committee – I might add a very, very busy committee, but a committee that has done a lot of good work. To indicate that the Liberals and Nationals do not oppose this referral, we will make a number of points here on this as we move through. There are some things that Ms Watt said that I agree with and other things I do not, but let us look at some of the points on the list here of 923, (1) to (7). Point (1), the strategies to reduce EV charging during peak periods, is about point of time and actually the flexibility that new networks will certainly need, and I do not have any difficulty with looking at these points. Indeed we know that the grid is awash with solar photovoltaic in the middle of the day. This government failed to plan for it. I have looked at some of the briefings of the minister going back to 2020 and 2021 where she failed to act and deal with the huge growth in solar PV and to deal with some of the issues that needed to be dealt with to ensure continuity of supply and reliability of supply. So I say these are key points to look at these issues here.

Sheena Watt interjected.

David DAVIS: I am just a simple fellow reading the briefs that were provided to the Minister for Energy and Resources, and they –

Sonja Terpstra interjected.

David DAVIS: Yes, I do read them all. I FOI them and look at them and read them carefully and develop a very good understanding of what she has done and what she has not done and what she ought to have done, and she ought to have dealt with some of these issues of peak demand and peak periods where the supply is actually greater than can be used in the system, and she has not actually dealt with that very well.

Next is ‘whether public charging infrastructure is being installed at a sufficient rate in different parts of Victoria, including older suburbs’, and let me just say here that Victoria is a long way behind in this regard, and a number of my colleagues have talked about this in the last few days and said actually our charging infrastructure is far behind where a number of other jurisdictions are.

If I look at the role of the electricity distribution businesses, one of the things here that the state government has not done that it ought to have done is look at the capacity of the grid and look at the cost of grid expansion. We have had a very significant increase in demand in certain areas, but actually the process of electrification that is proposed by the state government has not been underpinned properly by the work that is needed to actually understand what needs to happen with the grid. We know with the Deloitte material and the Deloitte studies – this is one of those FOIs that the government is resisting viciously – that Deloitte have been employed, have been paid taxpayers money to do work on the cost of electrification and how it should be implemented, and unfortunately the underpinnings of their model and the assumptions that they have made in their work are not public, and the government will not release it. So the RIS, the regulatory impact statement, that relates to the electrification proposals is out publicly, but the understanding –

Sonja Terpstra interjected.

David DAVIS: The regulatory impact statement, and you should, as a member of the Scrutiny of Acts and Legislation Committee, understand what the RIS is. But the RIS has not got the Deloitte material with it, and the RIS does not have the assumptions and underpinnings in the public domain. Any interest group, any business, any household or any individual who wants to comment on the RIS is at a disadvantage because the assumptions that have been made in the regulatory impact statement are not in the public domain and the government is viciously resisting the release of that information. Now, why would they do that? I would suggest to the house and the community that it is because the underpinnings are not up to scratch. I would suggest that the work is not up to scratch, and I would suggest, unkindly –

Members interjecting.

David DAVIS: I am not making it up. It is actually the subject of a VCAT case. You can watch the VCAT case if you want to. I will send it to you, and you can enjoy it. But the truth of the matter is taxpayers have funded this work, the assumptions are not in the public domain and there is now a regulatory impact statement. A RIS is driven by the fact that it should be in the public domain for people to comment on, actually understand what is going on, make criticisms and make reasonable commentary. Well, that is not possible because the material that is required is not in the public domain. I am just telling you those are the facts of the matter. The RIS is a flawed regulatory impact statement because its underpinnings and the assumptions behind it are not in the public domain.

If I can make some further commentary about the distribution networks, it is clear if you look at the work from Griffith University in particular that the push for electrification will not deliver in the way the government has claimed it will. Unfortunately, in the period ahead the truth is that gas is going to be very important for peaking capacity to fill in at times when there is insufficient solar or insufficient wind, insufficient low-emission technologies putting into the system. Particularly in 2028 and beyond, and in 2035, the truth of the matter is that gas will become more important. The Griffith University study makes it very clear that if you push to electrification very hard, you will actually just increase the demand for gas in those peak periods. So you are actually not dealing with the issue that you want. I think it is important to put some of these things on the record.

There are a number of other points that are not covered in this. I think the terms of reference are sufficiently broad to cover what is needed, but there are issues of insurance. I am aware of a number of owners corps that are worried about issues of safety and are worried about insurance. So there are actually just genuine issues. If you live in a complex and there is an owners corp, you may not be able to install the charging material that you need because the insurance for the owners corp and the body corporate as it were will not support that. There are actually a number of technical issues of this type that I think need to be thought through, and there need to be some solutions found.

Sheena Watt interjected.

David DAVIS: I am not being critical here, Ms Watt. I am actually being constructive, pointing out some actual brakes on these things that have not been dealt with to date and could have been dealt with properly by the government. It may be that the Victorian Managed Insurance Authority has a role in that, for example. I do not pretend to have a solution to that, but I know that this is an actual problem that is in existence right now.

The issue of those who are in streets where they do not have on-lot parking is also a really significant issue, and people have not turned their mind to these points. The question of barriers to manufacture and reconditioning and recycling of EV batteries – I think we are a long way from this. You would want a proper product stewardship arrangement in place so that if you –

Members interjecting.

David DAVIS: Well, it could be a state responsibility too. It could be a state responsibility. Well, let me pick an example –

Members interjecting.

Melina Bath: On a point of order, Acting President, I just feel that the member should be able to conduct their response and communications to the house whilst others are in silence.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (John Berger): Mr Davis to complete his speech in silence, please.

