Thursday, 5 March 2026

 Bev McARTHUR (Western Victoria) (10:13): This bill concerns the Victorian electricity transmission grid, the changes to which are probably the single biggest and longest continuing issue for my constituents I have known since being elected to this place. I speak to a lot of people and I can tell you that regional Victorians are not opposed to progress. They are not opposed to renewable energy in principle. They are not opposed to modernising our electricity grid. But they are opposed to being sacrificed, ignored and then lectured to when they raise legitimate concerns about how it is being done. What we are living through right now with transmission lines, with compulsory land access, with planning overrides and with cost blowout after cost blowout is not a series of unfortunate accidents; it is the product of a government that has not adequately considered how the burdens of energy transmission are distributed. It is a government which, for political reasons, prioritises guilt-free renewable power for the city but leaves the infrastructure, the towers, the easements and the disruption for the regions. This bill comes before us in that context, and we should judge it in that context.

I want to say something about the energy transmission more broadly before I turn to the bill itself: I support reliable, affordable electricity, but I do not accept that regional Victoria should be treated as an industrial sacrifice zone to achieve it. The energy transmission in this state has been driven from the top down, rushed through and imposed on communities who were never treated as partners.

The scale and alignment of transmission corridors were effectively decided before meaningful community consultation took place. Productive agricultural land is being permanently carved up for infrastructure that delivers little or no benefit to the communities hosting it, and even if there is some compensation for those hosting and eventually, we are told, a lower payment for immediate neighbours, that still leaves the entire rest of the community without any compensation for what has been foisted upon them.

Transmission towers impose lifetime impacts on farming operations. They affect biosecurity, irrigation layouts, aerial spraying and future land use. Compensation frameworks are narrow and legalistic, and they fail to account for the ongoing loss of value, productivity and flexibility. The planning system has been bent to suit the projects rather than the people. We have seen fast-tracked approvals and appeal rights deliberately stripped away. Regional councils have been sidelined in decision-making yet left to manage road damage, community division and planning fallout. The government has deliberately separated generation approvals from transmission approvals to avoid honest scrutiny of the total impact.

The costs are staggering. The VNI West interconnector was originally estimated to cost $3.2 billion. AEMO’s own 2025 Electricity Network Options Report put the cost at $7.6 billion and warned it could climb as high as $11.4 billion. The Victorian Energy Policy Centre has estimated this could increase transmission charges for Victorian households by at least 124 per cent.

The Victorian Farmers Federation president has called it ‘a failed project’. He is right. Nobody in country Victoria thinks the government has done this well. They think it is an overbearing organisation with an arrogant approach. Exempting VicGrid from FOIs, its powers to fine landholders more than $12,000 for refusing entry to their own properties and its ability to compulsorily acquire land: all of this has destroyed the social licence that was needed to make transition work. No-one has convincingly demonstrated that the current transmission build is the lowest cost and lowest impact option available. Alternatives like plan B, involving better use of existing corridors, genuine undergrounding in sensitive areas and different generation mixes, were dismissed too quickly. My position is simple: do the transition properly, with consent, transparency and respect, or do not do it at all. Do not do it on the backs of regional Victoria.

Turning to the bill itself, this is an omnibus bill. Members will be familiar with its scope by now. As Mr Davis has said, there are parts we support, parts we are ambivalent about and parts we firmly oppose. The resilience reforms are not something we disagree with in fundamental measure, and I know my colleagues have covered this in some detail. Mr Davis also mentioned the Victorian energy upgrades program and described it as a circus. I will not go into the fridges debacle yet again. The costs being loaded onto Victorian electricity bills are a theme that runs through every part of this bill. More and more charges are being buried in the supply charge, the VEU scheme, payments to traditional owners, payments to landholders, resilience expenditure and transmission costs. Consumers cannot see any of it. They see their usage and they see a supply charge, but the supply charge is a black box. The work done by Gavin Duffy at the tariff tracker project, which Mr Davis has drawn to the attention of the house, is the best work of its type in tracking what people actually pay. It shows that families and small businesses are hurting under costs they cannot see and do not understand. We say there must be greater transparency.

I will come now to the latest example of Labor’s shocking approach to energy legislation. I am speaking about the government’s house amendments. Let me start with the process, because the process tells you a great deal about the intent. Mr Davis has put on record how the opposition was offered a briefing in the last sitting week. A room was booked; the government cancelled it. Nothing was provided in the non-sitting week. Then this week, at the eleventh hour, we were told a briefing would be available at 8:30 am on a sitting day. This was allegedly because of a government internal process. What does that mean? It is completely unacceptable for an amendment as significant as this to simply appear on the day the Legislative Council begins debate on a bill. And it is a significant change. VFF president Brett Hosking said it is:

… a sneak attack being jammed through at the eleventh hour with zero transparency or consultation with the farmers whose livelihoods are on the line.

He asked the obvious question:

What is the actual point of asking for the community’s feedback, while at the exact same time you are compulsory acquiring their land behind the scenes?

He called it ‘a complete slap in the face’. He is right.

Now to the substance. As I read it, the government’s amendment does three things to section 86 of the Electricity Industry Act 2000. First, it appears to broaden the scope of compulsory easement acquisition. Currently section 86(1) allows a corporation to compulsorily acquire an easement for the purposes of erecting, laying or maintaining powerlines. The amendment, as I understand it, inserts the words ‘which is or may be required’ so that it is no longer necessary for the easement to be definitively needed. It is enough that it may be required. As Ms Tyrrell said in her contribution:

‘May be required’ is not a narrow test. It is vague, it is speculative and it dramatically lowers the threshold for the state to take control of private land.

Acquisitions could proceed on a prospective basis before there is any certainty that the easement will ultimately be needed.

