Thursday, 5 March 2026

Clause 1 further considered (14:03)

Melina BATH: In relation to the amendment on compulsory acquisition, I am just interested to understand. We received a briefing yesterday morning at 8:30. Did the government brief the Greens and members of the crossbench at a different time? I know they were not in that briefing. When did they inform the Greens and the crossbench about this? Can the minister explain if it was earlier or later than for the Liberals and Nationals?

Ingrid STITT: Ms Bath, as this is not my bill per se, I will just check those details for you.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Whilst the minister is at the box, we welcome former member for Warrandyte Ryan Smith to the chamber.

Ingrid STITT: All members of the opposition and crossbench were offered a briefing. I also understand that with some members of the opposition there have been discussions ongoing for some time with the government.

Melina BATH: Thanks, Minister. That was not my question. My question was in relation to the Greens and the crossbench. And if you are alluding to the fact that Mr Davis – and he has popped it on the record during the debate – asked the Minister for Environment a couple of weeks ago, ‘Is this amendment happening? What is happening with it?’ the minister said, ‘No, it is not happening.’ And then, lo and behold, we were told on Tuesday afternoon that this amendment was happening. I just would like clarity for the sake of the house and the Victorian people whether certain members and certain parties are being informed before the Liberals and Nationals – just some clarity around it. It was not to do with discussions with Mr Davis. It was in relation to when they were told and when they were briefed.

Ingrid STITT:It is not really within the scope of the bill before us, but I understand that all parties were briefed or were offered a briefing. I understand that it might have been the case that opposition members actually were aware of this quite early in the piece. Also, just correcting the record: this is not the environment minister’s bill, it is the energy minister’s.

Melina BATH: Yes. Thank you for that. I am so used to saying the environment minister in my shadow portfolio; it is the automatic default. Yes, it was the energy minister. Minister, the Victorian Farmers Federation (VFF) have put out a statement, and they are most upset by this new amendment. One of their concerns is around the imperative, and it is very important, that if there is a proposal going through a landholder’s property, when there is an EES underway, they use time, they use effort, they use energy and they use resources to make a very sound submission to an EES. As you have said here, this new amendment then makes a parallel process for compulsory acquisition. I want to understand what support you are providing and what information the government is going to provide to these farmers, who are growing our food and fibre but are also potentially using time and resources on two parallel processes. How are you assisting them in this process?

Ingrid STITT: Thank you. I did answer sort of a similar question from Dr Mansfield just before the break, Ms Bath. Of course VicGrid have got responsibilities for ensuring that communities are cognisant of these arrangements, but you can still make a submission; there are no changes there. There will also be a process to be gone through for voluntary negotiations. So that is already a parallel process. Also, transmission companies pay for independent legal advice and land valuations for landholders as part of that process. But again, I would just reiterate that the timing or the parallel processes that are undertaken does not mean that the EES processes can be curtailed in any way. The same process must be followed.

Melina BATH: I appreciate that. That was not the subject of my discussion. It was about acknowledging the fact that farmers are going to be duplicating their time and effort, energy and resources on potentially making two submissions, which are quite fulsome, now that this has been introduced and that in effect it could be potentially mandatory and every single farmer could be having a duplicate process of EES and compulsory acquisition. That is the potential of this bill, is it not?

Ingrid STITT: I am not in a position to be definitive about whether all cases would have that concurrent position happening. Again, there is already a duplicate position that occurs for a voluntary process, so I would not want to pre-empt what the results of those discussions between landowners and transmission companies would be. But as we debated last year in the VicGrid bill, there are a range of safeguards contained in that bill. Also – I think we have mentioned this a couple of times in committee today – the minister would still have to be satisfied that compulsory acquisition was warranted.

Melina BATH: I want to move on to renewable energy zones and VicGrid’s power, and I want to look at some questions in relation to understanding how VicGrid can set or shift boundaries and the fact that these have a significant impact on regional communities and farms which the transmission lines can run through. My concern is that the bill vests VicGrid with a discretion to nominate or alter these renewable energy zones. I want to understand the criteria by which VicGrid can do that. So my question goes to: can you define in the bill the powers that VicGrid has to designate or alter renewable energy zones, and what criteria are used to do that? I ask that beyond having regard to what set of objectives and criteria VicGrid would use.

Ingrid STITT: The bill before us today does not do any of that. The renewable energy zones were dealt with in detail in the last VicGrid bill, and nothing about that process changes.

Melina BATH: In relation to biosecurity, I am interested in, certainly when you have got people making assessments on farmland and you have authorised officers that are now allowed to come in and cut bolts and cut fencing and access the property – can the minister describe in more detail a biosecurity plan that needs to happen for those authorised officers to come on ground? Will there be, for example, a biosecurity access code that those authorised officers will have, and what would that look like?