David DAVIS: I do think the product stewardship matter is an important one, and states do have a role in that. We have just seen container deposit legislation introduced in the state here in Victoria. That is a state decision. The state decided to make that decision, and that is a product stewardship example.

Sonja Terpstra: It’s federal.

David DAVIS: It can be a state decision if the state chooses to make it so. If the state chooses to absent the field, that is a choice that the state is making, and the state does not necessarily have to choose to absent the field if it chooses to do that.

I should say that the issues around safety are paramount in many people’s minds; they want to see that our electric vehicles are safe and that the charging processes are safe. As I say, there are a number of owners corps – and these are ones in my electorate – that have come to me and talked about this matter.

Sonja Terpstra: Of course they have!

David DAVIS: Well, why would that surprise you? In Southern Metro you would be surprised that there are a whole heap of owners corps in large buildings where these – (Time expired)

The ACTING PRESIDENT (John Berger): Before I call the next speaker, I would like to acknowledge in the chamber we have Sue Pennicuik, a former member of the Legislative Council. Welcome, Sue.

Jacinta ERMACORA (Western Victoria) (14:26): I am pleased to speak on this committee referral. We support referring this inquiry to the Economy and Infrastructure Committee. I note the very well-informed contribution by my colleague Ms Watt as she leaves the chamber, and I look forward to what comes up in the inquiry. Given the rapid changes in the EV space, this inquiry is a welcome opportunity to build on our work in renewable and distributed energy and to strategically plan for the future.

I do note that it is a bit of a fact-free zone from those opposite and that the only obsolete thing that I hear in this chamber is the connection to the opposition’s obsession with coal-fired electricity. It is absolutely inbuilt obsolescence in its best form. Even the owners of those businesses are saying they are not rebuilding – there is no future for that. There is always something wrong when it comes to something new happening in Victoria when it comes to the Libs.

Victoria’s leading climate action includes being an early and strong supporter of electric vehicles, as evidenced by the Victorian government’s zero-emissions vehicle road map. Our road map predated the Commonwealth strategy and includes many innovative policies. We have governed with early and consistent action to firmly establish Victoria as a leader in supporting the electric vehicle industry. Our comprehensive zero-emissions vehicle road map – ZEV road map, as I am going to refer to it – was launched in May 2021 and laid out a clear path to net zero emissions in road transport, including an ambitious target of 50 per cent of new light vehicles being zero-emissions vehicle sales by 2030. As stated by the Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change, as she was at the time, Lily D’Ambrosio, in her foreword to the launch of the road map:

… we want Victorians to have the best cars in the world – not the dirtiest.

She stated then that the zero-emissions vehicle road map is all about leading the market by replacing the Victorian government’s car fleet with zero-emissions vehicles as well as accelerating the transition to zero-emissions public transport buses. It is all about stimulating the market by launching Australia’s first zero-emissions vehicle subsidy as well as seeding a commercial innovation fund. I do not know if Mr Davis wants to hear the facts before he leaves, but we have seen how well that has gone with solar panels in Victoria. One-third of households in Victoria have solar panels on them. People have voted with their own rooftops. And why have they done that? Because they are saving, on average, $1000 a year on electricity bills. That is the fact – not increased prices, as proposed constantly and ad nauseam by Mr Davis.

It is all about building infrastructure by putting electric vehicle charging stations in every corner of the state. Those goals have certainly been achieved within the $100 million road map, which has often set a precedent for zero-emission vehicles policy across Australia. The $100 million zero-emissions vehicle road map encompasses a range of impactful initiatives, and they include the subsidy program, the bus trial, accelerating public charging infrastructure, the integration of 400 zero-emission vehicles into the government fleet and the Commercial Sector Innovation Fund. Whilst the successful zero-emissions vehicle subsidy program – which drove a 310 per cent increase in sales in its first year – concluded in June 2023, other significant programs are currently underway.

The zero-emissions bus trial, now nearing completion, is paving the way for the ambitious zero-emissions bus transition plan, announced in November 2024. We have committed to 100 per cent zero-emissions new bus purchases by July this year. This will be a truly significant transition for Victoria’s 4500-strong diesel bus fleet. If you have ever been stuck behind a bus billowing diesel fumes, there is also an ambient benefit as well.

The $19.21 million AZEVA program – the acceleration of zero-emission vehicle adoption program; we love our acronyms – is significantly expanding public and fleet EV-charging infrastructure across Australia. The AZEVA program includes the $5 million destination charging across Victoria program, and that is a grant program. This program will install approximately 133 chargers and 241 charging points at an estimated 116 sites across Victoria by June this year. There have been 115 chargers installed at 95 sites as of March this year.

This includes a site in my own City of Warrnambool, where a new 50-kilowatt public electric vehicle charger was installed at Flagstaff Hill car park in November 2023. It is charging cars and charging tourism in our city. The location is perfect, as we have a large car park right next to Flagstaff Hill and the visitor information centre, and it is a short walk from the CBD, Lake Pertobe and the foreshore. Users pay 40 cents a kilowatt to charge their vehicles, with two cars able to charge simultaneously at a 50-kilowatt charging system. Warrnambool City Council were able to access a $40,000 grant via the Victorian government’s destination charging across Victoria program to help offset the construction costs of the new charger. The EV charging for council fleets program has also given out $1.25 million in grants for 26 applicants to install 122 chargers at 55 council sites across Victoria.

You can see that there are a bunch of initiatives happening and that government has a role to play to stimulate, promote and get these initiatives happening so that the economy of scale will eventually start to pay for itself. I think the government investing in these things shows the public that they can have confidence in these kinds of infrastructure and in these kinds of vehicles.

The government has delivered on its committed $10 million to replace 400 vehicles in the Victorian government’s fleet with zero-emissions vehicles. Some of my colleagues here in the Victorian Parliament are highly likely to be amongst that group. The ZEV road map also made a commitment to innovation and technology through the $5 million Commercial Sector Innovation Fund. The projects selected to receive the grant funding included representation from rural and regional Victoria and the business sector, spanning agriculture, education, fleet logistics, commercial passenger vehicles and public transport. Let us get everybody having a go at this.

As the Minister for Environment and Climate Action Lily D’Ambrosio pointed out on 30 September 2022, we know transport accounts for 25 per cent of the state’s emissions, so that is why we are delivering a significant package of policies and programs to ensure we are a leader in the adoption of zero-emission vehicles in Australia. This is an absolutely strong portfolio commitment. It sets targets, and those targets are being met. The results of those grants have been incredibly positive.

I would like to finish by thanking the Greens and Ms Copsey for bringing this forward. It is a changing space, and we can always benefit from new information – new changing information – at any point in time on this issue.

David LIMBRICK (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (14:36): I also would like to speak on this inquiry referral by the Greens regarding electric cars to the Economy and Infrastructure Committee. The first thing I would say is that I think this is worthwhile. The Libertarian Party will be supporting this referral. I think that there are many technical and economic issues around electric vehicles in Australia that have not been solved and need to be looked at. The biggest selling electric car in Australia at the moment is the Tesla; I actually would not mind getting one myself at some stage. But there are many issues around the electricity grid and also issues around full-service driving, which I know in many states in the US is becoming a thing, and we are going to have to grapple with the legal issues around that. We are not really prepared for that in Victoria. I think the federal government is organising some sort of national approach between various states to look at how we might deal with that, but there are many issues, including around insurance and how that is going to work, who is going to be responsible if there is an accident – very complex issues.

Tesla recently has been demonstrating prototypes of driverless taxis as well. Sooner or later that is going to be a thing. To get an Uber you will just tap an app on your phone, jump in and it will take you where you need to go, and there will be no driver eventually. That is what is going to happen, and there are a lot of legal issues around that. What happens if the car hits someone or something? How do we manage safety? I know that many companies are also looking at driverless trucks; that is going to be a thing that we will need to look at. There are lots of good economic opportunities for driverless trucks as well – you can run them in convoys on highways and freeways, and that is a thing.

One of the major issues is the electricity grid. Large amounts of energy at the moment are transported and distributed through petroleum, effectively – through petrol, diesel and gas – and if that energy is not going to be a liquid hydrocarbon, then it is going to be electricity through the grid. We are talking massive, massive volumes of electricity that we are going to need – massive increases in demand. Clearly our grid is not capable of it at the moment and will not be anytime in the near future, and it will require massive investment to deal with that.

I will give you a local example. I was talking to an electrician quite recently. He installs high-capacity chargers in people’s houses. You can charge an EV just with a normal electricity outlet, but it is so slow that it will take days before it charges. You can trickle charge it and top it up, but basically it is not very workable. So most people, if they own their home, will invest in getting a high-capacity charger. This guy had installed three chargers on a suburban street, and he said to me, ‘That’s it.’ I said, ‘What do you mean?’ He said the transformer at the end of the street cannot handle any more capacity. I said to him, ‘What happens if another person on the street buys an EV and wants to charge it at home?’ And he said, ‘Tough luck’ – they would have to upgrade the transformers and they would have to upgrade the powerlines on the street. I asked him how much that would cost, and he said, ‘Look, I’m not sure, but probably about half a million dollars.’

On suburban streets, as EVs increase in popularity and as more people want to install high-capacity chargers in their house, there are going to be a lot of angry consumers when they find out that they cannot actually do it because the first three people on the street have already done it and it going to cost them half a million dollars to do it, or whatever it will cost – some extravagant amount of money that most people would not invest. So that is a big problem. These are the sorts of things I think the committee should be looking at. How are we going to deal with that? Is it just first come, first served on the street, and if you are the fourth person that wants to install one of these things then it is tough luck? Or maybe you have already bought it just assuming that you can install this charger, and you become a very disappointed and upset customer. I think this is a big problem that we need to look at.

There are also some interesting things that have been mentioned throughout the debate: two-way charging, where you charge your car and have excess capacity, because they do have very large capacity. If your driving every day is similar to mine, you are probably not driving large distances and you are going to have a lot of battery capacity left in that car. Using that to power your home – that could be a thing, but then you have got other issues associated with that. If you are using a free charging port at work, are you effectively stealing that electricity to use to power your PlayStation at home? I think there are lots of ethical and economic issues that need to be looked at with that. So that is a thing. As has been brought up in the debate, lots of people have solar systems at home now, and people say, ‘You can charge it at home.’ Well, most people use their car for going to work. So when the sun is shining and their house is producing lots of electricity, their car is not there.

There are other issues, technical issues, around charging. Lots of people seem to not understand the fact that there are losses. Whenever you charge a battery and discharge a battery, you always lose some of the energy. That is why a battery gets hot when you charge it, because you are wasting energy when you charge the battery. The same is true for electric vehicles. When you use electricity out of the outlet, you are wasting some of that in the process, because none of these processes are 100 per cent efficient. So there are many, many technical issues here.