Second, and most consequentially, the amendment appears to create an explicit carve-out from section 8C of the Environment Effects Act 1978. Section 8C is the provision that freezes all decision-making in relation to works once an environment effects statement (EES) has been required until the minister’s environmental assessment has been completed and considered. It is a broad moratorium and it exists for good reason. The effect of this amendment is to decouple land acquisition from environmental approval. The two processes would run concurrently rather than sequentially.

Third, it updates the purpose clause of the amending act to reflect these changes. The practical effect is stark. A transmission company could begin compulsorily acquiring easements over private land while the EES process is still underway and could do so even where the easement is only potentially needed. Landowners could have easements compulsorily acquired over their property for a project that might ultimately be refused or substantially modified following the environmental assessment. We are talking about farmers, family properties and generational landholdings across regional Victoria, and this Parliament is being asked to sign off on broader land-taking powers with barely any notice. This is disgraceful. We have heard it argued in this debate that this simply aligns Victoria with the position in New South Wales and that it will create more certainty for landowners. With respect, that argument does not hold up to scrutiny. The question is not whether other jurisdictions allow concurrent processes. The question is whether it is right to lock in a corridor through compulsory acquisition before the environmental assessment has had the chance to determine that corridor is appropriate in the first place.

Darren Edwards, the director of the Energy Grid Alliance, has written, raising concerns about precisely this issue, and he made a point that I think is critical:

[QUOTE AWAITING VERIFICATION]

Environmental assessment frameworks rely on what is known as the mitigation hierarchy: avoid, minimise, rehabilitate and offset. Avoidance is the most effective form of impact management.

If corridor selection is effectively settled through compulsory acquisition before the EES process is complete, the opportunity to avoid environmental impacts through alternative alignment choices is substantially reduced. The EES becomes not a genuine process for determining where infrastructure should go but a process for managing impacts within a corridor that has barely been locked in. Once easements are acquired, the corridor is effectively settled and the infrastructure alignment is fixed, and while the EES process would still technically occur, its practical ability to influence the outcome is diminished. This is a fundamental change to how the EES framework operates in this state. It sends a clear message to every regional community in Victoria: your concerns will be heard, but only after the decisions have already been made. How absolutely disgraceful. You should be ashamed of yourselves for running roughshod over every farmer and every rural landowner in this state. I do not know how you can sit there and accept that this is what you are doing. I urge the house to reject this bill and these outrageous amendments.

 Ingrid STITT (Western Metropolitan – Minister for Mental Health, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Multicultural Affairs, Minister for Prevention of Family Violence) (10:27): I thank all members for their contributions, and I am pleased to be able to sum up in relation to the Energy and Other Legislation Amendment (Resilience Reforms and Other Matters) Bill 2026 and perhaps allay some of the misunderstandings of those opposite. This summer has shown the increasing impact that climate change is having on our lives and our infrastructure. In January alone we experienced widespread bushfires, a flash flood and record temperatures. These catastrophic conditions have impacted our electricity distribution network, the small poles and wires at street level causing a higher than usual number of power outages.

The events of this summer are just the latest in a series of extreme weather events that have led to widespread and prolonged power outages. In June and October 2021 Victoria experienced two extreme storms which caused unprecedented damage to our electricity network. The June 2021 storm caused the largest electricity outage in the state’s history. At its peak there were nearly 250,000 households and businesses without power. This was soon surpassed by a number of outages caused by the storm in October of the same year. At the peak of the October storm more than 525,000 households, nearly a quarter of all Victorian homes, were left without power. A third storm on 13 February 2024 broke the record for a third time, with 531,000 homes losing power at the peak of the event. The primary purpose of this bill is to ensure that our distribution network is better prepared for increasingly extreme weather conditions caused by climate change.

Since privatisation in the 1990s the distribution network has been owned and operated by private companies. Every five years those companies submit network expenditure plans to the independent national regulator, the Australian Energy Regulator, for assessment and approval. State governments do not fund or control network upgrades. However, since 2021 the Victorian government has intervened to ensure that private network businesses must spend more on increasing network resilience under the national rules. We have done this because we recognise the impact that outages have on people’s lives, impacts that are not always recognised by the existing national framework. Following the June 2021 storm the Minister for Energy and Resources initiated the distribution network resilience review, which was led by an expert panel and sought recommendations on improving the resilience of the network and the response to extreme weather events.

The panel made eight core recommendations and 35 subrecommendations; the government accepted all but two minor subrecommendations. This bill acquits recommendations 2.1 and 5 from the network resilience review and is the final action to be implemented from the review. The bill creates obligations for electricity distribution businesses to publish five-yearly resilience plans. Those plans will be submitted to Energy Safe Victoria, who will ensure that the plans are being implemented. This measure complements the national rule change which embeds resilience as a factor in the national framework for network planning. It also complements the existing national framework, ensuring that we hold distribution businesses to account while minimising additional processes. Combined, these two measures will force distribution businesses to spend money on upgrades and reduce outages. The bill also acquits recommendation 5 of the review by updating the life support customer protections framework to ensure that the most vulnerable people in our community are protected.

The bill will make minor amendments to the National Electricity (Victoria) Act 2005. These amendments will clarify language that was contained in two previous VicGrid bills. There is no change to the intent or application of existing legislation. Through the establishment of VicGrid the government has made transmission network planning more transparent, improved the way that we engage with communities and ensured proper accountability. The bill will also include minor amendments to the Victorian Energy Efficiency Target Amendment (Energy Upgrades for the Future) Act 2025 to repeal part 4 of that act, thereby enabling the current definitions of ‘scheme participant’ and ‘regulated action’ and associated offence provisions relating to undertaking prescribed activities under the Victorian energy upgrades program to continue in operation.

Finally, a house amendment will enable the compulsory easement acquisition process for transmission projects to run parallel with the environment effects statement process. I ask that my amendment now be circulated. The amendments do not change either process, Mrs McArthur. The EES will remain a robust and independent assessment of the environmental, economic and social impacts of major infrastructure projects. The changes will create more certainty for landowners and bring forward completion dates. We know that the sooner we connect low-cost renewables, the lower power prices will be for all Victorians. The changes will bring electricity infrastructure in line with road, rail and water infrastructure and indeed the arrangements in New South Wales. To be clear, it is the government’s expectation that every effort will be made to obtain voluntary agreements with landowners before compulsory acquisition is triggered, but we do know that, from the experience in New South Wales, the vast majority of easements are acquired on a voluntary basis once the compulsory acquisition process is triggered.

The bill continues this government’s proud record of building the critical infrastructure we need while delivering better outcomes for energy users. Through our rapid build-out of cheaper renewable energy, the establishment of VicGrid and programs such as the Victorian energy upgrades we continue to have the lowest wholesale and retail prices in the country. We have also done more to hold big energy companies to account, delivering better outcomes and stronger protections for Victorian households and communities. I commend the bill to the house, and I understand that members will have questions and amendments in committee.

Council divided on motion:

 The PRESIDENT (10:40): There are two instruction motions to the committee. I have considered the amendments on sheet DD194C circulated by Mr Davis. In my view, amendments 1 and 7 are not within the scope of the bill. Therefore an instruction motion pursuant to standing order 14.11 is required. This will obviously trigger a procedural motion.

 David DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan) (10:40): I move:

That it be an instruction to the committee that they have power to consider amendments and a new clause to amend the Electricity Industry Act 2000 to impose on electricity retailers, by statutory licence condition, a requirement to itemise on the first electricity bill of a customer issued in a calendar year, the proportion of that customer’s charges (and the amount of that proportion) referrable to amounts paid by a transmission company to VicGrid for payment into the Traditional Owners Fund, or to traditional owners or certain traditional owner entities, that the transmission company recovers through its charges.

This obviously is an instruction motion. It is not the actual amendment. People will have different views on the amendment, but we simply put the instruction motion at this point.

Council divided on motion:

 The PRESIDENT (10:47): I have considered the amendments circulated on sheet IS27C circulated by Minister Stitt. In my view the amendments are not within the scope of the bill. Therefore an instruction motion pursuant to standing order 14.11 is required. This will also trigger a procedural motion.

 Ingrid STITT (Western Metropolitan – Minister for Mental Health, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Multicultural Affairs, Minister for Prevention of Family Violence) (10:47): I move:

That it be an instruction to the committee that they have power to consider amendments and a new clause to amend the Electricity Industry Act 2000 to make further provision in relation to the compulsory acquisition of easements which are, or may be, required for the purposes of erecting or laying powerlines (or both) and maintaining powerlines.

Motion agreed to.

Committed.

Clause 1 (10:49)

David DAVIS: Perhaps, by leave of the committee, we could just ask some questions about a number of these points. The minister might like to tell us in the first instance with respect to her amendment when that was first considered by government – what date.

Ingrid STITT: The amendment is, as you are aware, being introduced by way of a house amendment. I think it is worth noting that members of the opposition, in particular Emma Kealy MP, called for it in Parliament, and this is not unusual in the course of legislative programs. 9 September 2025 was the date that the house amendment was considered and agreed on as a way forward.

I beg your pardon; I misspoke – Ms Kealy made that statement on 9 September 2025.

David DAVIS: To be very clear, she did not call for this amendment. But my question is a different one. When did the government first consider this specific amendment?

Ingrid STITT: Mr Davis, this is not anything out of the ordinary. There are amendments that are brought through the legislative process regularly, whether that be through house amendments or through amendments from other members of either chamber. This is a standard part of a legislative program.

David DAVIS: So answer the question.

Ingrid STITT: The amendments are being brought to the upper house this week on the basis that this amendment has not only been called for by members of the opposition, but it is also considered by the government and the minister to be the most appropriate way in which we progress the important work of transforming our energy systems so that we are not leaving our network vulnerable to the coal-fired power stations which are withdrawing from the market and we are paving the way for the transition to renewable energy.

David DAVIS: I was not trying to be difficult about this. I just want to understand exactly what date the government first considered this. The answer, it seems to me, is at least last sitting week. I am trying to make a point here, but nonetheless the government appears unwilling to answer when it first considered this, so I will just stop, note that the government will not tell us when it first considered this and note that Emma Kealy did not call for this amendment. I will just put that on the record. But quite separate to that, I think it is a reasonable question to ask. I will just give up on that line, noting the government is refusing to answer it. If I can ask another point –

Ingrid STITT: I think it is a bit cheeky to verbal me. I have been clear that this house amendment is being brought as the most up-to-date way in which the government can fulfil its legislative ambition in this regard. It is not right to put words in my mouth. I have not refused to answer questions. I am answering the question in the best way that I can, given the way in which this house amendment has developed over a period of time, including, I might add, taking on board some of the contributions of members of the opposition.

David DAVIS: That just leaves me to restate the persistent refusal of the government to answer a very simple question. It is a date. If you do not know it, you can say that. You can go and ask at the box. They will either know it or not know it, but just a blanket refusal to answer is what it is. I am just going to stop there.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Minister, do you want to say anything? No?

David DAVIS: Another section of the bill, part 4, repeals the Victorian Energy Efficiency Target Amendment (Energy Upgrades for the Future) Act 2025. Part 4 was originally intended to strengthen the existing offence provisions and some definitions for the VEET, but it has now been removed. April I think is the point it came in; now it is going out. I also understand that a number of aspects around the energy upgrades have been reviewed by the department, and I would ask: is there a copy of the departmental review that is available? My understanding is it is not publicly available. The chamber would like a copy. I would like a copy. We have amended the legislation once while the review was going on. Now we are reversing the changes that we made on that. Perhaps the minister might like to answer where the review is, if we can we have a copy and why the chaotic amendment then and then disamendment, as it were.

Ingrid STITT: I would not agree with Mr Davis’s characterisation of what is occurring here. I just want to give a little bit of context to the strategic review, which aims to deliver an updated Victorian energy upgrades program that is fit for purpose and fully supports the government’s policy objectives on electrification, energy affordability, emissions reduction targets and reliability. The strategic review will strengthen the VEU to ensure that it is fit for the future and it will deliver electrification and energy efficiency at scale. It is examining the changes needed to strengthen the program so it can better support households and businesses to reduce energy use and accelerate electrification, and this includes addressing current barriers and industry challenges. The review has also explored options to improve consumer protections, increase participation by households and businesses and strengthen the integrity of the scheme, and the government intends to legislate reforms later this year in line with this intent.

Just by way of addressing your concerns about the review and access to information about it, in recent weeks Solar Victoria has communicated broadly to industry stakeholders the key themes arising from the review. There have been a series of webinars conducted to outline the key themes of the review and reforms that the government intends to bring to the Parliament later this year. The first of these was held yesterday in fact, and there were almost 200 people that attended that webinar.

David DAVIS: This just raises more questions than it answers. The simple question is: is the review, as I am informed, complete? And will the government make it available to the chamber?

Ingrid STITT: There is no single document, and the review is complete.

David DAVIS: Will the government make the review, in whatever format it is, available?

Ingrid STITT: We are communicating with the industry, and that is the appropriate way in which we will deal with this.

David DAVIS: But that means not the Parliament. Is that correct – you will not provide it to the Parliament?

Ingrid STITT: As I have already indicated, Mr Davis, there is not one ‘it’. It is a series of documents, a body of work, and the government will be bringing legislation later in the year, as I have already outlined to the house.

David DAVIS: I am just going to make some comments then. Again, I think we have hit an impasse. It is a very reasonable thing. A government review has been undertaken by the department. Despite my criticism of the department reviewing itself, leaving that to one side, the review is now complete, in whatever format it is, and the government, the minister, is refusing to provide that to the chamber. You have to ask why that is. What is so secretive about it? Why can’t the Parliament see aspects of the review? We are amending relevant legislation linked to the review, and it seems to me quite unreasonable – quite secretive in fact – that the government will not make available the review. I am going to stop at that. The minister may want to respond to that, but a preferable way would be to make the review available to the whole chamber.

On the VicGrid reforms, these smooth the way, as it were, for a number of projects that are relatively advanced, but they strip out requirements for a full environment effects process. Before we get to your amendment, Minister, this bill introduces flexibility to the making of renewable energy zone orders and assessment of renewable energy zone scheme authorities. The bill is described as allowing for:

… renewable energy zones to be declared where there is existing sufficient transmission infrastructure or where there is not yet a proposed transmission project in the … horizon.

Second, the bill will enable VicGrid to adopt a method of assessing and issuing REZ scheme authorities and so forth. Essentially it smooths the process for what are described as projects that have advanced a certain way along the track, essentially smoothing the EES process to the extent that it may not have to be undertaken on many occasions. Will the minister confirm that some of these projects will proceed without a full EES?

Ingrid STITT: That is a matter that is solely for the Minister for Planning, Mr Davis.

David Davis: That is part of this bill.

Ingrid STITT: As per the normal process, there will be no change to the EES process at all as a consequence of the amendments contained in this bill.

David DAVIS: So every single process will have an EES in the normal way?

Ingrid STITT: That is the instruction that I have, Mr Davis.

David DAVIS: I just put on record that that is not the understanding I had, but if the minister is assuring me that every project will have an EES, that makes me calmer about this section.

Ingrid STITT: I just want to clarify one nuance here, Mr Davis, and that is that the planning minister assesses every project and then makes a determination as to whether an EES is required. If an EES is required, then nothing that we are bringing forward in this bill interferes with that process in full.

David DAVIS: Minister, will you then explain how this process smooths the way for certain transitional projects at an advanced developmental stage? Will you explain how that operates?

Ingrid STITT: Can I just get clarification, Mr Davis? Are you are talking about projects that have already commenced?

David DAVIS: No, projects that are in a planning stage – but a significant way, perhaps, along that planning.

Ingrid STITT: I will just get some advice from the box.

I have very clear advice, Mr Davis, that nothing in the amendments around the VicGrid processes changes the EES procedures in any way. Just clarifying language – the amendments.

David DAVIS: And other planning and approvals processes – what impact will these amendments have on those planning and approval processes?

Ingrid STITT: None.

David DAVIS: Essentially this bill is claimed to make the process easier for that limited class of transitional projects at an advanced developmental stage. The minister is telling me it does not make any improvement in that process. Is that correct – it does not make it easier for any project at this section?

Ingrid STITT: I think that is jumping somewhat beyond what I said, Mr Davis. I said there was no change to the process. I did not comment at all on your assertion just then about efficiency of it. I just said it will not change the process of the EES.

David DAVIS: It is not just the EES, it is all the surrounding planning and approval processes. Is it the case that this section of the bill actually makes it easier for some projects to proceed with lesser hurdles?

Ingrid STITT: Perhaps this is what you are getting at: the previous bill accelerated projects’ access to the grid – that is, the grid connection process – but that is nothing to do with the planning process.

David DAVIS: Again, I will just note that from what we understood of the bill, we are now getting quite a different response, and I am bemused. I will leave it at that.

David ETTERSHANK: Deputy President, with your indulgence, I would just like to comment on the fact that last night I provided a speech on this topic, and I attributed a quote to Ms Emma Kealy in the other place. It was suggested to me in forthright terms that I may have taken those comments out of context. My quote was from Hansard, but I accept that Ms Kealy was not suggesting her endorsement of the bill or of the house amendment. I just want to clarify that, and I would hope that it is understood that I was not suggesting she was doing that.

Melina BATH: This relates to the amendments that the government has put forward. I am interested in the voluntary acquisition. In relation to a landholder who is considering a voluntary acquisition but is waiting for the completion of an EES so that they understand the final impact of the project – so there is a voluntary acquisition being considered – can the government still make a compulsory acquisition prior to EES completion?

Ingrid STITT: I think, as I indicated in my second-reading summing-up, Ms Bath, it is the government’s preference that wherever possible these matters are dealt with on a voluntary basis, but the house amendment that the government is bringing gives the opportunity for compulsory acquisition to occur in parallel to the EES process.

Melina BATH: I do not feel I got an answer there. So this new piece of legislation overrules and does not need to consider any voluntary acquisition that is in process. It can usurp it, in effect.

Ingrid STITT: No, I do not accept that as a description of the process. The company concerned would also need to provide evidence that they have done everything that they can to obtain voluntary agreement. If the EES changes or the process cancels the project, the easement is returned.

Melina BATH: If the EES changes or cancels the project – so it has gone ahead and there has been a purchase, whether that be voluntary or compulsorily acquired – that money has been spent. Could you outline the process by which that money will be returned to the landholder?

Ingrid STITT: I will just take a minute to talk about the process of what occurs if the land is acquired but is then not needed for the final transmission project. Section 86 of the Electricity Industry Act 2000 empowers an electricity corporation with approval from the Governor in Council to compulsorily acquire an easement for the purpose of erecting and/or laying powerlines or maintaining powerlines. The approval of this power is tied to the specific easement and the purpose for which it is sought, so easements acquired under it cannot be repurposed for any other means. The risk of easements being acquired that following planning approval are no longer required is very low. Under the reforms, granting an electricity corporation the power to acquire an easement under the act requires the Governor in Council to be satisfied that the easement is or may be required for the purposes stated in section 86(1) of the Electricity Industry Act 2000, which would mean the transmission project has been able to demonstrate with reasonable certainty that the easement may form the final route of the transmission line. Ms Bath, I hope that answers your particular query. If not, I am happy to go to the box and get some further instructions.

Melina BATH: Minister, I need to understand, because there are people that this will be affecting out there in Victoria. What is the process, how are those funds attributed back and what is the government’s involvement based on legislation or regulation?

Ingrid STITT: The power company would have to absorb those costs. Therefore it is a disincentive for them to be compulsorily acquiring easements that they do not need as part of any particular project. That is built into the process, and market forces being what they are, it would mean that if they got that wrong, they would cop the cost of that.

Melina BATH: I appreciate the disincentive nature, and I appreciate that power companies do not necessarily want to arbitrarily, without great consideration, compulsorily acquire land. But if the EES comes back and says that this is not the route, is there any jurisdiction, any regulation, any legal requirement – and if so, what is it – that the power companies refund the landholder?

Ingrid STITT: Where an easement is not required, the Land Acquisition and Compensation Act 1986 requires it to be offered back to the landholder for sale at its original purchase price, being the market value at the date of acquisition, and this requirement is binding on an electricity corporation which seeks to dispose of an easement within 18 months of its acquisition. There would be no obligation on the landholder to purchase the easement back. If the landholder purchased the easement back, the easement would then be deregistered from the title, and if the landholder declined to purchase the easement back, the transmission network service provider (TNSP) could surrender the easement back to the landholder, with any associated costs sunk as project costs. In both of those scenarios, both avenues would ensure that the landholder does not continue to have restrictions on their property from an easement that is not required. I hope that is a little bit more detail for you. I am sure that people are wanting to know this detail, so I am happy to provide you an answer.

Melina BATH: My good colleague the Shadow Minister for Agriculture, who is very passionate about agriculture and concerned about the impact of transmission lines on farming land and on farming communities, I think asked this question in our briefing session yesterday morning – in fact when we were concurrently debating this. Her concerns were around market value. From memory, Emma Kealy related that compulsory acquisition could be made, and then the EES process could take a long time. It could be some months to years. In that time the pristine land value that was taken from the farmer then returns a net value that is now at a lower rate. So the market value in five years time, when the government has made a decision and the company has made a decision that it is not the route, then it is sold back at market value, and it could be 10, 20, 30 or 50 per cent less than the value that it would have held had that land remained pristine or in very good working condition. What can the government do to ensure that farmers, in this case, or landholders are not overtly disadvantaged?

Ingrid STITT: Firstly, I would say that the reform does not allow the electricity company to stockpile easements that they do not ultimately require. I am taking your point to be more around the market value at the time of acquisition and then how long it takes to return or resolve. The return would be subject to negotiation so the landowner will not be out of pocket, and in practice the easement would be sold back at a lower rate so the landholder is not disadvantaged.

Melina BATH: I will move on to a couple of other questions. I am interested in the compulsory acquisition process around cultural heritage. At the moment there is EES proceeding on a proposed site, and the company decides that they will compulsorily acquire that land. Will it bypass cultural heritage assessments in any way?

Ingrid STITT: As I have indicated a couple of times in committee this morning, there will be no change to that process.

Melina BATH: What protections are there to ensure that this proposed amendment will not be used by government now or in the future to actively acquire land under the guise of a power easement? What is to assure our community in regional Victoria that this will not happen?