Ingrid STITT: Ms Bath, again, these are matters that were dealt with in the last VicGrid bill in respect to the powers of authorised officers and biosecurity arrangements. I remember distinctly we had quite a bit of back and forth about those arrangements. Those matters are out of scope and not covered at all by these amendments.

Melina BATH: Again, I raise the issue in relation to the importance of recognising the work and the productivity of farmers and the fact that there will be impact and there is impact on farmers out in the regions because of this bill. You said to me earlier that the EES is going to be parallel; you said to me that the cultural heritage management plans will continue on in conjunction with anything to do with EES or in relation to the assessment and anything to do with compulsory acquisition. Has the Minister for Energy and Resources considered looking at statutory agricultural impact assessments when viewing and considering this bill?

Ingrid STITT: A number of factors need to be taken into consideration and assessed as part of an EES process. Again, these are not things that are dealt with in the bill before us today. I would certainly, on your earlier comments, note that VicGrid have got an ongoing role in supporting communities with rolling out these transmission projects. VicGrid already did agricultural mapping when they developed the Victorian transmission plan, which you will recall contained all of the various maps of the renewable energy zones; plus there were multiple rounds of consultation associated with that work. That happened, if I am recalling correctly, before the VicGrid bill was debated.

Melina BATH: I appreciate that. Other states have them, I believe. New South Wales has an agricultural impact assessment, and Queensland has one in a slightly different form. In relation to this bill – it is about resilience and reforms – as part of the reforms, has the government considered a statutory agricultural impact assessment?

Ingrid STITT: I just need to clarify whether you are asking about the resilience plans that energy companies need to submit. Are you asking about agricultural considerations in that work, or are you asking about the EES process and the renewable energy zone allocations? There are two different elements to this, potentially.

Melina BATH: The latter, Minister. I would appreciate it if you could respond on the latter.

Ingrid STITT: On the latter, I refer you to my previous answer about the fact that there was extensive agricultural mapping done in developing the Victorian transmission plan.

Melina BATH: Minister, I would like to move to the section in the bill that relates to traditional owners and the new treaty bill and the enaction of the Self-Determination Fund fulfilling, I guess you would say, the treaty bill. My understanding is that companies will be asked to pay into the Self-Determination Fund, and then traditional owners can decide what they would do with those funds. You can correct me if I am wrong there, but that is my understanding of the bill. When the government was drawing up this bill, did it make consideration – and if it did, what did it investigate, and if it did not, why not – of the community benefits side of this? And how did it separate them, because my understanding is companies will pay a sum, and that is to be formalised, but why did the government decide just to enact the treaty section and not look at the community benefits?

Ingrid STITT: The amendment to the Advancing the Treaty Process with Aboriginal Victorians Act 2018 is about clarifying that should the state and Aboriginal representative bodies agree, there is flexibility for the composition or structure of the Self-Determination Fund to change. This includes to allow one or more funds or one or more legal forms such as body corporates or trusts, and the state and the Aboriginal representative body agreed to establish the Self-Determination Fund as a charitable trust in October 2022. However, now that the Self-Determination Fund will receive funds under section 95 of the NEVA VicGrid stage 2 reform act, and consistent with that broad purposes of the Advancing the Treaty Process with Aboriginal Victorians Act, it may be appropriate for the state and the Assembly to agree to changes to the Self-Determination Fund to ensure that it has the suitable composition and structure in relation to this new funding.

I would add that traditional owners are rights holders and we support that self-determination. I think I have heard broad support for self-determination in the chamber. And community benefits will also be provided.

Melina BATH: In relation to ‘and community benefits will also be provided’, can the minister outline more of what the government is planning to do in relation to community benefits? Did it consider that in inserting this into this piece of legislation, and if it did not, why did it not consider that?

Ingrid STITT: Ms Bath, there are payments that will be made to different groups as a result of these reforms, including landowners and including the community through the community fund and the traditional owners. And that is something that we settled in the VicGrid bill – was it that bill or was it a different bill? That bill, last year – sometimes they blur, but those matters were dealt with in the last bill. And there will be further legislation to formalise community equal opportunity later this year and the traditional owner benefits. So there will be, as I am advised, further legislation to formalise all of those arrangements. But the amendment before us, as I said, was just to clarify those matters that I went through a couple of minutes ago. I hope that is clear.

Melina BATH: Minister, for establishing the funding source for this Self-Determination Fund, can you confirm if the revenue is generated from the renewable energy zone? Is it generated from access fees? Is it generated from access payments? It is deposited into the Traditional Owners Fund, and that fund will be split over different traditional owners. Can you just unpack that? The funding source is what I am wanting to understand.