I actually think that this will be quite an interesting and challenging inquiry for our Parliament staff, but I know that they have done lots of inquiries into very technical issues before and I am sure that they are capable of handling it. Assuming that this gets up, I look forward to paying attention to what happens in the inquiry and some of the conclusions that might come out of the report.

Richard WELCH (North-Eastern Metropolitan) (14:43): I am pleased to rise to speak on this, and the Liberal–Nationals will be supporting this as well. For disclosure of interest, I own an electric vehicle. I have had one since 2017 in fact, so I would be on the early side of adoption. So I have got some practical experience of the practicalities and the impracticalities of electric vehicles. I was also living in London when I first got an electric vehicle and saw the transition of London’s infrastructure to provide for electric vehicle charging infrastructure. It was quite amazing, actually, how rapidly London provided for electric charging places in public, because, as most people would know, very few Londoners have their own driveways. Most of the parking is on the street, so the provision of on-street charging was a notable feature of the transition, and also in all the countries around Europe. In fact you can collectively say Australia and Victoria in particular are miles behind the rest of the world in what has become a pretty commonplace bit of infrastructure. What we have here is pretty damning on us actually.

Electric vehicles are here to stay. The economics of them is going to change and evolve over time. We are going to go from high-value, high-yield type luxury vehicles in the Tesla range to a mass number of much, much cheaper, much, much more affordable Chinese models. The second, third, fourth and fifth highest selling electric vehicles are all Chinese, and now that they have got tariffs in the US, they are all coming here as well. So we are going to be awash with electric vehicles. They should be just considered part of the landscape really, not particularly special or different from any other vehicle, except they need a particular piece of infrastructure.

I am interested in this committee, but not for the all the stuff about, if you listen to some of the contributions over there, how apparently electric vehicles are going to generate world peace and solve world hunger because of some of the grant processes that they have put in place; I am much more interested in the practical elements. A lot of the points that Mr Limbrick brought up are absolutely on the money – you have all sorts of issues over where you find charging points and who pays for the electricity coming out of those charging points. Many disputes actually arise on that front. If you are doing on-street parking charging, what is the best way to facilitate the capital into that infrastructure? The experience in Europe, which I think is instructional here, is that it was the private sector. They did not do government programs investing in what usually ended up being proprietary technologies. What we need is to make sure we have adaptability and compatibility and that there are no switching costs so you do not have 10 different companies with completely different charging and account systems, so that wherever you are and however the charging point has been provided you actually can go to and from between them. It is not unlike when mobile phones first came out and we made the very, very sensible decision that we would have a universal network that could be cross-charged, rather than what they did in America and have cellular charges where you had to be on a specific network to do so. So I think there are sensible, practical considerations. The benefit of this inquiry would be, as much as anything, just to catch up with what people have already done around the world to make this work well. It is not going to save the world, it is just a practical bit of infrastructure that we need to have.

What is not in the terms of reference but should be perhaps is what Mr Limbrick said: there are massive issues around insurance, not just in self-driving but in fire hazard when cars are stored under properties, in underground car parks et cetera. There are a number of insurers who will not provide insurance for cars parked under apartment blocks. There are a very limited number of insurance companies who will actually insure electric cars at all. There is not great choice out there, and there is not great competition out there.

Alongside the undoubted environmental benefits of having electrical cars, particularly around air quality and things of that nature, we should also consider the environmental harms and risks of mass EV usage, because there will be consequences when we have a number of batteries expiring and we need to know what to do with them. Repurposing: I would love to; that would be terrific if it could happen. But it is not guaranteed at all and there is obviously a degrading element, so whether that would be economically effective and practical would be something we could sort out.

The other part is whether we should have programs to facilitate the take-up of ownership of these cars. The thing I would like to avoid and that I am sure the inquiry could get to the bottom of is that we should allow choice. In fact in our family we consciously have one electric and one non-electric because the limitations of electric mean I cannot go and visit my family in the country, partly because there is no charging – but even if there were, it is very inconvenient; it just does not provide the range. People should just be allowed the choice. Certainly a lot of the early adopters of electrical vehicles took them up not solely because they were electric or in some cases not because they were electric at all; it was simply because they were good cars. Most Tesla buyers bought the car because it is a really good car to drive, and that is probably the greatest selling point of these cars: the driving experience and utility of these cars are actually really great, within range. Some people ask me, ‘What’s it like driving a Tesla?’ I say, ‘Well, it’s like driving a laptop, really; it’s not like driving a car at all.’ It is a bit like the evolution of the mobile phone into a smartphone: it has now got all sorts of utilities it did not have, including recharging abilities and things.

I will say on recharging, though, it is a little bit fanciful that you could go home and charge your house off your electrical vehicle battery. They do not store enough power to do it, unless your car is fully charged and you are not intending to go out and get milk or do another couple of errands that night; there is not enough power in those car batteries to do that. Maybe they will in some future time, but not in the next five to 10 years, certainly. They do not have that capacity. The upside is not as massive as everyone thinks. I think the real problem to solve is, like most things in innovation and new technologies, either government is simply not getting out of the way quickly enough to allow the private sector to get on and build the infrastructure and get the capital in to do it or we have got antiquated laws artificially stopping people getting ahead of it. I do not think we need and I would not like to see tax incentives or other programs financially coercing people into buying EVs unnecessarily.

Quickly, praising the terms of reference, I am on that committee. It is a busy committee. Should it be at the top of the agenda when we have to consider other things? No, but it is timely. The thing that occurs to me is considering whether this should be an inquiry. Really, frankly, it should be just something done in the department. It is not rocket science, the stuff that we are talking about here; it does not really require an inquiry. The only reason it actually looks like we might need to have one is because the government has not done its own homework. It is pretty rudimentary stuff about providing infrastructure for electrical vehicles – big deal. It is not rocket science, it is not novel, it is not new. It has been done elsewhere. There are plenty of precedents to call on, and there are plenty of regulations to call on. I do not know what the fuss is except that I can see that we have a growing gap in our programs, which means Victoria is being held back, and I do not like seeing Victoria held back, because Victoria needs to maximise every economic opportunity at this point. I will conclude my contribution there.

Tom McINTOSH (Eastern Victoria) (14:52): We are just doing some research on this side which we will be able to come to in a moment, but I will hold you in suspense on that for the moment. It is great to hear Mr Welch – he has his EV. I have noticed it out in the parking lot, so I congratulate him on that. I hope it does not impact on your preselection chances, Mr Welch. I know that the minds of those in your party will be popping and blowing that any sort of new technology dare be anywhere near the realm of the Liberal Party. So I congratulate you. I do want to disagree with some of the other comments you made in your speech, but yet again we see Labor Party in the sensible centre. We see the Liberal Party torn apart by their anti-technology positions. I have said it before and I will say it again: if they could get their energy from harpooning blue whales still, if there were enough of them around that were not protected, they would be absolutely out there doing it and running on candles.

Then of course there are the Greens. I note that in the speech they talked about imagining things like vehicle to grid. We do not need to imagine it – the trials are being done, the work is being done, the technology is coming, it is rolling out – and I am really proud to be a member of Labor Party, a representative of the Labor Party that gets on with delivering things at state and federal levels that we need here in this state and around this country.

Bev McArthur interjected.

Tom McINTOSH: Thank you for asking me. I do have an EV, and I just happened today to be looking to turn it over to get another one. I have just done 18 months, or not quite 18 months – I have just knocked over my 50,000 k. Mr Welch was talking about range – I have taken it up to New South Wales a couple of times; I have taken it around Tasmania. Ranges are increasing all the time, and Mr Welch did make a very spot-on comment about the fact that it is inevitable, the process, in electric vehicles. You look at car shows around the world and 90, 95 per cent of vehicles are electric. So we know that is the way the technology is going.

Mr Limbrick, with all due respect, I just want to pull you up with a couple of points you made. Yes, the commentary has been around transistors popping on streets when everyone plugs it in. The same could be said if everyone wants to plug in their three-phase oven at the same time – the trannies are going to blow. That is not the practice; the majority of suburban city dwellers do not need to charge their car every night. You can if you wish – you can give it a little top-up – but you do not need to charge it that frequently. I am an electrician as well, by the way, just to put that on the record – when we first started wiring up houses, we were using 1 or 1.5 mil wires. Over time we upgraded those. We used to use fuse wires for switchboards. We upgraded those to circuit breakers, then to residual current devices. We have adapted to modern technology which is most fit for purpose for the current time and most fit for purpose for keeping the people in those homes, people in businesses and people in public places safe. We emerge to the technology of the day. From an electrical perspective, yes, there may be work we do over time, but there is always work we do over time with every new technology. We had the investment in our gas lanterns that were around this city; they have moved over to electric. And now the way that we generate our electricity is different.

The other point I want to come to is the supply of electricity for the cars. Yes, that is something we all have to be conscious of. And something that again I am proud of on this side is that rather than denying, delaying or detracting from action like the Liberal–National coalition have done over the last 20 years on energy – as I have said many times in this place, they had 20 different energy policies under their nine years in federal government, giving industry no certainty of investment.

Mr Welch talked about getting out of the way and letting industry invest. I will tell you what, when the nuclear policy was on the table and they were asking government to invest $600 billion to build 4 per cent of generation capacity in this country, where was the Liberals’ get-out-of-the-way mentality? I cannot wait to hear from Mrs McArthur about what she thinks of nuclear energy when we talk about powering EVs, because I am sure Mrs McArthur, like Ted O’Brien – yes, the thumb is up over there. They still want nuclear energy, even though it does not make any sense from a cost perspective and it does not make any sense from a technological perspective. Anyway, we are not here to discuss nuclear, but it was raised on the other side, about the generation capacity, so I wanted to come to it.

My esteemed colleague Ms Terpstra raised with me just before about range and capacity to move people. We have great news right here today for the Liberal Party of Victoria: Volkswagen are bringing out an electric Kombi. Given that they have got half a dozen members in the federal lower house, bang, they are going to be able to get themselves all around the state. They are going to get the electric Kombi, they are going to get it badged up with the Liberal Party and they are going to all be able to hop in. They will arrange a driver, and they will be able to drive from A to B, going around doing their anti-renewable rhetoric, their anti-EV rhetoric – whatever rhetoric, I forget – how they want to frack. They will be able to drive around town telling landholders how they are going to rip up the agricultural land and frack it all. It is all there. They can do it in an EV.

Something that really, really has grated me over the years is one of the Liberals’ scare campaigns and their negativity. I will give you a little story. I was at the election the other day. The last how-to-vote I handed out was to a young sparky who walked past me. I said, ‘Here you go, mate. Vote Labor. Sparky, sparky – vote Labor.’ And this this crusty, negative, hate-filled Lib goes to him, ‘They’re going to tax your ute.’ I turned around and I said, ‘Mate, you’ll have a job for the rest of your life in your trade.’ And he just went, ‘Yes, Labor all the way.’

I am proud that we have these vehicle efficiency standards. The Libs went on for years – I cannot even get to all the things we are doing; I am going to get there – about how we were going to take away the weekend. Do you know what gives you a weekend? An electric ute, when you can plug in all your tools in the back – a Kombi van! When you can pull up in the bush – and Ms Bath loves camping; you might want to listen to this, Ms Bath. You pull up in your ute and just plug into your outlet in the back. You have got 60, 70, 80 kilowatts under the hood, and you can do whatever you want out bush for a week. No-one is interrupting you and no-one is getting in your way. What a beautiful thing. The fact is you can pull up on a site and you do not have to worry about fuel, you do not have to worry about generators. All your tools are charged, and you can get on with the work. That is fantastic.

So if the Liberal Party could get rid of their hatred of new technology – you know, we moved from chequebooks, we moved to ATMs and we are now paying on our mobile phones. Mobile phone technology has moved pretty quickly. Mr Welch mentioned before going from a Nokia 32 to a smartphone. Well, that maybe was not exactly how he phrased it, but that is exactly right. Technology moves. So let us not be scared. Let us adopt and embrace new technology.

I said before I have had the car, done my 50,000 k’s. I am really proud that this government has invested $100 million in supporting EV charging and EV infrastructure around this state. We are seeing all new buses as of this year – 4500 buses – will be electric, getting diesel particulate out of the air, clean air, and they will be much, much quieter getting around our streets. From a regional Victorian perspective, the fact is that we have EV charging infrastructure that people can plug in and keep going with. I did a post in December showing all the EV charging points around eastern Victoria. I have been able to rack up, as I have said, tens of thousands of kilometres. When I have needed that charging infrastructure, it has been there for me. I am really proud to be part of a government that has delivered that right across the state.

There are going to be benefits to home owners with PV, as we know, being able to charge their car. Mr Limbrick was saying they might not be home. If you are charging once a week, you can do it on weekends. Do you know what else people do from home? They work from home. We know Mr Dutton did not like working from home. If they are working from home, they can plug it in out the front for the day and they will be fully charged, no worries.

You know what a whole lot of Victorians say – ‘Stuff it. I don’t want to get my fuel from Russia. I don’t want to get it shipped around the world past a whole lot of nations that could put a blockade on this country.’ We want to be self-reliant. We want to support farmers to diversify their income. We want Aussie jobs to support Aussie farmers and Aussie generators to send that electricity into Victorian homes and into Victorian businesses and charge cars that are resilient, that are here, that are not open to inflationary price shocks of geopolitical issues and that are not open to some foreign dictatorship. Dr Heath was espousing the values of North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Russia and China and saying that they are the ones to look to – absolutely right. My colleagues will attest to this. I could not believe my own ears. Check Hansard. That is who she was saying we should be looking to for energy. I disagree. We should be looking to generation right here. We should be looking to jobs right here – anti-inflationary. Let us guarantee the prices that we are paying for our energy with our security.

I look forward to this committee. I look forward to it in every single hearing we do. I look forward to it in its report, and I commend it and support it. Once again I will just say I am proud to be part of the Labor Party, which supports people to drive down their cost of living and puts real solutions to not only address cost of living but drive down emissions.

Sonja TERPSTRA (North-Eastern Metropolitan) (15:02): I also rise to make a contribution on this motion, which is a referral motion to the Economy and Infrastructure Committee to inquire into and report by 27 March 2026 on how Victoria can best harmonise electric vehicles with electricity supply and demand, including but not limited to a whole range of things.

Before I move on to that I just want to focus on the kombi van option, because it is actually quite interesting. I was researching while Mr McIntosh was doing a bit of waxing lyrical on this, but I have to say the kombi van that is available is a very nice modern take on the old-style kombi van. Did you know you can get a three-seat panel van and a five- or seven-seat people mover? A five- or seven-seat people mover is a perfect option for those opposite when they need to truck their people around Victoria, Mr McIntosh – it is absolutely perfect.

Tom McIntosh: They don’t need a big range to get between their seats.

Sonja TERPSTRA: No, that’s right. I am pretty sure that the van would be perfect for shipping people around Victoria. Those in the Liberal Party could actually do their bit and seriously look into this as an option, because like I said, the EV kombi van is a thing and it is here to stay. I know it will be well taken up by those opposite, because it will be available in showrooms by Christmas this year, Mr McIntosh – just in time for Christmas. It will be very well received and something that people can absolutely look into.

Tom McIntosh interjected.

Sonja TERPSTRA: They could absolutely sit in one van, but whether they could stand to sit in one van together is another thing. It is a tad under $80,000. They could all split the cost and chuck in together. That could be their new Liberal bus to get them around Victoria, and they can do their bit for driving down emissions.

EVs are here to stay, but I just really love the electric kombi van. I think that is amazing. What this debate has really been focusing on is how things change and how technology develops. The kombi van, as a car, is an icon in Australia. Everyone knows the old kombi van and has so many tales to tell about kombi vans: what has been done in kombi vans, where they have been, how they have been driven and who has driven them. But now we have this fantastic opportunity to relive and renew and regenerate all those fantastic stories with the electric kombi van.

I look forward to the next generation of young drivers taking up the kombi van EV and getting out and about and perhaps going around Australia. You will be able to go to all these far-flung places because there will be charging stations in many places. You will be able to charge your electric kombi van, and it is going to be fantastic. Even in my local Woolworths down near where I live in Heidelberg, there are EV charging ports. So you can park your car, do your shopping down there and charge your car. It is fantastic. And like I said, technology changes. You look at the old ‘dak dak’ kombi van, as we used to call it – the old ‘dak dak’ – and look at it now, 40 or 50 years later, and things change.

We have heard discussion today on this motion around how mobile phone technology has changed and vehicle technology and even Mr McIntosh talking about how he was an electrician and how they wire houses has changed. Things change. Nothing stagnates, and things do change. So if we are going to look at moving to electric vehicles and substantially increasing the uptake, of course there needs to be infrastructure to do that. Of course looking at removal of barriers and opportunities to manufacture, recondition and recycle EV batteries is an important thing. No matter what it is, with anything that operates with a battery – even mobile phone batteries, for example – there needs to be an important component of that which involves recycling, because all of these things create waste and they create carbon emissions as well. Whenever you manufacture something it creates carbon emissions. So there is always a check and a balance when you are talking about creating something new. We have had a little bit about the nuclear debate here, and one of the challenges with nuclear was: what do we do with the waste? The waste is quite toxic with nuclear. It exists for many, many, many decades, and it is still a worldwide problem about what we do with the storage. There are methods to store it, but then there is debate about whether that is safe and has appropriate longevity and what you do when it becomes compromised. So there are all these new challenges. Whenever you look to having something new there are new problems to deal with.

But in any event the Victorian government have our zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) roadmap, and we have been an early and strong supporter of the electric vehicle industry. Now, I have to say I am not like Mr McIntosh, who has been an early adopter, and I think Mr Welsh has also said he has been an early adopter of EVs. I am not; I have a petrol car. I am doing my bit to burn up all the fossil fuel in my petrol car, which does not go down very well with people who do not like fossil fuels. But my position on EVs was that I would wait and see what happens with them. It is great if you want to be an early adopter and you have got money to do that and you want to work out how you charge it and all those sorts of things. I do not know, call me a bit old-fashioned, but with all that technology and all the new Tesla vehicles that basically drive themselves, I do not like all the new bells and whistles on the new cars. Just give me an old-fashioned car any day, and I am happy to drive that. I do not want to deskill myself as a driver either. Basically, these things drive themselves these days. They pull you up if you are too close to a car, beep at you if you go over the lane line and all these sorts of things. But this is where technology is taking us, because obviously the next part is we will have driverless cars. We will have them everywhere. There are driverless cars already. You can see where this is all going with technology advances and changes and all the rest of it. These things are coming whether we like it or not. And I am sure there will be more EVs into the future but also driverless cars, trucks and the like. It is a bit scary, isn’t it? I would like to drive my own car, but anyway, this is where we are going.

But back to EVs. In May 2021 the Victorian government released its zero-emission roadmap, which sets out a pathway for net zero emissions in road transport. The roadmap included an ambitious target of 50 per cent of new light vehicle sales to be ZEVs by 2030. So in many ways our ZEV roadmap led the way for other jurisdictions, like the Commonwealth and other states, in support for ZEVs. The Economy and Infrastructure Committee is a busy committee, and I think this will probably get up. I think we are supporting this motion. The Greens are obviously – it is their motion – so I am pretty sure it will get up. But again, it is looking at whether public charging infrastructure is being installed at a sufficient rate in parts of Victoria and older suburbs and those sorts of things. It is trying to ventilate and look at what the challenges are and perhaps roadblocks about how we can increase the uptake for it. But again, the private market plays a role in this. It is all very interesting to me that whenever there is a problem everyone knocks on government’s door and goes, ‘Well, government, what are you doing about this?’ It is like, ‘Well, but hang on, there is a private market. This is actually a private market problem. Why don’t you ask the private market to invest?’ And of course the private market will say, ‘Well, we want some clear signals about how we can invest.’

It is a problem, but if you look at other countries around the world, they have dealt with these problems as well. Again, the question has to be: why should government invest in something that really is a private situation, a private market problem? What return on investment would the government get from any of those sorts of things? We constantly get hammered by those opposite about what we are doing and what we are spending and whether we are getting return on investment and those sorts of things, but here we are having some sort of demand that we publicly fund electric vehicle charging stations. Did we ever publicly fund petrol stations? I do not know that we did. But anyway, it seems to be that as soon as there is a problem government is not doing enough – we should do more and we should absolutely fund things that we have really no basis or interest in doing.

It is all very nice if you can afford an EV. Like I said, most people at the moment cannot. They are quite expensive, but the costs are coming down. I spoke on this I think last year or maybe two years ago now, when we were talking about the EV tax. One of the things we wanted to do was to create a second-hand EV market. By doing that, what we did was, for our government fleet, we invested in EVs, and that means we can turn them over and therefore get more second-hand cars onto the market, which brings down the cost for people who might want to buy an EV.

Of course you can always ride a bike or catch public transport. If you really want to reduce your emissions, you can walk. There are all sorts of ways of reducing emissions. It looks like the clock is going to beat me on this, but as I said, we have got a very solid and strong road map about ZEVs. The government has been working consistently and hard on this, and of course we will not be opposing this motion.

Melina BATH (Eastern Victoria) (15:12): I would just like to make a very brief contribution on Ms Copsey’s Economy and Infrastructure Committee inquiry recommendation, and I note that the Liberals and Nationals are not opposing this. I think there is some instructive information that could be gleaned from an inquiry, noting of course that our inquiries are forever under the pump and working to meet timelines.

One of the interesting things that this motion and the terms of reference do bring up is charging during peak periods. Those peak periods of course are generally in the morning or overnight or in the evening, when the sun has stopped shining, and that is placing extra demand on our grid. Naturally, in this state government’s change to renewables – and of course we are not opposing renewables – what they have not done in the lead time, and they have botched it along the last 10 years, is provide that system stability and provide dispatchable and ongoing power. Of course these are issues when everybody plugs in the evening, in the dark, drawing down on the system. Then we hear the Greens and the minister from time to time also speak about the power stations and how aged and decaying they are, all whilst needing them to charge vehicles over peak periods in the evening. It would be interesting to actually investigate some of that and how we can reduce that strain on the energy supply system, noting that more and more people are going to solar panels for their homes. I think Australia has one of the highest take-ups of solar panels and photovoltaic cells in the world.

I do also want to look to point (2) of Ms Copsey’s recommendations for the terms of reference, looking at public infrastructure being installed at a sufficient rate. She talked about the older suburbs in Melbourne, and I can understand that, because frequently houses are side to side and very densely packed and of course there is no off-street parking. I have friends who live in the city in those suburbs, and that makes it very difficult. What I would have liked to see in there as another inclusion are the regions and some of the issues that are facing early adopters or adopters of EVs in our regional areas and in fact in our remote areas.

I will give you an example of some of the charging deserts that we see in regional Victoria. My good colleague and friend Mrs Benham is talking very much about her electorate of Mildura, and wisely so, in terms of EV isolation. Indeed if you are a non-Tesla adopter, so you are not using the Tesla chargers, from Mildura you have to drive to Horsham to charge up your non-Tesla vehicle. To my mind, if I lived in Mildura, that would be preclusive. That is not going to encourage me to take up an EV. Indeed if you go to my electorate of Eastern Victoria Region, if you are a non-Tesla car purchaser, Traralgon is the last station, the last place, the last town where you can charge. Let me say, from Traralgon to Omeo is a fair old distance. It also then starts to preclude people from visiting our regions and basking in the beauty of our regions and taking the opportunity to holiday there. You need a very long extension cord to get you up to Omeo from Traralgon, for example. We also see that the Great Ocean Road has very few and difficult charging stations over in Mrs McArthur’s area.

Bev McArthur: We’ve got no power.

Melina BATH: That is it – and challenges with grids as well.

One of the other things that the NRMA spokesperson was speaking about recently was charger anxiety replacing range anxiety for the growing number of electric vehicle users relying on this slow infrastructure. It is about that rollout: the technology is there, the cars are there, but the charging stations are not.

We heard from Mr McIntosh only a few moments ago that he is an early adopter of an EV, and I think he was proudly saying how he needs to turn it over because it has now reached 50,000 kilometres on the odometer after 18 months. If I did a little survey of some of our National Party colleagues and some of our regional Liberal Party colleagues, we would double and treble that distance. I think my last clock was around 120,000 k’s in 12 months, so clearly there is something wrong with me, because I am getting out and about in my electorate and visiting my electorate and I am wearing out my petrol-generated car. It is very good of Mr McIntosh to not drive too much and save the car, but these are still issues that we need to face.

The other thing that I did want to bring up, and it is quite interesting in that the government are spruiking their credentials in this space – and I remember it – is that only a few years ago the Victorian government introduced an electric vehicle charge, a road user charge. You are looking to ask people to adopt new and modern technologies and CO2-saving technologies, and then you go and tax them. We all know on this side that the government is in very high favour of taxing Victorians just about out of existence. We are up to the 60th – or coming up potentially tomorrow to the 61st – tax in terms of the fire services levy tax.

But finishing off on the discussion around the EV tax, we also know that the High Court in October 2023 ruled the Labor government’s tax as unconstitutional, so there you are. It is quite interesting that these are some of the issues that the government benches are spruiking, but indeed they are not really encouraging those early adopters. With that, the Nationals do not oppose this inquiry.

Ryan BATCHELOR (Southern Metropolitan) (15:20): I have got a minute. This is a really important inquiry. Charging infrastructure for electric vehicles is one of the ingredients that we need to get right to help facilitate the adoption and uptake of electric vehicles in our state. Obviously parts of southern metropolitan Melbourne have some of the highest current rates of electric vehicle adoption, and that follows an adoption curve that we saw particularly with things like rooftop solar. But I have got no doubt that, akin to the adoption curve of things like rooftop solar, they will spread more rapidly, particularly in outer suburban communities, when the infrastructure is there and the savings are there. The last thing I will say is just in response to Ms Bath. She was worried about getting from Traralgon to Omeo in an electric vehicle. If you are in a Tesla Model Y, you can drive there and back again without needing to charge.

Katherine COPSEY (Southern Metropolitan) (15:21): I just want to thank everybody who has contributed to the debate today. I think there have been a broad range of issues canvassed, which I think points to the worth of this inquiry. I thank everybody who has voiced their support. It looks as though the Economy and Infrastructure Committee is going to add this to its to-do list, and I really look forward to further exploring the issues that have been canvassed by members today.

In drafting the terms of reference we had the point at the end around ‘all relevant matters’, so I would think the point, for example, that was raised by Ms Bath around charging infrastructure being rolled out at a sufficient rate is actually covered. The reference to regional areas and charging deserts I would think fits within these terms of reference. But certainly it has been a really informative debate. I welcome everybody’s contributions on it and look forward to being part of this inquiry and the further consideration that the issues will get as part of that.

Motion agreed to.