Ingrid STITT: As I have already indicated, the position of the government is that we want to see, as much as is possible, voluntary acquisition agreed in the first instance, but a transmission company would have to prove that they require the land. The minister would have to be satisfied through the Governor in Council process, so the company would need to seek the minister’s decision to recommend the compulsory acquisition of easements under section 86 of the Electricity Industry Act 2000, and they must provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the easements are required or may reasonably be required for the erecting, laying or maintenance of powerlines. The minister must also be satisfied that the electricity corporation has a reasonable basis on which to seek the compulsory acquisition of easements. This amendment will not allow for the stockpiling of easements on the chance that they may be required. There were some protections built into the bill in that regard, Ms Bath.

Melina BATH: Going back to the land being returned to the landholders, I am just clarifying that the primary landholder from which the land was compulsorily acquired has the first right of repurchase. You have said it is at market value at that time – whatever market value is at that time. Is there any form of negotiation that can occur? And if so, is that in any legislation? Could you just unpack that a little bit more?

Ingrid STITT: Ms Bath, I think I indicated to you in answer to your previous question that it would be subject to negotiation, and that is a normal part of the process involving these sorts of scenarios under the act.

Melina BATH: If there is a discrepancy and a disagreement on the price of repurchase, can the landholder go to VCAT or another court? Is that prohibited? Or can they take their appeal through a process?

Ingrid STITT: Ms Bath, as I am advised, there is a process through VCAT for disputes around compensation, and they can challenge the value of the land as part of that appeal process to VCAT as well. But as I said earlier, we are trying to incentivise through the architecture of this that it is not in the interests of transmission companies not to reach a settlement or an agreement, because they will ultimately bear the cost if they do not.

Melina BATH: Just rounding up some of this context of the National Electricity (Victoria) Amendment (VicGrid Stage 2 Reform) Bill 2025 and before, the government has removed the right for landholders, farmers, to apply to VCAT if they do not believe that their land should be acquired. So the government has removed that right, but if then the company says, ‘We’re not going to go down that route’ – if the EES has changed its mind and they have gone on a different route – then when they are trying to get their land back and the company says, ‘Low,’ and the farmer says, ‘Higher,’ they can go through VCAT at the back end of the system. Is my understanding correct?

Ingrid STITT: Yes. As I indicated, they can go to VCAT to challenge the value of the land. There is no change to the compulsory access process, and VCAT appeal on compensation is still available.

Melina BATH: Just going back another step, with landholders, there is a fever out there. Victorian farmers are feeling like they are being disrespected by the government in that their rights are being taken away, and we have seen their right, in terms of VCAT, to oppose acquisition. What penalties will the government inflict for landholders who refuse to hand over their land, and what penalties will there be for landholders who block access to their land?

Ingrid STITT: Ms Bath, we dealt with those issues extensively when we debated the VicGrid bill. There are no changes proposed in this bill that would change any of those legislative arrangements that were passed – was it last year? Yes. So your question is out of scope for anything that we have before the house today.

Melina BATH: Minister, what tests are there for appropriate process prior to entering into compulsory access? The government has in effect sidelined the importance of the EES, because compulsory access can occur without the EES being completed. So what tests are there for appropriate process?

Ingrid STITT: As per the previous bill we debated and passed, the VicGrid bill.

Gaelle BROAD: I would like to just revisit the question that David Davis raised earlier, Minister: why did the government introduce this amendment after the bill was introduced? We were told during the department briefing yesterday that internal government processes only approved authorising its release the day before. This bill was fairly straightforward until this hand grenade was thrown in at the last minute, so what was the reason for holding back this amendment? Was it to avoid public scrutiny or media scrutiny, or was there another reason?

Ingrid STITT: I am not going to get into a big, long back-and-forth about a house amendment. The reality is that house amendments are brought often to this place, and amendments are a standard parliamentary practice. When we arrive at ways which we consider are appropriate to refine legislation during the legislative process, we are not going to apologise for using the practices of the house to advance those legislative programs. It is a standard part of how we transact legislation in this place.

Gaelle BROAD: I certainly would not say that this is a standard process. This is a significant reform that is eroding private property rights quite significantly. For it to not have parliamentary scrutiny or to be pushed in at the last minute I think is astounding, and we should be given more time to consider these types of changes. How is it fair that farmers are losing their rights over their own properties?

Ingrid STITT: I just want to again remind the house that we dealt with all these matters in the VicGrid bill. Compulsory access was in that bill. The questions that you are asking are two different things. The house amendment deals with compulsory acquisition in terms of the timing of that part of the process and allows for compulsory acquisition to happen in tandem with the EES process. Rights have not changed at all. What this house amendment is about is the timing of when that can occur.

Gaelle BROAD: This bill seeks to pave the way to fast-track projects like VNI West. The original cost estimate for VNI West was $3.2 billion. AEMO reports now show that that has doubled to $7.6 billion, potentially up to $11 billion. When is this project due to be constructed, and how much will it cost then?

Ingrid STITT: This is not a bill about individual projects, Mrs Broad. What I can go to, if it helps you, is what costs are associated with implementing these reforms that are before the house today. But the costs that you are asking about have nothing to do with this bill. These projects, in the government’s very strong view, deliver clear benefits to the whole Victorian community, and we are all on the record in terms of our different views about these projects. Lower power prices and keeping the lights on are pretty important drivers for the government to pursue these arrangements. We believe that this set of reforms that we are bringing today will have a very modest impact when it comes to costs. It is more to do with the Australian Energy Regulator, the distribution companies and Energy Safe Victoria. These costs are very small compared to the potential savings from avoided outages and emergency responses in the aftermath of wild and woolly weather events that we are seeing more and more of because of climate change.

Gaelle BROAD: Minister, you mentioned lower power prices, but you also said earlier that. when land is no longer required, power companies need to cover the cost. Ultimately customers pay for the costs with higher power bills. Doesn’t this bill just pave the way for higher energy bills?

Ingrid STITT: No, I completely reject the attempt by not just you but many of your colleagues to link these transition projects to higher power prices. The facts are that Victoria has the lowest power prices, both retail and wholesale, of any jurisdiction in the country, and we are absolutely committed to continuing driving down pressure on power prices through our transition plan.

Gaelle BROAD: Minister, the Victorian Energy Policy Centre has raised concerns about increased costs to residents’ bills to pay for infrastructure. How much extra will residents be required to pay if projects like VNI West go ahead?

Ingrid STITT: As I have indicated, those matters are not within the scope of the bill today. But what I will say again about costs is there are benefits in a number of ways associated with these reforms. One is that having more resilient energy network and transmission lines means that with the ever-increasing extreme weather events that the country is experiencing of course there will be costs saved as a result of having a more resilient network. Also, I would say that more timely delivery of these massive projects reduces prices for consumers, and we have consistently been able to deliver the lowest wholesale and retail prices in the country. We are going to continue with this transition plan. It is a huge undertaking. None of the amendments that are before the house today will have a significant impact on costs. They will have a very modest impact on some regulatory arrangements that need to be in place.

Gaelle BROAD: Minister, you referred to the need for resilience, I believe you said. But the Auditor-General’s report in December last year about the transition to renewables says it will be harder for the government to reach targets and it risks electricity shortfalls to meet peak demand and load shedding. The government has failed to address the risks. Does this bill put pressure on private power companies to take the blame for the government’s policy and ideology by forcing them to pay for government’s failures to provide reliable and affordable energy?

Ingrid STITT: I am just going to call that out as a ridiculous proposition. This bill is about ensuring that the private energy operators take on the responsibility of a more resilient network.

Melina BATH: My question to the minister relates to consultation. In this rushed amendment to a bill that was introduced to the Parliament this year, which we saw a day and a half ago, what consultation was conducted with key stakeholders, with the agricultural sector and with landholders in various proposed areas of transmission lines? And did that consultation include the VFF, the Victorian Farmers Federation?

Ingrid STITT: In terms of the bill before the house today, overall, stakeholders support the resilience reforms, and the bill was obviously closely drafted with input from stakeholders. Energy Safe Victoria, the Australian Energy Regulator and the Essential Services Commission have expressed their support for the reforms and have provided guidance on the preparation of the bill. The Victorian electricity distribution companies support the increased focus on resilience and have also been consulted in the drafting of the bill. Distribution companies did provide some feedback about potential duplication of existing reporting requirements, but both these issues have been addressed in the drafting of the bill in terms of any concerns around duplicating reporting. We have also, as a result of the work that VicGrid continues to do, consulted with community and industry on aspects of the regime with a view to continuing to progress these reforms across the community.

In terms of the VFF, I will need to seek some advice from my friends in the box about that.

The advice that I have got, Ms Bath, is that the minister regularly engages with the VFF.

Melina BATH: You answered a very good question, just not the question that I asked. You explained all about who you had been speaking to prior to engaging in all of this stuff. But I asked, in relation to the amendment that we have seen in this last week and had the briefing on yesterday morning: did the government discuss this amendment, which has a significant impact on regional Victorians, on farmers, ask the opinion of or consult with – not community aspects of the regime but did you talk to – key stakeholders like VFF? I am not directing my anger at you, Minister, but it is wrong that you bring these things in when you have known about them. Clearly we did not know about them, and nor did the farming communities they are impacting know about them.

Ingrid STITT: Ms Bath, it is important to just keep clear in all our minds that we are not changing the process of compulsory acquisition. The amendment goes to it being able to be triggered alongside the EES process. We are not changing any of the processes that were debated at length in the VicGrid bill last year.

Melina BATH: Has the amendment that you put forward yesterday been discussed? The parallel processes of compulsory acquisition at the same time as an EES – did the government bother to talk to the VFF on this issue?

David DAVIS: And if so, when?

Melina BATH: That is right – and if so, when? And if not, just come clean and say you did not.

Ingrid STITT: I have been clear in my answer. The answer that I gave you, Ms Bath, is that the minister regularly engages with the VFF, as she does with many, many other stakeholders across the state when it comes to these important issues, particularly when it comes to the rolling out of our transition to renewable energy and making sure that we have got the transmission for renewables and also resilience of the network.

David ETTERSHANK: A lot of the questions I wanted to ask, Minister, have been covered by the opposition, so I will just focus on a few of them. Ms Bath raised the question about the farmers federation. I just want to get your feedback if I could, please. There is a media release that went out this morning from the VFF that says:

The proposed amendment to the Energy and Other Legislation Amendment (Resilience Reforms and Other Matters) Bill 2026 creates a direct bypass around the state’s environmental protection laws.

That is one thing. The second thing it says is:

It explicitly allows the government to force through transmission easements while an Environment Effects Statement (EES) is still underway.

Could you clarify that? I know you have spoken on this to some degree already.

Ingrid STITT: No, it does not.

David ETTERSHANK: Thank you for the succinctness and clarity of that, Minister. I just want to go a little bit into some of these acquisition questions if I could, please. As I understand it, there are a couple of elements to the acquisition process, in the context of a voluntary agreement, and that constitutes a progress payment and then a final acquisition payment. Perhaps the first question would be: can the final acquisition of the property occur prior to the EES being approved?

Ingrid STITT: It can, but it is unlikely that it would be the case. Technically it could, but it is highly unlikely. The reality is that I just want to reiterate –

David Davis: The answer is yes.

Ingrid STITT: No, Mr Davis, if you want to ask me a question, you get the right to do so, and I will answer honestly. The planning, as I have said a number of times, does not change the EES process. If the EES changes or cancels the route, easements are returned, and I think I got into that in a little bit of detail with Ms Bath in terms of how that process would work if a landholder wanted to get their land back. But it is an unlikely scenario is the advice that I have on your question.

David ETTERSHANK: I guess that invites the question: could you elaborate possibly, please, on what is that unlikely event or what would be that circumstance?

Ingrid STITT: The minister has to be convinced that the compulsory acquisition is required and that the private company would need that, and that has to go through a Governor in Council process.

David ETTERSHANK: Minister, I understand in the context of an acquisition there are sort of two lots of money, for want of a better term, that apply. There are progress payments that are made during the process, and then there is the final acquisition. Could I ask, please, in the scenario where it is found by the EES that acquisition is not appropriate, what happens to those progress payments? Are they refundable to the state, or do those progress payments remain with the owner concerned?

Ingrid STITT: In the case of voluntary agreements, including up-front payments, landowners would keep those payments. That is something that I do recall went back and forth a little bit when we were doing the VicGrid bill. Again, just to be clear, nothing in the bill before us today changes those procedures around compulsory acquisition that were debated and settled in the VicGrid bill, other than this change to when compulsory acquisition can occur in the sense of the timing.

David ETTERSHANK: Minister, I understand in the context of the voluntary acquisition that the payment that is offered is generally well above the actual market value. Is that correct?

Ingrid STITT: Correct.

David ETTERSHANK: So, Minister, in that scenario, if indeed a transaction was not proceeding, would it be reasonable to characterise the effect of the transaction as being that progress payments would be retained by the property owner and that if there was then to be a requirement to purchase land back at the market price it is highly unlikely that the owner would be out of pocket?

Ingrid STITT: I think I have already answered that question previously and said that landowners under that scenario would keep the payments – that is correct. Again, there are incentives for companies not to unnecessarily seek to acquire easements either voluntarily or compulsorily, but there are also incentives to sign voluntary agreements where these projects are of state significance. I think we have been pretty up-front about that.

Sarah MANSFIELD: Thank you, Minister, for your responses. I think in different ways you might have covered off many of the questions that I have in response to other questions. But just for absolute clarity, can you assure us that the changes that are being made – all my questions relate to the amendment – by that amendment will not mean any shortcuts are taken with the EES process?

Ingrid STITT: I can assure you of that.

Sarah MANSFIELD: I think Ms Bath went through all the different scenarios about what might happen in the event that the EES for some reason is not approved – what happens for the landholders and the consequences of that – but I think what a number of us have been hearing is that this proposed amendment has created some confusion and a lot of uncertainty for landholders about what their potential financial exposure will be as of result of some of these changes, particularly in the event where an EES does not go ahead. So can you please explain whether landholders will be left financially exposed in these situations, particularly where an EES is not approved?

Ingrid STITT: Landholders will not be out of pocket.

Sarah MANSFIELD: I understand that a very similar process is already in place in New South Wales. Have there been any instances where an EES found that transmission could not go ahead on land that had already been either voluntarily or compulsorily acquired, and what happened in those situations? What have we learned from those experiences in New South Wales?

Ingrid STITT: None that we are aware of, but I also would like to add that it is not just the process in New South Wales; this process occurs in other portfolios with different types of infrastructure projects, including road and rail projects – that the compulsory acquisition can occur in tandem with the EES.

Sarah MANSFIELD: Going back to the comment I made earlier about the confusion on the ground and the concern that is being felt by communities, what support and information will be provided on the ground so that landholders are absolutely clear about all the steps in this process and their rights in all the different potential scenarios that could play out?

Ingrid STITT: VicGrid have got responsibility for making sure the community understands the transmission projects across the state. They have published information about the process, and obviously they have an ongoing responsibility to not only do that but work closely with communities around these very large and complex transmission projects. They have land liaison officers, and they will be briefed and provide answers to individual landowners should they have confusion or questions around any of these processes.

David DAVIS: I want to ask the minister about the new clause. Can the minister give the chamber some understanding of the impact that it might have in terms of the requirements of SARC? Has there been a note or report produced with respect to the amendment and the principles that the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee would normally consider?

Ingrid STITT: Do you mean in respect to the house amendment, Mr Davis?

David DAVIS: That is right. The amendment – your amendment.

Ingrid STITT: If it is okay, we will take that on notice and come back to you when we resume after question time.

David DAVIS: In doing so you might like to take into account some of the comments that are already made in the SARC report. It does seem to me that this has the obvious potential to deprive people of their property. That section of the SARC act is obviously engaged.

You said before that there is no change other than the relationship with the Environment Effects Act 1978. But clause 1 of your amendment does say something different. It says:

to amend the Electricity Industry Act 2000 to make further provision in relation to the compulsory acquisition of easements which are, or may be, required for the purposes of erecting or laying power lines (or both) and maintaining power lines …

And then it goes on, and the EES stuff is dealt with and so forth. It is the ‘or may be’. ‘In relation to compulsory acquisition of easements which are’ – I understand that. There is an intention to put an easement down there, there is an EES process happening and you are saying you are going to require it for that. But the ‘or may be’ seems to me to head into speculative territory. Would it be the intention of the government to acquire properties on the possibility, the ‘may be’ – ‘or may be, required for the purposes of erecting’. Let me give an example: there might be a transmission line and an intention to extend that transmission line into new territory on the chance that there may be further low-emission technology projects out in that area. ‘Or may be’: that means a speculative but not certain project, Minister, doesn’t it?

Ingrid STITT: I will say a few things, Mr Davis. The minister still has to be satisfied that there is a demonstration that the acquisitions are required. The drafting of the clause is entirely consistent with the way in which this operates in road, rail and water. I have already given an answer in respect to something around this topic around not being able to stockpile. There is no room for speculation. They have to prove that there is a requirement associated with the transmission project for the minister to be satisfied that compulsory acquisition is appropriate.

Business interrupted pursuant to standing orders.