Ingrid STITT: As I said, there will be further legislation later this year to formalise both the community fund and the Traditional Owners Fund arrangements. But the framework, I should add, is already in place for the community benefits fund, and we dealt with that in previous legislation. Just let me check in with the advisers on your question around how the funds are derived.

Ms Bath, the way in which the funds will flow is the same for the community fund as the Traditional Owners Fund, and it will be derived from the renewable energy projects and the renewable energy transmission companies.

Gaelle BROAD: The bill gives additional functions to Energy Safe Victoria (ESV) to regulate, monitor and enforce compliance with network resilience plans. Will Energy Safe Victoria need any additional resources to complete this work? Will any additional resources be required, such as staff or funding?

Ingrid STITT: I am advised not.

Gaelle BROAD: The bill refers to an accepted network resilience plan as accepted by ESV. What happens if they do not accept the plan? What is the process?

Ingrid STITT: In order to accept a resilience plan Energy Safe Victoria would need to confirm with the distribution company that the plans meet all the regulatory, technical and reporting requirements before implementation begins, and this ensures that the projects included in the plan are delivered as intended and remain consistent with the Australian Energy Regulator’s final determination for that regulatory period. If the Australian Energy Regulator considers that proposed resilience expenditure does not meet the National Electricity Law, National Electricity Rules or relevant guidance on resilience, it may reject the proposed resilience expenditure or approve only part of the expenditure sought. Where partial approval is given, the Australian Energy Regulator’s notice will specify the approved scope, volumes and unit rates of the resilience project and will form part of the distribution company’s network resilience plan.

Gaelle BROAD: It talks about the penalties that apply to businesses who do not comply with these plans; I note 600 penalty units in the case of a person or 3000 penalty units in another case. What does the financial penalty equate to?

Ingrid STITT: As I understand it, it is the standard legislation. But just let me double-check that with the box on this particular penalty unit. Each unit is $203, and it is reviewed annually.

Gaelle BROAD: The bill talks about providing flexibility for the settling of retailer obligations to life support customers. I would appreciate your explanation of what that means and what the impact will be on those customers to provide assurance that it is providing greater support and protections for life support customers.

Ingrid STITT: I have just got to find that answer in my vast array of information.

As you probably already have worked through, the bill amends definitions relevant to the life support framework in the Electricity Industry Act and the Gas Industry Act 2001 so that an order in council will determine the definitions of those relevant terms. These definitions include ‘life support customer’, ‘life support equipment’, ‘life support customer details’, ‘life support resident’ and ‘registered life support customer’. We are making these amendments to respond to findings from the network resilience review and the network outage review, which identified opportunities to improve the accuracy and management of Victoria’s life support register. Allowing definitions to be updated by order in council gives greater flexibility to keep the register accurate and responsive so it is easier to identify customers with critical needs and to provide them with appropriate support during planned or unplanned outages. The Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action (DEECA) and the Essential Services Commission will align the changes with national reforms progressing concurrently.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Minister, I invite you to move your amendment 1.

Ingrid STITT: I move:

1.   Clause 1, page 2, after line 9 insert –

“(ba) 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”.

This amendment would allow the acquisition process to run in parallel with the EES process, and this would create more certainty for landowners and bring forward completion dates, but it does not change either process.

David DAVIS: The Liberals and the Nationals will strongly oppose the addition of this new clause. I have discussed the process by which the clause came to the chamber, and we are leaving that and setting that aside for the moment. The substance of the clause is such that it will breach longstanding democratic practice. It will deprive people, in effect, of rights, so they will potentially have their property compulsorily acquired before the environment effects statement is completed. This in my view is a travesty. It is an unnecessary step. It is an overreach, an imperial overreach almost, by a government that actually is increasingly out of touch. It wants to force its way forward against community opposition and against good process and practice.

What are we being told here? We are being told that if a place has already been compulsorily acquired – a farm, let us be clear, in most cases, or some other land – and then the environment effects statement says ‘Actually, this route is not suitable’ as there may be some flora or fauna element that is there or other matter that says that it is not a suitable place for this construction, the route will have to be rejigged. Then that would occur, you would imagine, but perhaps not with this government. They might just reject the EES process because they have now committed. It is like a juggernaut that is going forward. It is forcing its way forward, whether the community wants it or not and whether the independent environment effects process believes it is correct or not. This is a sign of a government that has become increasingly out of touch, increasingly undemocratic; authoritarian I think is a fair description of this government’s approach here. Normal democratic approaches that Victoria has been used to here are being increasingly torn up by this government as it bypasses proper checks and proper balances and pushes forward with its agenda come what may.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The question is that Minister Stitt’s amendment 1, which tests all of her remaining amendments, be agreed to.

Council divided on amendment: