Tuesday, 17 March 2026

 David DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan) (16:19): The National Gas (Victoria) Amendment Bill 2025 is a bill that I am happy to make a contribution on, indicating that the opposition will not oppose this bill but will seek to amend it and ask some questions of the minister during the committee stage in this chamber. It is a bill that points to weaknesses in the government’s approach. We have seen 12 years of this government, and we have a shortage of gas. What has happened here in this state is Lily D’Ambrosio’s war on gas has had a real-world outcome. The government decided that it would not do anything to facilitate new gas infrastructure or new gas exploration. In fact the last exploration licences granted were in 2013 – three of them then – and the government’s war on gas has seen us now in a position where the state is in a lot of trouble. We have a situation where the gas that the state has relied on for a significant part of its heating, a significant part of its cooking, a significant part of its hot water and a significant part of its industry activity is higher priced, in shorter supply and a challenge for the state. In government, after November, we will be very clear that we need more gas. There needs to be more exploration, and we need onshore conventional gas brought forward. We need to make sure that that gas that is offshore is also tapped thoughtfully and that we bring forward new supplies.

That is not what this bill immediately deals with. This bill is a desperate attempt to clean up the government’s own mess. The government has got a problem now because of its failure to support the gas sector over so long, because of its declared war on gas, its declared war on the gas sector and its declared war on anyone who wants gas, uses gas or needs gas. They know that this government is after them. They know that if they invest, this government will penalise them and this government will punish them in any way it can. We have had gas connections banned on new estates. We have had gas connections banned where a planning permit is required on a city property or a property in a regional centre. That is the level we have got to. We have seen bills go through this chamber to give the government a head of power to ban gas appliance replacements, and that is what they are going to do from March 2027. That is what they have said they will do. They wanted to pull back from saying, ‘We’re going to ban cookers,’ but when confronted with an amendment in this chamber which took away their power to ban cooking appliances, they actually voted that down. You can take from that that cooking is on the agenda. It is on the menu for this government. If it is re-elected in November, by March next year, 2027, cookers will be banned, heating will be banned –

John Berger interjected.

David DAVIS: Yes, cookers – as in gas cookers. Gas cookers will be banned. That is exactly right, Mr Berger. You down there at Teesdale, if your gas cooker were to run out, it would become illegal to replace it with a gas cooker. And the same with your gas heater – if your gas heater were to die a natural death after 15 or 20 years, it would become illegal to replace it with a gas cooker. That is where this government is going, let us be quite clear. It is a punishing approach focused on denying consumers choice and the opportunity to have heating and cooling of their own choosing. That is where they are going.

There is a consequence of this with industry. Industry is being punished too. We have seen a real deskilling of our industry. We have seen a loss of much manufacturing. We used to manufacture plastics here. Qenos has now gone. It is gone forever. It had a gas input. It had an ethane input as a feedstock, and it used gas as the mechanism for producing the plastics that were required. That is gone; it has disappeared. Glass manufacturing here – that is gone too. I could go on with a long, long list of industries that have been rubbed out by this government – by its taxes, by its regulations, by its charges – and been rubbed out by its approach to gas, its war on gas. That is Lily D’Ambrosio, it is Daniel Andrews, it is Jacinta Allan, it is the ministry.

Enver Erdogan interjected.

David DAVIS: Yes, you, Mr Erdogan. You should have stood up and said, ‘No, we don’t agree with this war on gas. I believe in the choice of people and businesses to actually choose the energy of their choosing.’

Enver Erdogan interjected.

David DAVIS: No, you. I tell you what, you have supported it all the way. You have never once spoken out against it publicly, and you could have. You could have actually drawn a line and said, ‘This is too much.’

This bill tries to clean up a few of the problems. The minister wants to clean up these problems because she has realised there is a problem with the south-west pipeline, let us be clear – the pipeline coming from the south-west out around the edge of Geelong, not far from Teesdale, and then looping up towards the city. That is a very important set of pipelines, I have to say. It is a very important piece of infrastructure. If there is new gas down that way, and there is no doubt new gas that can be brought on –

Members interjecting.

David DAVIS: G-A-S, gas, yes. If you want to maximise the movement out of the storage in that corner of the state – and Iona is down there, and that is very important storage for this state. Iona is pumped up during the summer months, and then in those winter months, when we need the gas, it is withdrawn. But there is a constraint point, and that constraint point is that pipeline. The minister is also actively investigating import terminals, and there are a number of these. There is one in South Australia that is pushing forward, there is Squadron in New South Wales and there are a couple of alternatives here in Victoria. The question is: can those terminals all come on and –

Tom McIntosh interjected.

David DAVIS: I tell you what, you are a supporter of closing off options on gas too. And nobody down your way –

Tom McIntosh interjected.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Jeff Bourman): Order! Mr McIntosh, if you are going to interject, do so from your spot, please.

David DAVIS: I have not heard a word out of you on compressed natural gas and the loss of the network. You have been silent as a church mouse as people in your electorate have lost their gas. You have not fought for them. You have not stood up for them. You have been quiet as a church mouse because, you know what, it does not directly affect you because you live in a nice city location and you have the gas if you need it at the moment. But you will not stand up for your local area, will you?

Members interjecting.

Tom McIntosh: On a point of order, Acting President, my location is not nice.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Jeff Bourman): Sorry, I did not hear that. I will not uphold the point of order because I did not hear it.

David DAVIS: I will try to avoid the interjections and not take the bait. It is difficult, but I will make a real endeavour to avoid the interjections. The point here is there is a problem with that pipeline and its capacity. You do not have to be a rocket scientist to have realised some of these issues. And where has the minister been over the last almost 12 years? Where has she been on this? And now she wants to bring in a big stick of ministerial direction powers so that she can ride around and direct these firms as to what they will do. But why didn’t the minister work with these firms over a longer period of time? I am informed that the pipeline group have actually got applications to the energy regulator currently in there. The minister’s people say that they are not quite strong enough – well, that is a debate. But this came as an issue, and the minister needs to clean up the mess that she has made over the last 12 years, and to do that, she has got to take these powerful regulatory steps.

I note that the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee hoed in, and SARC is a very weak body, as we all know. It speaks very softly usually. But this matter of declared transmission systems enables the expansion of the minister’s declared gas transmission system capacity to be expedited by ministerial order – that is the short description – and supports the improvement of declared transmission systems in Victoria. They list the note from the second reading. But SARC does point to the fact that this set of powers is significant. It does point to the forced work provision in the charter provisions:

The effect of clause 3 may be that the Supreme Court may order any person concerned in a service provider’s contravention of a requirement to carry out a specified improvement to a transmission pipeline to take any specified action that the Court deems appropriate. The Committee will write to the Minister seeking further information.

I will come to the minister’s letter in a moment.

The Committee observes that the effect of clause 3 may be that the Supreme Court may order any person …

and so forth – that is their conclusion.

The Committee will write to Minister seeking further information as to … the compatibility of clause 3 with individuals’ Charter right not to be made to perform forced or compulsory labour.

The minister in her response – which for the background of the house is in Alert Digest No. 3 of March 2026 – dismisses this matter:

For completeness, if a natural person were appointed as a declared transmission system service provider, the works and activities required by the Ministerial Orders, and its enforcement by a Court order, would fall within the scope of the exception to the prohibition from forced or compulsory work in section 11(3) of the Charter. The Court order is a civil order which is protective, not punitive, in nature –

But the point that the minister misses is actually it is an order to perform forced work. That is what it is; let us be clear. It is a firm. It is a firm that has got a business case for its own development and own expansion from time to time, but it is a firm where the minister is seeking special powers to roll over the firm and just direct them to do this. It may well be in the public interest and I understand that, and for that reason we will not stand in the way of the bill. But we do think that these extraordinary, draconian powers that the minister is taking, she is taking to clean up the mess that she has left. That is the truth of the matter. Let us be clear: if the minister had worked sensibly with the industry over the last decade or so, we would be in a much better position. If the minister had worked to make sure that proper supply was coming on, to make sure that the infrastructure was maintained and to make sure that the infrastructure was upgraded where potential new additions to capacity were appropriate, we would be in a much better position. This panicked decision – ‘I’m going to take the big stick, bring in the bazookas and force the industry to do the following’ – that is really what is going on here.

The bill provides that a ministerial order may specify the scope of augmentation, including timeframes, conditions or requirements. Before making the ministerial order, the minister may have regard to specified factors, including the impact of the proposed augmentation on the operation of the declared transmission system, the interests of gas consumers and the consistency with the objectives of the national gas regulatory framework. The minister must consult with the Premier, the Treasurer, AEMO and the relevant declared transmission system providers, except where consultation is impractical or where urgency or the public interest requires otherwise, and ministerial orders may be revoked by the minister. I notice that the minister does not have to consult with the energy regulator. The energy regulator is important because expansions of networks of this type often have cost structures that are sheeted home to consumers, and those orders to allow the costs to be sent to consumers indirectly of course are overseen by the energy regulator. We see that the consultation should be expanded. It might be an appropriate time to circulate our amendments. The issues with the bill are significant. As I said, the ministerial order powers granted to the relevant minister have the capacity to force private operators to invest in capital investment expansion where there is no clear business case and without certainty that costs can be efficiently recovered. That is one of the reasons we think there needs to be consultation with the energy regulator.

Consultation with industry participants and pipeline owners can be bypassed under certain circumstances where consultation is considered impractical. This raises legitimate concerns that these exceptions are broadly framed and could result in orders being made without thorough consultation with key industry and market participants. So a minister – and this one, this current minister, would be such a minister – could go off on a frolic, ready to use their powers, almost excited in using their powers, because they are attacking the gas industry, and that is the reality of this particular minister and the particular approach that is adopted. We are nervous about giving these wide and extraordinary powers to the minister, especially without some of the transparency checks that we have proposed. I should just explain, in short, what that does, and I will do that in a moment.

There is also a risk that works will be compelled where recovery of costs is unable to occur. Such cost recovery requires energy regulator decisions, as I said. There is concern that Victorian gas consumers could be paying higher prices and costs for the expedited improvements without the application being based on well-understood principles reflecting the long-term interests of the gas regulatory system.

Yes, we see there will be problems. The amendments distributed fall into a couple of orders, a couple of sections: the amendment of 58E to require consultation with the Australian Energy Regulator, and then the number of transparency measures in 58F, which will insert in clause 3 after page 8:

the AER; and

any customer advocacy body prescribed for the purposes of this section or, if no body is prescribed, any body that the Minister reasonably considers represents the interests of customers …

We think consumers should be in this. We think it is a reasonable thing that some of the consumer groups will have a view. I imagine someone like Gavin Dufty at St Vincent’s would have a view on the impact on a range of consumers, both small businesses and others and some of the more vulnerable members of the community.

any gas retailer that the Minister reasonably considers has customers that are likely to be materially affected;

any other person or body (other than a small customer) that the Minister reasonably considers is likely to be materially affected …

by the making of the order.

We want to see the minister’s matters published, the minister’s reasons published, and that must include, we say:

the potential costs to end users of the improvement or improvement services specified in the Order; and

any alternatives to the improvement or improvement services specified … that were considered and assessed before making the Order …

One of the problems here is the minister has the power to make the order without looking at options and looking at the alternatives, and we think that the minister should look at the alternatives and then should publish that. Again, it is a very mild requirement; it is a requirement for transparency.

the potential costs to end users of any alternatives referred to in paragraph (b); and

details of any advice received from AEMO and the AER …

If they have given advice, we think the public should know that too. We think it is very reasonable. We do not think the minister should be able to use this big stick without explaining, we do not think the minister should be allowed to use this big stick without actually looking at alternatives, and if the minister has advice, which she should have or he should have, from the relevant authorities there – AEMO and the Australian Energy Regulator – the consumer, the community, should be able to see that advice too. We do not think that is unreasonable.

I do want to just go forward and say a couple of other points here. We need more supply, and that is one of the reasons we will not stand in the way of this bill, because it is about the capacity and the expansion of that trunk pipeline to accommodate additional gas supply. We are confident that their supply will come from the south-west. We know the importance of Iona. We saw the difficulties encountered a couple of years ago in June in that very cold period, and the pipelines coming from the north were at 108 per cent of capacity. They were over capacity and pumping as hard as they could, and we were drawing down on Iona and our other suppliers at the fastest rate possible. You can see that there is a real set of capacity issues here. As I said, this is an admission of Labor failure – their ideological approach over 12 years – and I do think this bill carries a significant sovereign risk for Victoria. This is off the back of a series of bills that take more and more ministerial power, and I do not have a lot of confidence that the current government will use these powers responsibly.

There is no doubt that when firms are considering investing in energy infrastructure in Victoria they will be aware of the increasingly authoritarian approach adopted by the Allan Labor government. We do not like bills that impose these obligations without proper process – that do it willy-nilly, without the transparency of options, without the transparency and accountability. But we are aware of the challenge that the state now faces, and in that sense, the state is in a very difficult position. We will ask a number of questions in the committee stage, and these powers should be subject, at a minimum, to some sort of code of practice or some set of steps that would provide better transparency and oversight.

This is the situation that the state faces. I saw what I took to be an important article the other day from Perry Williams about the minister threatening to break up a three-way fight over the gas pipeline. Again, this does not fill you with confidence that the minister has a good understanding of what is required here. It sort of points to the minister’s desperate position. The question is what will happen with some of these import terminals. Will they get off the mark or not? It is not clear. What is clear is that import terminals would be more costly for consumers.

We are just concerned about the position the state has been left in. I think one thing that is important is, if you look at the broad context, whilst there is a broad acceptance of the need for transition, most of us were relatively chilled when we read the auditor’s report in December that looked at the challenge of transition and, frankly, a botched transition. We know that the government’s transition is in trouble when it comes to offshore wind. We have been generally supportive of offshore wind. We see it potentially has a very significant role. We did not oppose the bill that went through the chamber. I met with offshore wind people last week. I met with offshore wind people in the UK.

There is potentially a very important way forward there, but this government, true to form, cannot actually properly deliver a project. You think offshore wind, and then the government says, ‘No, you all have to go through the Port of Hastings.’ But blind Freddy could have seen that there were a number of problems with the Port of Hastings. This very government, in the form of Richard Wynne, had not allowed terminals to go ahead at the Port of Hastings on the basis of environmental factors, and yet when the state government applied to Tanya Plibersek for approvals under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, Tanya Plibersek knocked it over because of the biosphere in Western Port, because of the Ramsar wetlands and because the government’s proposal had not taken sufficient account of all those. This is the truth of the matter, and it is the incompetence of this government that has now put us in a deeply troubling position.

The Auditor-General blew the whistle on it in December. He said those targets for offshore wind will not be met, and yet we are moving like a freight train in a certain direction without the necessary work coming in to support it. This is not ideology, this is just basic sense and competence and actually getting your ducks in line. In this case the government has not, and that is a big problem. The Auditor I think did us a favour. He looked at the risk of a failed transition. He looked at the state’s risk register. It is not a public document – it probably should be – but it explicitly highlights the failure to transition properly as a major risk for the state. The Auditor has done us a favour in pointing to those issues.

This bill, as I have said, is a subset of this government’s general incompetence. It just cannot get things right. It has declared war on gas for 12 years and then: ‘Oops – oh no, we’ve got a problem with the capacity of the pipeline, so we’re going to have to take extraordinary and authoritarian powers to order the pipeline groups to increase the capacity.’ That is the short story. It is a sorry story, but we are not going to, in this circumstance, stand in the way of the bill.

 Sarah MANSFIELD (Western Victoria) (16:48): I rise to speak on the National Gas (Victoria) Amendment Bill 2025. As we have heard today, this bill creates a new power for the minister to direct pipeline owners, service providers and the Australian Energy Market Operator, or AEMO, to upgrade Victoria’s regulated gas transmission pipeline network in order to maintain gas supply and gas quality. My colleague in the Assembly Ms Sandell has previously outlined the Greens position on the bill as well as three amendments we have developed in consultation with the Victorian Energy Future Network, who I would like to sincerely thank for their expertise and advocacy on this.

The Greens support more public control over private energy assets, especially as Victoria begins the long road to getting off gas entirely. We know that private companies will only prioritise their bottom line, regardless of what it means for the public or the planet. However, we have three main concerns with this bill. Firstly, it prioritises new gas assets regardless of whether there are cheaper demand reduction options or if new infrastructure contradicts our own 2045 net zero laws. Secondly, the bill does nothing to plan for the inevitable retirement of the gas transmission network, something we know companies will have to do over the next 20 years or so, whether or not the government plans for it, as more Victorians get off gas and on to cheaper, cleaner electrical products. Thirdly, the bill does nothing to bring transparency to these issues, which, as towns getting off Solstice Energy’s isolated gas networks know now, are often kept under wraps by private companies to the detriment of both the government and the public. We have a number of amendments that speak to these concerns, and I would ask that those amendments be circulated.

I will go into a little bit more detail about how these amendments specifically align the bill with the government’s existing climate laws and policies. None of these force the government to do anything it is not already doing. In fact they are designed to proactively help the government and the public throughout this transition. Our first reform would be to add a climate guardrail to this new power. These are spoken to in amendments 4 to 8. As I said, the Greens are concerned that the power is only geared towards new gas infrastructure as an emergency power for periods of deep supply issues. This power creates a legislative risk for the minister. I speak of future ministers as I do not believe the current minister would do this, but it risks a future minister prioritising new gas assets at a time of increased electrification, because without having to consider long-term demand reduction solutions, a minister could theoretically order assets that simply become stranded in five to 10 years. For example, they could force a pipeline expansion that will not be paid off before 2045 when our own laws say Victoria needs to hit net zero by then. Our climate guardrail reform would simply require that orders have regard to two things, both of which are existing laws and policies under this government. Firstly, Victoria’s climate change targets and the climate change strategy under the Climate Change Act 2017. Secondly, whether the objective of the order could be achieved through demand-side measures – which include electrification or energy efficiency – more efficiently than through the specified availability or improvement. This is a minor but important reform that ensures a future minister cannot use this bill to gold plate the network in a way that contradicts the government’s own net zero target. It would mean that the minister formally considers if electrification or demand reduction would be a cheaper way to fix a supply gap compared to building a new pipe.

Our second proposed reform is to resolve this bill’s asymmetrical focus on new gas infrastructure by creating a symmetrical power to require companies to provide gas transition plans, and this is covered in amendments 1 to 3. Currently the bill only gives the minister the power to order improvements to the gas network. That is not an equal power when Victoria is required to hit net zero emissions by 2045 or when companies are already starting to retire stranded assets. The government know this. It is why, to their credit, they have started planning with the gas transition road map. But we believe the minister needs to be able to understand and manage the retirement of assets as network providers inevitably prepare for a death spiral in the 2030s. With this symmetrical power the minister would be able to begin pre-planning by requiring gas transition plans from companies for a specified part of the declared transmission system or distribution network. Gas transition plans would simply require companies to identify timelines for the decommissioning of specified gas infrastructure, strategies to manage the costs of stranded assets, coordination with electricity network distributors to facilitate electrification of specific zones, and/or how a specified improvement will reduce greenhouse gas emissions for the purpose of consistency with Victoria’s long-term emissions reduction targets.

These transition plans have been designed deliberately to be flexible and collaborative. They do not force companies to switch off the network overnight, but they do enable the minister to begin pre-planning for a transition those companies are planning regardless. The impact of an uncoordinated plan and a sudden switch-off – this so-called death spiral – is that ultimately the poorest customers in Victoria will be left vulnerable. While those who can electrify will get off gas, others will be left without any option other than to pay for very expensive gas supply unless we plan for an orderly transition.

Our third and final amendment would create a transparency clause. These are amendments 9 to 10, and I would really hope that everyone in this place could get behind these amendments. Currently, monopoly gas companies do not proactively share key network data – for example, the location of pipes, capacity, congestion, age et cetera. The SEC and communities cannot plan electrification effectively without knowing where the gas network is weakest and if or when a company is getting ready to retire an asset anyway. The government’s bill would enable orders to demand this kind of information for the purpose of network improvements; however, the minister herself has said such orders will only be made as a last resort. The minister, the SEC and the general public should have this information well before that point.

Our transparency clause would explicitly allow the minister to demand geospatial data as part of their deliberations ahead of making an order and proactively share it with the SEC and communities. Our proposed section 58K would enable the minister to demand the location, capacity, age and/or use of assets such as declared transmission systems, pipeline equipment and/or facilities for storing liquefied natural gas. Information not deemed confidential by the minister could then be shared publicly. This clause would cost the budget nothing. It would cost us absolutely nothing to do this. It would also support the SEC by giving them maps they need to plan better, and it would also empower community groups to identify zonal pilots, which are areas with old pipes and low demand, without needing to beg gas companies for data directly. We believe that these amendments, the three sets of amendments that we have proposed, really are sensible improvements to this bill. We know that they reflect the intentions of this government, whether it is in this legislation or in other pieces of legislation, but they actually make it clear. They also futureproof those intentions against the actions of future governments who may not share the same ambitions and intentions that this government does. So I would urge all members to take a look at our amendments and support them as a means to strengthen the provisions in this bill.

 Sheena WATT (Northern Metropolitan) (16:57): I rise today to speak on this bill, which amends the National Gas (Victoria) Act 2008 to empower the Minister for Energy and Resources with directive powers for urgently needed augmentations to expand the flexibility and capacity of the regulated Victorian transmission gas pipeline network. The proposed National Gas (Victoria) Act 2008 amendments will introduce the power for the minister to make orders to direct the pipeline owner, service provider and AEMO, the Australian Energy Market Operator, to augment Victoria’s regulated transmission pipeline network to maintain gas supply and gas quality. The proposed NGVA amendments are necessary to protect the Victorian economy and industry and the wellbeing of Victorians during the transition to renewable energy and to avoid or ameliorate impacts of gas shortfalls.

It is important to note that Victoria is getting on with the transition to net zero. We are absolutely smashing our renewable energy targets. We are continuing to shift our energy usage away from old and expensive fossil fuels into cheap, reliable and renewable energies. There are projects right across the state supported by the SEC, including the Delburn wind farm in the Latrobe Valley. There is the Horsham solar farm in Victoria’s west and the Melbourne renewable energy hub in Plumpton, and they demonstrate so clearly for all to see how Victoria’s renewable energy future is taking shape. I have had the good fortune of seeing some of these projects, and they are truly remarkable.

This transition to renewables and away from fossil fuels is rapid, but it is not overnight, and we know that gas must play a role in taking us to our renewable energy future. Part of that future is inevitably the closure of the coal-fired power stations. Hazelwood has already closed, Yallourn is closing in just a few years and Loy Yang is scheduled to close within the decade. The fact of the matter is that these closures mean that there will be demand spikes for gas, and we will make sure we remain on track as we meet our legislated renewable electricity and emissions reduction targets. That is why this bill before us is so important. It ensures that Victorians will have enough gas to transition to renewables and it shores up our supply to address AEMO’s projected 2029 shortfall, and I have certainly talked about that in this chamber before.

Right now Victoria’s gas supply moves across the state using the declared transmission system, or the DTS. This DTS consists of 2000 kilometres of pipelines that move, on average, 200 petajoules of gas right across the state. But that in fact began construction way back in the 1950s, so inevitably it does not always have the capacity required for a modern Victoria. I am trying to imagine how many people in fact lived in Victoria when that pipeline was initially constructed. That is why this bill grants the minister powers so that she can directly address some of the issues around gas shortfalls and challenges with gas transmission, and that certainly is the preference of this government. But we cannot allow Victorians in the meantime to be hung out to dry because some of these companies are not taking the proper steps to secure enough supply for customers. The minister will, with this bill before us, have the power to order these improvements for these declared transmission systems as well as set a hard deadline for when these improvements must be completed by the system owner. Orders from the minister could also extend to AEMO to provide advice covering the need for system improvements and solutions or to provide improvements like changes to the declared transmission pipelines.

I am certainly happy to talk through the important aspects of this bill. It grants the minister the ability to disapply or modify provisions of the National Gas Law and National Gas Rules as they apply to specific improvements related to the guarantee of gas supply in the state, protecting Victoria’s gas supply, ensuring gas transmission capacity is as up to date as possible and securing Victoria’s renewable energy future. At its core this bill holds those unreliable gas companies to account and ensures reliable electricity for years to come. As I have mentioned, this government’s preferred solution is to protect our households from these shortfalls, but as we have seen, sometimes these gas companies just cannot be trusted. This bill strips away the power from the gas companies, if they cannot find a timely market solution to shortfalls, and places it back in the hands of the people, allowing the minister to step in when these companies fail.

It is important to say that before making an order the minister must consult with the Premier, the Treasurer, AEMO and the DTS owner. That means that when decisions are made to rein in the gas companies, it is done in an informed and careful manner. It does not preclude broader consultation with entities such as the Australian Energy Regulator. If the minister must use these powers, they will be used of course in the best interest of Victoria, Victoria’s people and Victoria’s industry and business.

It is important to understand that these powers are just one piece of the puzzle and this legislation before us is an addition to the rest of the decisive action our government has taken to guarantee reliable and secure supplies of gas for Victorian industry while slashing working families’ energy bills. Of course Victoria has, without doubt, led the advocacy to give AEMO greater powers to intervene and avoid these 2029 shortfalls. We have invested in finding new gas supplies across our state, and we have previously passed legislation to ensure that offshore gas storage can be made available when it is needed most. All of these measures are about working together to ensure Victoria has the requisite gas supplies into the future and ultimately to secure our transition to net zero emissions.

There is so much that we do. I have spoken on a number of occasions about the suite of programs offered by this government to reduce our emissions, including household programs that reduce household gas usage and slash household energy bills – programs like Solar Homes Victoria, which gets more solar on rooftops, and already that is producing 2 gigawatts for hardworking families. That is more, it is important to note, than the soon-to-be decommissioned Yallourn power station. Solar Homes has allowed 435,000 households to get off gas and of course run some really energy-efficient appliances in their homes, including solar-powered dishwashers, washing machines, cooktops, heat pumps and other things, reducing Victoria’s reliance on gas through the power of the sun. There are certainly options, and the Allan Labor government are certainly leading the nation with our new energy efficiency standards. We know that old, expensive appliances and badly insulated homes mean more gas usage for heating and for hot water. They also mean higher energy bills, and that is why our government has got the energy efficiency standards fixed so that we can again see families slash their gas usage and their energy bills.

This is about getting the balance right, and I am really proud to have the opportunity to speak. I know that there are others that are very keen to speak on this bill, and I look forward to their contributions. But as I have said, this bill gets it right. It is a market solution to the forecast gas shortfall, and working families need to know that this government indeed has their backs. I am hoping that the Victorian people will feel assured that we are taking decisive action when it comes to securing our gas supplies right here in Victoria as we continue our bold and decisive steps to embrace our renewable energy future. I commend this bill to the chamber.

 Bev McARTHUR (Western Victoria) (17:05): To begin here we cannot look past the elephant in the room, the frankly amazing irony at the heart of this bill: a government that has waged a relentless ideological war on natural gas now comes to this Parliament asking for new powers to upgrade gas transmission infrastructure. Who would have thought? A government that has demonised gas at every turn, banned it from new homes, refused to issue new exploration licences and allowed its Greens allies to treat gas as the enemy of civilisation now needs to legislate to keep the gas system working. Why? Because gas is essential. It always has been, and no amount of ideological posturing can change that fact. The coalition will not oppose this bill. We support enabling targeted upgrades to the declared transmission system. Gas transmission reliability matters, particularly as coal-fired generators close and the need for gas firming of intermittent renewables grows. But we have serious concerns about how this bill proposes to get there, and we will be moving amendments.

The bill grants the minister broad powers to bypass the National Gas Rules by ministerial order. The minister can direct the expansion of pipelines, new equipment connections and upgrades to LNG storage facilities. The bill designates expenditure under these orders as ‘conforming capital expenditure’, meaning transmission providers can fold those costs into their regulatory capital base and so recover them from Victorian gas users. This is remarkable. In summary, this bill allows the costs of ministerially directed upgrades to be passed straight through to consumers – amazing. Just as with the botched electrical transmission transition, the cost is worn by Victorian bill payers and the government gets to blame the energy companies – who would have thought. The enforcement regime goes further still. The minister can specify provisions of an order as civil penalty provisions and apply to the Supreme Court for injunctions, even where there is no imminent danger of substantial damage. This is a remarkable level of coercive power over private enterprise. Perhaps most striking, section 58J provides that nothing in the Environment Effects Act 1978 prevents the minister from making an order, even if the required environment effects statement has not been prepared. A government that wraps every policy in environmental justification is now legislating to skip its own processes when it suits them. This is the second time in two sitting weeks we have seen the EES process trashed for political convenience.

This is why the amendments Mr Davis has proposed are essential. They would require the minister to undertake a specified process of consultation before making orders and to publish detailed reasons for these orders. If we are going to require private industry to spend its own capital, face civil penalties for noncompliance and have no recourse to environmental safeguards, then we had better have proper reasons, and those reasons should be well publicised. This is not obstruction but basic fairness. This bill is also an admission that the government’s broader approach to gas has been a failure. They have demonised it, banned new residential connections, refused exploration licences and allowed their Gas Substitution Roadmap to signal to every manufacturer and farmer in this state that gas has no future in Victoria. They have told the market in every way possible that gas is the enemy, and when they bring us a bill to keep the gas transmission system running – you cannot have it both ways.

I want to come to the environmental case, because here two things are far from straightforward. As I have said before in this place, carbon intensity matters. Using electricity in Victoria is currently many times more carbon intensive than using gas in homes, potentially up to five times, according to the definitive Australian National Greenhouse Accounts Factors. Victoria’s electricity is still substantially generated by burning brown coal. The lives of those coal-fired stations are being extended, not shortened, because the renewables rollout is behind schedule, offshore wind is failing to deliver and the transmission network is nowhere near ready. This government bans gas in new homes in the name of reducing emissions, while the electricity those homes will use instead comes from brown coal – who would have thought? That is not a climate policy; it is a contradiction. In a world of sensible progress, gas could be a solution for transitioning to a lower carbon future, not the enemy. In the United States the replacement of coal with natural gas has been the single largest driver of emissions reductions over the past 15 years. In the UK coal-fired electricity has now disappeared, with gas providing the stability that has allowed renewables to grow. These are not radical energy policies. They are the pragmatic reality of how successful transitions actually work. Victoria is doing the opposite. We are banning gas in media releases yet enabling it in legislation. Labor has spent years trashing gas and only belatedly notices that cheap political promises do not make for good long-term energy or economic policy.

The consequences for our economy are devastating. Victoria’s manufacturing sector is worth $31 billion and employs approximately 260,000 people. For many of these industries, gas is the only viable energy source for high-heat processes that cannot be electrified. You cannot make glass without gas. You cannot process milk powder without gas. You cannot kiln-dry timber without gas. In 2024 Victoria recorded 223 manufacturing closures, the highest in Australia. Oceania Glass in Dandenong – 261 jobs gone. Qenos, Australia’s sole plastics manufacturer – gone. Keppel Prince in Portland, which made wind turbine towers for projects trumpeted by this government – gone. Gas prices rose 22 to 25 per cent in a single year, electricity by 28 per cent. This is the reason factories are closing, workers are losing jobs and regional communities are suffering. The so-called Minister for Industry and Advanced Manufacturing in Victoria continues to preside over the destruction of manufacturing. If domestic gas is phased out entirely, the increased cost burden on the remaining gas infrastructure for commercial users will make it economically unviable. The slippery slope toward total prohibition is not fanciful; it is already underway.

This is a cost-of-living issue, and it hits hardest in the communities we represent. Residential electricity is more than two times as expensive as gas on a per-unit-of-energy basis. Forcing households off gas means new appliances, upgraded wiring and higher bills. For families already under pressure that is not a transition, it is a punishment. I have a constituent in my electorate who, building a modest home in a country town, was told by Powercor that the cost to upgrade the local connection for an all-electric dwelling would be nearly $100,000. The house itself cost about $300,000. That is the all-electric reality shock. The distribution lines and local transformers are not built for the total abandonment of gas. A standard Victorian home draws around 40 amps. Remove gas and add an electric vehicle and you will need 80 amps or more. That is a near doubling of household demand. At least 150,000 of Victoria’s streets need transformer upgrades before this policy can take effect. Each costs $50,000 to $70,000 plus labour. That is billions of dollars not planned, not funded and not in an energy company’s capital program.

We are not even at the start. The government says it will transition off gas, says it will get there, but offers no explanation of how. All we definitely know is that the people who will pay are Victorian families and businesses. More than four out of five Victorian homes are connected to gas. Gas networks deliver more energy to Victorian households than electricity networks. People choose gas for cooking, heating and hot water because it works and because it is affordable. This government has decided Victorians cannot be trusted to make that choice. It has banned gas in new homes while we export Australian gas to the world. There is something remarkable – not in a good way, though – about a country that sells a resource globally while punishing its own citizens for wanting to use it. Gas is a strategic asset. Victoria has seven active gas-fired facilities, including peaking plants at Mortlake, Newport and Laverton North. When the sun does not shine and the wind does not blow, these keep the lights on. You cannot fire up a coal turbine at a moment’s notice. You cannot store enough battery power for a prolonged calm overcast week in winter. Gas peakers are the firming capacity that makes the renewable transition possible. As Mr Guy put it in the other place, you do not replace something with nothing.

Energy Networks Australia has warned of winter peak demand overwhelming the grid. The Australian Gas Infrastructure Group and others argue through the Gas Vision 2050 plan that decarbonising the existing 34,000-kilometre gas network with renewable gases is a lower cost alternative to tearing it up and starting again. But this government is not interested in pragmatic alternatives. It wants to destroy gas, not decarbonise it. This mismanagement of the gas transition mirrors the failures on electrical transmission: the Western Renewables Link’s VNI West compulsory acquisition of farmland easements without proper scrutiny. On gas, this government froze onshore exploration for a decade while our Bass Strait supplies declined and now mandates households off gas before replacements are ready. It designs top-down economically self-harming solutions instead of supporting practical incentivised development.

The coalition does not oppose this bill because we know gas is needed, but we insist on transparency, consultation and proper justification when the government uses executive power to direct private investment, enforce compliance through civil penalties and bypass its own environmental laws. This bill should be a wake-up call. Labor cannot spend years demonising gas and driving manufacturers out of the state then quietly legislate to keep the gas system running as though nothing has happened. That is just incoherent flailing, not serious government. We need pragmatic energy policy – one built on practical reality, not ideological fantasy. Gas is not the enemy. It is a high-density, reliable, low-carbon energy source that is vital for industry, essential for firming renewables and critical for the cost of living. The 34,000-kilometre gas network that serves this state is an asset, not a liability. Without gas, Victoria stops. The government knows it.

 Jacinta ERMACORA (Western Victoria) (17:20): I am pleased to speak on the National Gas (Victoria) Amendment Bill 2025. It is a bill that is about making sure Victorians have the energy they need when they need it. Energy security is important as we do the hard work of transitioning to a renewable future. If I focus on some examples from my own electorate in the dairying industry, for instance, the importance of a reliable energy supply is something that I grew up with. Cows need to be milked twice a day, and milk vats cannot turn off either, or the milk simply goes off and cannot be used. Of course families rely on these ‘all day, every day’ scenarios in farming communities. It is not just farming communities that rely on reliable energy, but it is always nice to tell that story sometimes because it is a different story to the lived experience in inner urban lifestyles.

Farm operations do not get a day off because the supply is tight or because it is too expensive. I think the current energy shock – I suppose we will look back and call it the same as in the 1970s – with the Strait of Hormuz and the war is showing just how conflict is not only damaging for women and children and damaging for young men and women who are sent to fronts in different locations around the world, it does not matter what nationality you are, but how terrible those things are and the price, often the ultimate price, that these communities pay. But in the case of this current war the energy impacts are also relevant, and Victorians are feeling that at the moment. In daily life when we have this sort of energy concern it makes us realise how important reliable energy is. A domestic gas supply that is well managed, well invested in and protected from the worst of global price shocks is one of the most important buffers that we have for thousands of households, whether they are in Footscray, Warrnambool or anywhere else.

This bill makes some critical changes. It amends the National Gas (Victoria) Act 2008 (NGVA) to give the Minister for Energy and Resources directive powers – powers of last resort to order urgent upgrades to Victoria’s regulated gas transmission pipeline network where the market has not moved quickly enough. It empowers the Australian Energy Market Operator to provide advice and services supporting those upgrades. These are carefully bounded, transparently exercised and consultative powers which are firmly in the public interest. The broader context matters. We are in a transition to renewable energy and we are in the middle – not the end – of it. Gas is not our destination, but it remains a bridge to providing firming capacity as coal generators close. Hazelwood is gone. Yallourn closes in 2028, and Loy Yang in 2035. As each exits, reliable back-up capacity is essential while our renewables scale up. The Australian Energy Market Operator has projected annual gas supply shortages on the east coast from 2029. That is a risk for all Victorians and one that falls with particular weight on communities and industries where there is simply less capacity to absorb disruption.

Victoria’s declared transmission system, DTS – over 2000 kilometres of pipelines – was built in the 1950s. This was an era when most of our gas came from the state’s east. It needs upgrading to handle supply from different parts of the network – sounds familiar. That is what this bill helps provide. We have already supported key investments to strengthen the DTS, including rigorous oversight of delivery of the Western Outer Ring Main. This was completed in 2023, with supporting compression upgrades to increase the capacity of the south-west pipeline from my own community. These upgrades have contributed to an increase in system capacity so it can better serve Victoria’s peak demands. The government have also consulted widely on the proposed NGVA changes. These have been developed in consultation with the Australian Energy Market Operator, AEMO; the Australian Energy Regulator; the Australian Energy Market Commission; Energy Safe Victoria; APA; and other industry representatives.

Strengthening our gas transmission network is in part strengthening the energy resilience of Victoria’s agricultural economy and, by extension, the food security of every Victorian who buys food at the supermarket. These powers will sit alongside everything this government has already done. For instance, more than 2.4 million Victorian households have accessed the Victorian energy upgrades program. This cut emissions by 69 million tonnes in 2025 alone and delivered over $590 million in discounts. Extended to 2045, it is here to stay. Our $1.3 billion Solar Homes program has supported 435,000 installations.

I know I have just come off the 66-cent feed-in tariff. As an early adopter of the solar panel program quite a few years ago, I am sure that the solar panels on our roof are out of date and nowhere near as productive and efficient as the ones being installed now, but I have not received an energy bill for a very long time thanks to the 66-cent feed-in tariff. I think I am getting a bill in the next couple of months. Some of us play a role of taking on things early – I do not always do that, but in this case my household did – and others have reaped the benefits of the consolidation of a particular scenario. When I put solar panels in, it possibly was not sustainable without the subsidy and without the 66-cent feed-in tariff. Now it is certainly worth running a business where you are selling solar panels, and that is thanks to the subsidies that got it going. Again, that is an example of government working in the market space to stimulate the formation of a private marketplace for a product that will contribute to a strong and sustainable future in Victoria – in this case solar panels.

The largest household renewable energy program in the country now exceeds 2 gigawatts of capacity – that is how many Victorians have signed up to free solar energy. Across Victoria, solar means real money back in pockets and genuine insulation from the price volatility we are currently living through. From 1 January 2024, gas was phased out in new homes. From March 2027, minimum energy efficiency standards apply to rental properties. That will mean up to $1040 a year in savings for renters, who have been waiting far too long for their homes to be made fit for purpose. Victoria’s emissions have fallen by more than 30 per cent. We are decarbonising faster than any other state. We are heading towards net zero by 2045. The SEC is coming back, and the profits of government energy investments are returning to Victorians. During this transition, however, we must remain realistic and responsible. Despite all the reforms and work that the Allan Labor government has made and is continuing to make, gas remains a national problem. That is why this government has been calling for a domestic reserve for nearly a decade.

Victorian gas has done the heavy lifting for decades, and Victoria remains a net exporter to the east coast gas market, yet those opposite want to cut every program delivering this relief – the Victorian energy upgrades, Solar Homes and household electrification reforms – all while sitting on an $11 billion black hole in their own costings, and they cannot agree on whether to support the bipartisan ban on fracking, with David Davis describing it as ‘chaotic and difficult’. When fuel prices are spiking and families across the state are under pressure, Victorians deserve security, and we know that unfettered market failure to ensure energy for some communities would be costly. If we think of the communities and the use of diesel and petrol – mostly diesel fuel – in agricultural spaces, it is a huge exercise. Dairy enterprises use diesel for machinery, for harvesting and for backup power. Then you have got cropping businesses who use diesel engines to plough, fertilise and harvest paddocks. Then you have got of course heating and cooling requiring energy consumption as well.

I am pleased to see how many people are taking up the concession card assistance with the power saving bonus of $100 through the Labor government’s power saving bonus. Again, that is smoothing out –

A member interjected.

Jacinta ERMACORA: Right. Because energy security is everyone’s issue. Every Victorian needs a reliable, affordable, secure energy system to live their life and run their business. This bill is a part of that, and I absolutely support the bill. I know that we cannot rely on an unfettered market to deliver reliably and equitably across the geography and landscape of our state but also across the social strata and the different occupations in our state. It is the perfect place for government to be. Government should be there to smooth out the rough bumps, and that is exactly what this bill will do.

 Evan MULHOLLAND (Northern Metropolitan) (17:34): I rise to speak on this bill, and I thank my colleague Mr Davis for his contribution, where he very largely and comprehensively outlined our position. As was noted, we have serious concerns about this bill and will be moving amendments. But there is one particular issue that I want to speak about that I am particularly fired up about, and it is making sure that people have choice in their energy sources.

The government has continued their reckless and ideological attack on gas in Victorian homes and will be ripping out gas stovetops from March 2027. They have already been blocking gas to new homes, which discriminates against people living in growth areas – largely migrant families. We know that there have been several news reports. The ABC noted that several ministers knew that this was a step too far and expressed concern, because what they know is what all Victorians know, particularly migrant families: those in established suburbs want choice and the options available to them, not more state-sanctioned discrimination against our multicultural communities and people that live in growth areas. I can tell you countless examples from local real estate agents where people have almost been able to sign their signature away on a sale until they realise that that particular home was built after the government changed the rules and is no longer allowing a gas connection to that home. They have then not signed, packed up and gone elsewhere. It is limiting choice for emerging communities and growing families in terms of their energy use. Those from South-East Asian communities are particularly animated by the government’s discrimination against people on the type of home they want to live in. That is what this government has done. They have now done this huge backflip and are now wanting to see an expansion of gas, despite the minister very immaturely describing gas as ‘fossil gas’ for a period of time. I note she has been vetoed from those kinds of terms these days. But this is the kind of state-sanctioned discrimination we are seeing against people that decide, that choose, to live in our growth areas.

We all saw the headlines that the government backflipped, supposedly, on banning gas in existing homes once a stovetop or a heater breaks down. They have not backflipped; they have only moved that date to March 2027. I want to send the message to all Victorians that the government did not backflip, which means from March 2027 if your stove breaks down, the government will be forcing you to rip that out and put in an electric stove, which means if you vote for the Labor Party in November, that is a vote to ban gas in existing homes. That is a vote for the Labor Party to rip your gas stovetop or your gas heater out of your kitchen or your garage forever. That is what the government wants to do. The media spinners in the Premier’s private office want to brief out that this is a backflip – that they have listened and ministers have acknowledged that this was an issue. That is not the case.

David Davis interjected.

Evan MULHOLLAND: We moved an amendment and they had a chance on that, and they still wanted the power to be able to do it. My community knows – and it is important to keep stating this, because we will be making people very aware of this in the lead-up to November – that a vote for the Labor Party is a vote to ban gas in existing homes. It is an absolute disgrace. It is denying people the choice that they deserve over their energy sources and what kind of energy sources they want to use.

We know that for many of our multicultural communities their number one preference is gas. I would say, though, a lot of people in the northern suburbs, particularly around Greenvale and Craigieburn, love a charcoal barbecue. But in the home, gas is the number one preferred energy source for our multicultural communities, particularly our Indian communities and Chinese communities. This government wants to say to a new Indian family moving into an area like Kalkallo – it already has said – ‘You can’t have gas.’ Now, if that Indian family in Kalkallo’s gas stovetop or heater breaks down, Jacinta Allan is going to dictate that they have to rip that out and replace that with an electric oven at massive cost to that family. After we have seen interest rate rises, after we have seen massive cost-of-living increases and in turn tax increases from this government hitting families the hardest, Jacinta Allan is wanting to come into your home and say you cannot replace your stove with another gas stovetop, and that is an absolute disgrace. It is discrimination against our multicultural communities, and the Liberals and Nationals will not stand for it. We will back our multicultural communities and back their choice of energy source. If they want a gas stovetop, they should be able to have a gas stovetop. This government has already banned that opportunity for my communities that want to buy a new house in our growth areas in places like Beveridge, in places like Wallan, in places like Wollert, in places like Craigieburn. They have already said to those families, ‘You are not to have gas.’

So you have got this two-pronged message. You have got the government saying, on one hand, ‘We want to expand gas exploration.’ Gas is now a good thing according to this government. You never know whether they are Arthur or Martha on that side of the house on gas. And then they want to, from March 2027, ban gas in existing homes. As I said, if you vote for the Labor Party or are considering voting for the Labor Party, consider that from March 2027 Lily D’Ambrosio and Jacinta Allan’s rule will kick in so that if your gas stovetop breaks you have to replace that with electric. You will be denied energy choices because of this government. Vote Labor to ban gas, or vote Liberals and Nationals to keep choice.

 Tom McINTOSH (Eastern Victoria) (17:42): Well, we are certainly hearing it all from the other side. We do need gas for industry and manufacturing, and we do need diesel for our farmers and for their tractors, but the Liberal–Nationals will always be anti tech and anti cost saving. They told us that solar panels are a fairy tale; now 40 per cent of us have solar panels on our roofs. They scoffed at electric buses, which are now commonplace, saving 38,000 litres of diesel a year that can be used to fuel our farmers’ tractors. They tell new home builders to connect gas appliances, even as costs surge and we should save that gas for industry and manufacturing. Do not listen to the Liberal–Nationals if you are looking for economic advice, because the Liberal–Nationals will come after gas any way they can, by fracking farms or whatever means they need, to fill their ideological objectives.

We do not hear the Liberals talk about generating electricity much at the moment, do we, because what happened to the nuclear pipedream? For two years straight they sat opposite us and they talked about small modular nuclear reactors. The Liberal–Nationals told us small modular nuclear reactors were the answer. Unfortunately for them, they do not exist anywhere in the Western developed world. Now they sit there quietly and just forget that their whole plan was for nuclear reactors. They do not mention those words anymore, but there are still some – actually, I take that back. One of our colleagues on the other side in the electric car charging infrastructure committee the other day raised nuclear. It is good that some of you still have the internal fortitude to stand up and put your commitment to nuclear on the table. I will not mention who the member was, but I think they know as they smile, actually, in the chamber. You talked about nuclear. Now you are nowhere on that. You are the party that want to frack farms – pristine agricultural land in this state, the basket that enables us to export agricultural products around the world. You want to get in there and frack them.

I mentioned the oil and gas decommissioning project. The wells in Bass Strait that have provided this state with abundant, affordable gas for decades are running out. We have had companies presenting to us saying that the oil wells and platforms have run dry and are being decommissioned and removed and the gas wells and platforms are going through the last of their supplies. This is why it is important to have a pragmatic, realistic approach where we ensure that we have the supplies that industry need. There is no point unnecessarily having homes connected when that can be used to support our industry, to support jobs and to support the items that we manufacture to either use here or send abroad to support our state’s economy and indeed that of the nation.

I mentioned electric buses before. I am sure those opposite would have laughed and laughed about electric buses. Well, I will tell you what, right now that means being able to save 38,000 litres of diesel per year for farmers and their tractors and other equipment they have. We can have our buses electrified with all of that electricity being produced by workers in this state. The generation, the transmission and the connection are all right here, rather than sending money off to foreign economies. Forty billion dollars on our national trade deficit is what we send overseas to import fuel, and there is simply no need to do that, so what we are doing is ensuring the resilience of our own economy. You only have to look at the situation right now, but no-one on that side will mention that because they are technophobes. If they could still be harpooning blue whales, they would be. If they could still be using a horse and cart, leaving droppings all down the street, they would be. That is the way that the Liberal–‍Nationals operate. I could go on, but I will leave my contribution there. I thank you for the time allotted.

 Wendy LOVELL (Northern Victoria) (17:47): I rise to talk on the National Gas (Victoria) Amendment Bill 2025 as well. As Mr McIntosh went off topic, I think I will go off topic. Certainly if those on the benches opposite could still be rorting money to give to the CFMEU, they would be. They have been for the last 12 years, and they certainly would like to continue doing that, but they have been caught out and they have had to rein that in. But if they could still be rorting taxpayers money for red shirts, they would be, because rorting is in their DNA. They are absolutely incompetent when it comes to running this state and they are incompetent when it comes to running finances, but they are very competent when it comes to rorting money from the public purse for the benefit of the ALP.

Back to the bill, this bill will give the minister sweeping powers to force private companies to invest in capital works where there is no positive business case and no certainty of recovering costs. It also enables consultation with industry participants to be bypassed in certain circumstances. This is despite a report that was tabled only last week by the Environment and Planning Committee that said there should always be meaningful consultation. Mr Batchelor chairs that committee. He knows what we heard from people in Victoria about meaningful consultation, and yet here he is about to vote for a bill that takes away the right for meaningful consultation.

It will mean that Victorian gas consumers will be paying higher costs for expedited improvements. This is happening because the government have been in for 12 years and they have not done the work to make sure we have got a reliable and affordable energy system. There has been a haphazard approach to gas policy. Labor has been demonising gas for years, saying they want to see the end of fossil gas use, and now they have changed their tune and suddenly they want to expand gas pipelines. Policy uncertainty is sending confused signals to the industry participants and making investment decisions difficult.

Labor’s anti-gas obsession has had an enormous impact in my electorate. Their anti-gas obsession has created enormous volatility in the demand for gas appliances, with a direct impact on a business that employed over 125 people in the Albury–Wodonga area. In March 2024 Seeley International, Australia’s largest gas heater manufacturer, announced that it would close its Albury manufacturing plant. It had operated in the area for 35 years, but it said it would cut 125 jobs at the site and consolidate its operations in Adelaide instead, where the Labor government there is more friendly to business and industry – and to gas, obviously. This means the loss of jobs for people who live in Albury–Wodonga that were employed by both Seeley and by secondary suppliers and services that depended on that manufacturer. So how did we get to this point? Well, instead of formulating a clear and coherent gas policy to guide private pipeline investment, Labor has instead chosen the brute force option and introduced new laws that allow the minister to simply order pipeline companies to expand their pipelines, make pipeline connections or upgrade gas storage facilities or services.

In 2015 there was an agreement entered into with Solstice Energy. This is another thing that has really impacted towns in my electorate in recent months. In 2015 the state government entered into a contract with Solstice Energy to supply gas to regional towns. There was a 20-year agreement put in place for the long-term supply of compressed natural gas to regional towns in Victoria. Many of those towns are in my Northern Victoria electorate – Nathalia, Kerang, Swan Hill, Robinvale, Heathcote, Maldon and Marong. The government entered into this 20-year contract and people made decisions based on that long-term contract, and in 2015 Daniel Andrews issued a statement saying the Andrews Labor government will proceed with the Energy for the Regions program. This is the program I am talking about – a 20-year program. But that agreement was cancelled last year, only halfway through, with 10 years of that agreement still to go, after the Labor government did a deal to allow the commercial gas provider to stop supplying gas to those towns. This has left residents in the lurch and facing significant costs. Many people relied on the expectation of long-term supply – 20 years of long-term supply – when they invested thousands of dollars into gas appliances for their homes and businesses. Some even paid over $2000 for a new gas connection just months before Solstice announced they were going to cut off the gas supply. There was no warning and once again no consultation with the community, just a decision handed down with the approval of the Minister for Regional Development. Now residents in these towns are out of pocket – some are tens of thousands of dollars out of pocket – because the full cost of converting to electricity will not be covered by the government or Solstice Energy. This is a despicable predicament that the government have put these people in. It is a dreadful thing that they have done to them to cut off their gas supply halfway through a contract and expect those residents, some of whom are extremely elderly, to cover the cost of conversion to electricity.

Victoria is the state that has the highest percentage of population using natural gas. It is actually 80 per cent of households in Victoria that use natural gas. Gas is also vital for industry and electricity generation to cover shortfalls in wind and solar power. It is especially important for industrial users in my electorate, like food processors, who need access to that reliable energy source that gas provides to them. It is also crucial for industries that need constant high heat at very high temperatures, firms like Furphy Engineering in Shepparton, who are saying they need access to gas to continue their operations at the levels that they are at now. Victoria will need gas as a transition fuel for a number of decades to come because we cannot depend on wind and solar to provide reliable power and we need gas for peaking. There are many possibilities for using renewable biogas in Victoria, but this government is oblivious to this. The government is dragging its feet on implementing regulatory changes and improving the investment climate for biogas in Victoria, and the government could and should do a lot more in this space for biogas. They also should look at hydrogen. We have investment in a hydrogen plant in Wodonga, but the gas that is going to be produced at that facility will not be able to be used in Victoria. It will have to be sent interstate. We are producing it here in Victoria; we should be looking at how we can use it here in Victoria.

The amendments that have been put up by the Liberals and Nationals will ensure that if we are going to require the industry to expand and upgrade pipelines and facilities at its own cost and if we are going to require industry to spend its private capital where there may not be a commercial business case for that investment, then the minister must have a good reason for issuing an order and that reason should be well publicised. There should be genuine consultation, Mr Batchelor, as the report from the Environment and Planning Committee that you chair outlines. I commend those amendments to the house, and I suggest that all members vote for them.

 Ryan BATCHELOR (Southern Metropolitan) (17:57): I am very pleased to rise to speak on the National Gas (Victoria) Amendment Bill 2025. It is always a pleasure to engage in a debate about energy policy in the state of Victoria, and there are always some very passionate contributions on this side of the chamber about the need to ensure that we have got an energy transition in Victoria that is grounded in the realities of climate change and the need to be taking climate action, the opportunity that presents from having the cheapest and most abundant source of energy generation that is coming from renewables, but also an understanding that as part of the transition that we are making here in Victoria to renewable energy, gas continues to play an important role as part of the energy mix in that transition period. Certainly the objectives of this government, and the objectives of the minister and the objectives of this bill, are to ensure that Victoria and Victorians have the energy that meets our needs as we make a transition away from fossil fuel-based energy generation, which simply cannot be renewed by the nature of its inputs, to renewable energy that is cleaner and that is cheaper. That is exactly the fundamental basis of the energy policy of this state. At the basis of this bill is ensuring that as part of that energy transition, we have got access and availability of the necessary supply of gas as part of the energy mix.

We have, as a government, legislated some of the most ambitious targets for net zero and renewable energy anywhere in the world: net zero by 2045, 95 per cent of renewable energy by 2035. Not only have we set targets, we are on target. Last year 42.5 per cent of Victoria’s energy was sourced from renewables, beating our 2025 target of 40 per cent. So our target was 40 per cent, and last year we got 42.5 per cent of Victoria’s energy over the course of the year sourced through renewables. Victoria is decarbonising our energy sector faster than any other state in the country. Through this, this government is taking a responsible, achievable but ambitious approach to our energy transition. Ms Lovell in her contribution did reference the role of the Environment and Planning Committee, and we have done a lot of really important work on that committee over the course of this Parliament, particularly looking at the impact of natural disasters on our community and looking at the way that our built environment needs to be adapted to deal with climate change. What has been a recurring feature through a lot of the work the Environment and Planning Committee has done over the course of this Parliament is looking at the impact that increasingly extreme weather events are having on our community, whether that is bushfire conditions or flood conditions. All the evidence that we receive as part of that committee shows us quite clearly that those extremes are being driven by climate change. What we need to do as a responsible government and as responsible custodians of a future for this state is take action to reduce our emissions and take action on climate change, and that is exactly what the Labor government is delivering.

As we move towards a renewable energy future through the transition, we need to make sure that things like gas can play a role as a firming source of energy, and that is exactly what this bill is designed to do. The Victorian declared transmission system is the key infrastructure for how gas moves around the state, ensuring Victorians get the supply where and when it is needed. It was designed in the 1950s for that time and it needs to be updated, and that is what this bill is doing – making upgrades to the system capacity so it can better serve Victoria’s peak demand for energy. This bill allows for further flexibility and adjustments to the system to meet demand and secure our energy provision. The bill will amend the principal act to give the power to the minister to make orders to pipeline owners and service providers and the Australian Energy Market Operator to augment Victoria’s regulated transmission pipeline network to maintain gas supply and gas quality. The measures are designed to be a last resort, enabling us to act where the market has not, protecting Victorians to ensure a reliable supply of energy should shortages arise. Having the right infrastructure in place, the right policy settings in place and the right regulatory settings in place will make sure that Victorians continue to have the energy that they need when they need it.

This is an important policy space. I think my colleague Mr McIntosh, who spends a lot of his time thinking and talking about the importance of electrification and the need to move to sustainable and renewable energy sources, laid it out pretty clearly when he said that what we have got to do is to make sure that the electrification process that we need to undertake in this state means that our gas supply, because it is diminishing – off the coast of Bass Strait, for example – is there for the industries that need it most. Those who can get off and move away from gas, particularly in the residential sector, will be given the support to do so, so that the gas supply and gas infrastructure that we have can go towards meeting the needs of industry. This is one element of the approach this government is taking to make sure that Victoria has got the energy that we need for our future. Fundamentally, under Labor, that is a renewable future – a future that believes the science of climate change and is taking action to make sure that we are meeting our goals for a renewable energy future here in Victoria.

 Gaelle BROAD (Northern Victoria) (18:04): I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak about the National Gas (Victoria) Amendment Bill 2025. We will not oppose this bill, but we certainly do seek to amend it. I thank David Davis for his extensive work on this bill. It is clear that the management of energy policy in this state has fallen well short of our energy needs, and we know that demand for energy is going to continue to rise. We have significant population growth, we have data centres that use a lot of energy and we have heard from experts in recent parliamentary inquiries about households and their energy usage being much higher. We want businesses to grow, and as they grow we can expect they will increase the need for energy as well, but I trust there will be further innovations to gain some efficiencies, because that is something that we need to focus on as well.

Today in Victoria we have a shortage of gas, and the government did not support any new gas exploration or infrastructure. The last licences, as David Davis referred to, were issued in 2013. Now, 13 years is a long time, so the government put a brake on gas, but as I speak to people in the industry, they do give assurances that there is the supply available. To think that it was not that many years ago that the Premier, amongst other Labor members, was promoting gas, and in fact at one point Labor’s Speaker of the house wanted every MP in this Parliament to run their Parliament car on gas. At the time there was not gas at every rural petrol station. Nationals MPs certainly highlighted that, because we travel at all hours of the day and night and it was not always available. It is funny how things can turn.

Heating, cooking, hot water: residents and industry rely on gas. I have spoken to many large manufacturers in Bendigo, and we are fortunate to still have them, because we have lost a number of manufacturing businesses that have since closed that relied on gas. What I have been told is that they do rely on gas for those high temperatures for food and fibre manufacturing. For some manufacturing businesses electricity cannot deliver what gas can, and they do rely on it and need it. But gas, as we have heard Mr Mulholland reference as well, has been banned on new estates by this government, and they are certainly making it challenging to get gas. I think of that industrial site that the City of Greater Bendigo wants to see proposed at Marong near Bendigo. But if you are not providing gas to households or housing estates in the region, it is going to make it very challenging to afford the infrastructure investment, because there is usually a cost-to-benefit ratio in getting services to surrounding towns. But that is Labor’s approach: they like to take away choice, they like to control the decisions that your family makes, and the only problem is that they do change their minds: one minute they are hosting the Commonwealth Games, then the next they are not; one minute they are promoting gas, and the next they are not.

It does remind me about what is happening in Marong, which I have referenced in this chamber before. Solstice and the state government, through Regional Development Victoria, had a contract in place to supply compressed natural gas for 20 years to that town – not just that town, but there are a number of other towns, 10 towns across regional Victoria, that have been impacted by this. But that contract has been cut in half, and it is an absolute mess right now. We have got nearly 1200 customers – families, households – told about it out of the blue. In fact they found out about it via the media – not from the government, not from the service itself – that their gas is being cut off.

David Davis interjected.

Gaelle BROAD: It is true, Mr Davis. That is correct: the government, to date, has not provided the documentation that has been sought by this chamber to provide more of the background as to some of that decision-making, because we have certainly been left in the dark. The residents have raised concerns; I have been contacted by residents of Marong, Swan Hill and Nathalia. There are residents impacted in Heathcote as well. I know Marong has over 300 households impacted, Heathcote over 100, and actually the City of Greater Bendigo, to quote their media release, recognise that the transition has been overwhelming. They talked about the impact on families there. They have sought to offer some support guiding people, but it is an absolute mess. I was speaking to one lady who had to take $30,000 out of her superannuation fund to make the changes. Other families are impacted by $22,000 out of pocket, $12,000 out of pocket – it varies, and it is incredible, the pressure this is placing on them. One family was talking about their mortgage being so tight to pay their current bills they simply cannot afford it; they are relying on a wood heater. And the government rebates that are being offered for those that transition to the electric appliances are an absolute mess. It has been very confusing.

I will reference an answer from the minister, which talks about customers having the option to self-manage their energy conversion and in doing so being entitled to receive an equivalent conversion payment from Solstice. It goes on to say:

Households can receive $4,200 in upfront support through a $1,400 rebate for both rooftop solar PV and Australian made hot water units, plus the option of a $1,400 solar PV interest-free loan.

…

Through the VEU households can get a discount of up to $560 and save up to $330 on their energy bills annually …

It goes on to say:

Eligible households can save up to $1,630 off the cost of installing an energy-efficient hot water system …

Anyway, it goes on. It is very complicated and it is very messy. I have had professionals tell me they cannot get their head around it, but this is what we are expecting of people who are working full-time, who are taking their kids to sport, who suddenly find out they have got to make a decision by March because come August their gas supply is being cut off. For one resident, the pipe was simply cut off, leaving exposed copper pipe in the ground. They made representations to Solstice, who then sent out people to try and rectify that situation. But this is the situation that families and businesses are being placed in. I spoke to a business that – just think – seven years ago were offered a $5000 incentive to change from LPG to CNG. They were still in the process of making all those changes, and now they face $150,000 to convert back. It is just extraordinary that we are in this situation at the moment.

Given the financial and practical impacts on affected households, residents are seeking transparency and clarity regarding the responsibilities of both the state government and Solstice Energy in this matter. They have raised three important points that they would like clarification on. The first is whether the state government received any financial compensation or settlement in relation to the cancellation of the development agreement with Solstice Energy, two, why full compensation for impacted householders was not included as part of the agreement to terminate the development agreement, and three, why residents are being required to sign waivers against future claims as part of the transition process.

This bill does seem to be heavy-handed, with a further expansion of powers to the minister. I thank David Davis, the Shadow Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction, for highlighting the issues and progressing more detailed questions in the committee stage, because we do on this side of the house certainly recognise that we need sustainable, affordable and reliable power in Victoria. We used to export power to other states, and now we need to import it. But anyone who opens up their power bill knows that under Labor power prices have continued to skyrocket. They like to put all their eggs in one basket, and as the Victorian Auditor-General pointed out in a report to Parliament last December, little consideration has been given to the risks. When it comes to energy, this is critically important. To quote what they concluded:

Victoria is on track to meet its renewable energy target in 2025, but meeting future targets will be more difficult.

In the Australian Energy Market Operator’s ‘committed and anticipated developments’ reliability assessment, Victoria has enough energy supply to meet its needs out to 2030.

I know Mr Batchelor in his contribution talked with great pride about meeting the targets to date. Well, that is the easy part, because certainly the Victorian Auditor-General has highlighted concerns about what is next. 2030 is certainly not that far away. The report goes on to say:

But this depends on key projects being completed on time. While new projects will increase energy generation and storage capacity, many projects face delays. This also does not allow for demand that is higher than forecast or incorporate other known risks. This includes gas shortages, which are expected from 2026, as well as planned power plant maintenance and adverse weather conditions.

If these risks are not successfully managed, Victoria would be more likely to face electricity shortfalls after the Yallourn coal-fired power station closes in mid-2028.

It goes on to say:

The Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action (the department) has not fully considered risks in its planning, nor has it factored in contingencies should risks arise.

To meet Victoria’s future targets and make sure electricity supply meets demand, the department should develop contingency plans to address known risks.

I know Ms Ermacora in her contribution said we need to be realistic and responsible. Well, that sounds like excellent advice to tell the Labor cabinet. It would be very good for the government to heed that advice and certainly helpful to listen to the advice of the Victorian Auditor-General. I will also reference Tom McIntosh, who said that our side is ‘anti cost saving’. I thought that was quite extraordinary, because that is how I view the Premier’s response at the minute. We certainly on this side of the house are very interested in cost savings, and I wish that the Premier was more interested in cost savings. It would be good to examine what is happening with the CFMEU corruption on government worksites, because there are $15 billion of cost savings that could be made there.

2030 is not far away, as the Auditor-General pointed out. It is less than four years away. We are talking about the state’s energy needs. This report should set off alarm bells for families and for businesses, but more importantly, it highlights the need for a change of government this November.

 Melina BATH (Eastern Victoria) (18:15): I will rise and make a short contribution on the National Gas (Victoria) Amendment Bill 2025. It has been very illuminating listening to various contributions today, and I thank Mrs Broad for her very wise contribution. The purpose of the bill is to enable expansion of the gas declared transmission system, so the actual pipes, and the capacity to expedite this by ministerial order and indeed deliver more capacity and expand on the capacity in the south-west pipeline, enabling greater carriage of gas at times of high demand. Also, I note Mr David Davis’s very wise amendments that of course the Nationals will be supporting. It seems to me that there has been a lot of gas, actually, flying around this hall this afternoon, and some of it is from the government benches. It feels like the speaking notes were on spin and fabrication. We have had all things from fracking, to nuclear, to horse and cart and to animal faeces delivered, so I figure I could just about get on any horse I want to at the end of this debate and I should be allowed to have a roam because, my goodness, that was a wide range of debate there.

I want to talk about the role that gas has played in Gippsland, in my electorate. For over 50 years it has been an exemplar industry. It has not only created wealth, jobs, communities and community benefits, but certainly it has been the force that has kept many homes, in fact almost 80 per cent of Victorian homes, burning. That is in their lounge rooms with their heaters on and at their kitchen stoves with their woks going and pots boiling – a very important fuel source for our homes. It has been an industry that has been stable and has provided an enormous amount of stability in our electric system as well over the course of those 50 years. Indeed some of the Bass Strait gas deposits were some of the sweetest and most productive of our nation. When I came in 10 years ago the Liberals and Nationals had just provided for a refining plant, we will say, within Longford to actually extract some of the hydrogen sulphide and some of those impurities that we were starting to get in our gas extraction off Bass coast. We do have newer fields, such as Kipper and Tuna and Turrum, and they still have gas for the foreseeable future, but it is true that Victoria is certainly in the transition phase. Like others, I am on the Environment and Planning Committee inquiry into the decommissioning of our gas and oil rigs, and it is a very important one at that. It is a very important one also for creating jobs through that transition in my region of Gippsland.

The other thing that we know is the very important role that gas plays in industry. It is a feedstock. We have certainly heard about its importance as a plastics industry feedstock for the medical industry and our hospital system. We used to create a lot of our own plastics and medical-grade plastics. That is certainly going by the wayside. We know the importance it plays in fertiliser – in ammonia and urea. I have come off a dairy farm, and I know the importance of keeping that fertilising going in the cycle of grass to cow to milk production. In hydrogen production it also can be used, and in various other chemicals that are indispensable in the agricultural sector. These are important not only domestically but in the global industry supply chains.

We have also heard about heavy industries, and we have one in Gippsland, in Latrobe Valley, in Morwell. It is called Australian Paper, and it has been an industry exemplar for the past 80-something years. Because of the closure of the timber industry, it now does not produce white paper but it produces packaging. Now everybody seems to be getting Uber, and it comes in a package. We do not go into stores anymore – call me old fashioned – but we all get it delivered. It is wrapped in brown packaging, and that is made, overwhelmingly, by Opal Australian Paper. It is a very important industry that uses gas. But in a changing environment it is also trying to move to energy from waste – energy from your red-bin waste that can no longer be recycled. They are trying to get that off the ground. They have been doing it for, I think, about 10 years. And we hear again the demonising of energy from waste. When there is no other use for that substance, that red-bin waste, then put it through the system in a highly evolved energy-from-waste facility and let that turn. What would that do? That would actually cut the gas for some of those plants – indeed Opal paper manufacturing – and provide more gas into the system. It would be all systems go for Opal if the Nationals certainly had their way.

The other very important thing that gas does is provide peaking energy. In a fluctuating energy environment, that means that when there is not sufficient wind turning those wind turbines, when there is not sufficient sunshine, when there is a cloudy day and a quiet day – and we do get them, even in Gippsland, in Eastern Victoria Region – and you have got high demand, because either it is peak summer or, potentially more likely, it is peak winter and it is cold and dark and overcast, you need peaking. You need instant energy, which gas provides. This is so incredibly important in order to support our coal-fired power stations that are in a transitional state. Hazelwood has closed. Yallourn will close by 2028. The government has got some sort of arrangement with Yallourn power station, but we are not sure exactly what it is. But that is ageing equipment, and it is getting to the point where it cannot turn back. These are some of the key things that have been uppermost in the minds of people in my electorate.

The other thing about natural gas is it has about half the CO₂ emissions in terms of coal and about 70 per cent in terms of oil. I heard before those on the government benches talk about carbon emissions, and we all want to reduce carbon emissions. One of the major, major producers of carbon emissions is out-of-control bushfires. I am going to say this just once: 1.8 million hectares of forest was burnt. Think about how many carbon dioxide molecules went up into the atmosphere then. This government has been appalling in its focus on reducing those bushfires. If climate change is something that is there, what is the lever that the government can pull? The government can reduce fuel, and it has done it appallingly.

Back on track with respect to this, we heard from the government, and they talked about the Liberals and Nationals. Let me put some things on the record. When the government first came in in about 2015–16, it put out its own investigation into conventional gas. It gave terms of reference to the scientists that were so narrow that they actually reduced the capacity of that investigation to provide a thorough analysis of onshore conventional gas deposits and indeed the quantum of petajoules that sit under our gas reserves either in the Gippsland Basin or in the Otways onshore. I think the government has been obtuse from that time.

Then some things that the government has failed in are technology-driven areas. The Premier came out a few years ago, in 2017 or 2018, and said, ‘SEA Electric – we will be the electric car manufacturers of the nation.’ Well, it got 14 headlines, and no cars ever rolled out of Latrobe Valley. That is a fail. We had the Commonwealth Games, and we have spoken about that ad nauseam. These were con games from the start. We have also got the hydrogen supply chain – very, very important. We had the Japanese government and consortia willing to put $3 billion in. They already did a supply chain project, which was a success, and they came to the government and said, ‘We will be supportive. We will supply $1.5 billion of jobs and infrastructure.’ And what has this government done? It is called ringbarking. If you just do not give it any attention, it ends up going away, and I am very concerned that the Japanese government has seen the signs from this Labor government. Then we have also seen carbon capture and storage. It was federally funded. It was state funded. This is about reducing carbon emissions from the atmosphere. That is something we all agree on. But this government now has withdrawn all funding, and the only funding carbon capture and storage gets in my patch is from the feds. That is another fail in the technology sphere.

Finally, we did hear from Mr Mulholland and my other colleagues who spoke very eloquently about choices about homes. This government has had a war on gas, there is no doubt about it. It has equivocated. It has moved from one side to the other. It has read the polls. It has tried to outgreen the Greens on many, many occasions. It went too far and must have read the polling in terms of stopping people from having choices in their homes. They know it is going to be stopped come March 2027. There will be a gas ban on your homes.

The Nationals certainly support energy choice. We back affordability and we back common sense, and we certainly want to see no blackouts and no higher bills. I support the amendments moved by Mr Davis, and we do not oppose this bill as it stands.

John BERGER (Southern Metropolitan) incorporated the following:

Thank you, President, I rise today to speak on the National Gas (Victoria) Amendment Bill 2025.

This bill is all about ensuring that Victoria will go forward with a strong and stable energy grid providing households and businesses with energy which is affordable and reliable.

Gas has an important role to play in our economy even as we meet our emissions reduction targets and bring more clean energy online.

Gas provides firming capacity for the grid, ensuring stability and reliability for consumers.

Further, while renewables are an ideal source of energy in certain situations, such as in servicing households, because of factors such as affordability and how they enable homeowners to generate their own electricity, there are other situations where gas can do a better job.

For example, much of the manufacturing sector relies on gas for its power generation.

Keeping the manufacturing sector strong is important to Victoria’s interests as a state and to Australia’s national interest more broadly.

This is recognised in government policy at both the state and federal levels.

Unfortunately, by 2029, Victoria is projected to face a shortfall of gas supply; this is the problem which this bill, currently before the chamber, seeks to address.

The fact is: Victoria’s current gas transmission infrastructure is old and outdated.

The Victorian Declared Transmission System is a crucial part of this state’s energy infrastructure, but it was built for a time when most of the state’s gas resources were sourced from certain areas.

This bill recognises that the existing infrastructure requires upgrades in order to adapt so that our transmission infrastructure will be able to bring in supply from other parts of the network to ensure that the energy system in this state remains strong and reliable for decades to come.

In recent years, the government has facilitated the development of upgrades to the transmission capacity of our infrastructure.

This has included supporting the delivery of Western Outer Ring Main and compression upgrades to the South West Pipeline.

Complementing these recent developments, this bill will introduce new powers to enable the minister to better oversee and manage the Declared Transmission System to deliver greater capacity and meet consumer demand.

This bill gives the Minister the ability to make orders to direct regulated pipeline owners to, when there is a clear need, make specific augmentations to the Declared Transmission System.

In doing so, this bill will ensure that our gas transmission infrastructure network will continue to work in the best interests of Victorians.

This bill empowers the Minister to hand down ministerial orders to modify or disapply certain aspects of the National Gas Law and National Gas Rules in order to better facilitate upgrades and service delivery in the Declared Transmission System.

For example, an order might direct a network asset owner to pursue upgrades to their asset to ensure and improve the capacity, reliability, and longevity of the transmission system

An order may also ask the Australian Energy Market Operator to identify potential risks to the integrity of the system and solutions to managing these risks.

Under this proposed law, the Minister would be required to consult with the Declared Transmission System asset owner themselves, with the AEMO, with the Premier, and with the Treasurer.

This is to ensure that ministerial orders are made based on genuine need for intervention and are suited and proportionate to the circumstances, and that orders are always made in pursuit of serving the best interests of the Victorian public.

These orders are intended, under the proposed legislation, to be a last resort rather than an everyday function of governance and operation.

When the energy market cannot find solutions and run the transmission system according to the long-term public interest, the Minister will have the ability to intervene and issue ministerial orders.

For the most part, existing market structures can be trusted to deliver a reliable supply of gas to consumers and businesses on a day-to-day basis.

But there are circumstances when a ministerial intervention would be warranted if the market is failing.

The reliable and consistent supply of gas is too important to allow for the sorts of unmanaged risk which are inherent to unregulated markets.

Securing Victoria’s gas supply and transmission for generations to come is a critical part of the transition towards clean energy.

While renewables will be the driving force, making up the critical mass of our energy grid and ensuring that our state’s energy consumption leaves as little negative impact on the environment as possible, it cannot be the only part.

Renewables are the cheapest form of new energy generation, but they are not always the most appropriate form of energy generation in every single situation.

As I have mentioned already, parts of our manufacturing sector require gas supply, and if they can’t find it here then they would be forced to shut down or move to another state.

This is one of the reasons it is so important that the government take measures to ensure that gas supply in this state is reliable, given the challenges which we are facing with potential supply shortfalls by the end of the decade.

Last year’s Gas Security Statement handed down by the Minister outlined the challenges which this state is facing in terms of gas supply.

Our traditional sources of gas in the Bass Strait are facing depletion and, as a result, the AEMO has warned that without action being taken to increase supply or reduce demand, the state could be facing a structural shortfall by 2029.

The Gas Security Statement outlined this state’s approach to ensuring a reliable and affordable supply of gas for Victorian businesses and consumers.

Reducing demand is an important aspect of this: when demand falls, it puts downward pressure on prices and frees up supply for essential use.

We are seeking to reduce demand by helping Victorian households to transition from gas appliances to cheaper-to-run, more energy efficient electrical appliances.

The popular Victorian Energy Upgrades program has benefited more than 2.4 million households in this state since 2009.

This is helping households to save money and helping the state to meet our carbon emissions obligations.

When we demonstrate to people that by switching to an electric water heating system they can save $330 dollars each year, and we will help them with the upfront cost, we save them money, we reduce emissions, and we keep our gas supply secure for essential use.

The Solar for Apartments program is another important part of our energy policy here in Victoria.

More and more Victorians, especially in Melbourne, are living in apartments.

Certain eligible owners corporations for buildings whose residents share a common rooftop will be able to benefit from assistance to install solar energy systems for the collective benefit of residents.

This program is a collaboration between the state and federal governments.

Since 2023, the Victorian Energy Upgrades and Solar Victoria programs have facilitated more than 156,000 upgrades from old gas appliances to efficient, modern electric appliances.

Further, more than 327,000 households have installed solar panels on their rooftops through the Solar Homes program.

By helping households install solar and switch to efficient electric appliances, we are reducing demand for gas and ensuring that our supply of gas remains stable going into the future.

These programs do not just help households; they also support our businesses.

For many businesses, the cost of energy is a significant expense and burden to their bottom line.

At the same time, for many of them, smart investments in energy efficient technology can make a serious long-term impact on the costs they face associated with energy.

Through Victorian Energy Upgrades, more than 180,000 have been supported to purchase modern, efficient appliances.

These investments help them to save money which can be reinvested into the business, helping them to do their bit to create jobs and grow the economy.

Victoria’s gas conservation strategy, which includes supporting households and businesses to upgrade from gas to electric, will save up to 19.2 petajoules by 2029 and by 2035 it will be saving 44 petajoules each year.

This means that by 2035, the amount of gas our policies will be saving each year will be enough to meet 85% of the state’s forecast industrial demand.

This is good news for Victorian business, good news for Victorian workers, and good news for Victorian consumers.

It means the supply of gas to parts of the economy where the use of gas is mandatory and necessary, not optional, will be more secure and more reliable.

Reducing and managing demand is important, but so too is shoring up supply.

With existing, legacy sources of gas dwindling, it is appropriate that we find new sources from which we can draw the energy that our state needs.

What is important is that when we unlock new supply, we do so through conventional means and not through fracking.

Fracking is dangerous, expensive, and environmentally damaging.

It pollutes our water, harms our natural environment, and releases dangerous chemicals into the atmosphere and soil.

It also damages farmland, with fracking wells in the past being built on farmers’ fields, often causing damage not just to the property where it is located but also to nearby properties as well.

This is why when the then Andrews Government banned fracking a number of years ago, it was supported and welcomed by the Victorian Farmers Federation.

Because Victorian farmers know that taking care of their land is difficult work at the best of times, and coal seam gas projects can do damage to a piece of land which may be expensive to reverse, or may just be irreversible.

Not only that, but in the state of Victoria it is unconstitutional and rightly so.

Meeting our state’s energy needs and following our very high environmental standards at the same time is an important task which all Victorian governments face during their time.

It is not necessarily easy, but we on this side of the chamber in the Allan Labor Government did not come into politics to take the easy options, we came here to make the decisions and investments which are in the best long-term interests of the Victorian people.

This is why our government has advocated for the a federally implemented domestic gas reservation since 2017, long before I entered parliament.

Because Australian consumers and businesses deserve to be the beneficiaries of our continent’s energy abundance.

It is why we have made all new gas projects eligible for fast tracking.

It is why we passed legislation to facilitate offshore gas storage projects.

It is also why we are seeking to pass this bill as well.

This bill would strengthen our state’s Declared Transmission System, ensuring that it is fit for the future.

By giving the Minister the power to hand down ministerial orders to network asset owners to make a specific change or improvement to their asset, we are ensuring that Victorian consumers and businesses will be safe in the knowledge that the gas distribution system will be dependable for decades to come.

This bill also gives provisions which allow the Minister to work with the Australian Energy Market Operator to identify areas which may need an intervention from the Minister.

It also gives powers to the Australian Energy Regulator so that it can help to enforce any orders which are made.

These orders are not intended to be handed down on a regular basis; they are intended to be a last resort, something which will not be used at times when everything is going well.

Nevertheless, they remain an important power to be used in certain, last resort situations.

Further, as an important check and balance, the bill requires that the Minister not make orders completely unilaterally, it requires consultation with a range of other decision makers and stakeholders, including the Premier, the Treasurer, AEMO, and asset owner themselves.

Consultation is an important principle because these ministerial orders are not about working against asset owners; they are about working with them to deliver better outcomes.

In situations when a ministerial order would be necessary, the best outcomes would come from consulting with the asset owners themselves who know best what might have gone wrong with their projects or what might be obstructing progress.

It also pays to remember, as we are emphasising with this bill, these orders are for last resort situations when the Minister needs to put the public interest above all other considerations.

While ideally these powers would only have to be used very rarely, responsible governments, such as those of us who sit on this side of the chamber in the Allan Labor Government, recognise that keeping our declared gas transmission system strong is too important to leave to chance.

Many households still depend on gas appliances in their everyday lives, many manufacturing businesses require gas to power production, and gas has an important role to play in the energy transition in helping to firm up supply.

Victoria has ambitious renewable energy targets, and ambitious renewable energy policies to ensure that we don’t just talk about clean energy, but that we actually deliver clean energy.

Clean energy isn’t just a nice idea that makes us all feel good about ourselves; it is about creating jobs, producing the cheapest form of new energy, and demonstrating greater responsibility towards our duty to protect the environment.

One part of rolling out an energy transition is ensuring that it is reliable and can be depended on by Victorians in their day-to-day lives, but also in a crisis.

In this way, gas has an important role to play in helping to facilitate the transition towards renewables.

The Victorian government is acting to keep our energy system strong and reliable, to keep our transition to renewables going, and to keep our gas supply flowing for the households and businesses who need it.

This is across a range of policies, a range of initiatives, and a range of pieces of legislation.

This bill is only a small part of our broader energy agenda.

It is neither the beginning nor the end of that agenda, but remains a small but important part nevertheless.

I commend the bill to the house.

Sitting suspended 6:28 pm until 7:32 pm.

 Ingrid STITT (Western Metropolitan – Minister for Mental Health, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Multicultural Affairs, Minister for Prevention of Family Violence) (19:32): I do thank everybody for their contributions on the National Gas (Victoria) Amendment Bill 2025, and I will make some remarks about the bill. The purpose of this bill is to amend the National Gas (Victoria) Act 2008 to empower the Minister for Energy and Resources with directive powers for urgently needed augmentations to expand the flexibility and capacity of the regulated Victorian transmission gas pipeline network. The proposed National Gas (Victoria) Act amendments will introduce the power for the minister to make orders to direct the pipeline owner, the service provider and the Australian Energy Market Operator, AEMO, to augment Victoria’s regulated transmission pipeline network to maintain gas supply and gas quality.

The proposed amendments are necessary to protect the Victorian economy and industry and the wellbeing of Victorians during the transition to renewable energy and to avoid or ameliorate impacts from gas shortfalls. We are getting on with the transition to net zero and continuing to shift our energy usage away from fossil fuels and to renewable energy. However, we are in a transition to renewable energy. It cannot happen overnight, and gas will continue to play a role in the economy as we meet our legislated renewable electricity and emission reduction targets, particularly as we see demand spikes as coal-fired generators close. Therefore we must ensure that the system continues to be fit for purpose to allow available and projected supply to come in from other parts of the network, ensuring ongoing secure and reliable energy.

There have been numerous contributions on this bill, and I do want to thank members for those contributions. There are also a number of amendments that I would like to address, beginning with the amendments from the opposition. To begin with it should be noted that the bill already includes these matters as considerations for the minister and nothing precludes the minister from consulting more widely and publishing further reasons for making an order when relevant. The issue at hand is that these amendments are coming at this from the view that every order will be the same and therefore have the same considerations, and this is not true. An order may, for example, be to request information from AEMO on forecasting or may be to direct maintenance upgrades, and these would all have different agencies and groups that should be consulted with and would have different reasonings that should be published. Nothing in the bill prevents further consultation and broader reasonings being published when relevant. These amendments will have the effect of forcing everyone into a one-size-fits-all approach, whereas the legislation aims to be more balanced.

On amendment 1, the government does not support this amendment. New section 58D provides a non-exhaustive list of matters which the minister may consider when making an order. None of the matters or anything else which may have a bearing on the minister taking an informed decision to make an order are precluded by this section. The orders are a measure which will only be used if the market fails to provide a timely solution to securing the capacity and flexibility of the declared transmission network in the best interests of Victorians. Under section 58E, the orders will also be informed by mandatory consultation with the Australian Energy Market Operator and the declared transmission network service provider. In this way the order will align with and strengthen the standing review processes and scrutiny under the regulatory framework for gas, including robust considerations of costs and benefits and system needs. There is nothing in this bill that would prevent the minister from conducting further consultation where warranted and not covered by existing expert advice and assessments. It should be noted that this drafting is consistent with amendments to the National Electricity (Victoria) Act 2005 for ministerial orders for augmentations to the electricity transmission network.

The government does not support amendments 2 and 3. The 58E consultation requirements to include AER advocacy groups and energy retailers are already covered under paragraph (g) of new section 58D:

any other matter that the Minister considers relevant.

And they are under standing processes under the National Gas Law (NGL).

The government does not support including mandatory consultation with the Australian Energy Regulator at this point, as further work would need to be done in consulting very closely with them about including them so as to preserve their independence. It may also have the unintended effects of hampering the flexibility and speed of orders by possibly linking orders to standing consultation timelines under the NGL and National Gas Rules. The bill does not prevent the minister from consulting with other relevant parties as part of the process. It should be noted that the consultation requirements for similar orders for the electricity transmission network in the National Electricity (Victoria) Act 2005 are the same as outlined here – that is, by the Premier, the Treasurer and VicGrid, which is the same as the APA Group but for the electricity transmission network, the planner of the network – that is, the AER or other bodies are not included as required consultees. In doing so, we can ensure consistency while not preventing the minister from consulting more widely when necessary.

On amendment 4, the government does not support this amendment. Costs to consumers are already covered in 58D(c) as factors the minister may have reference to in alternatives already covered under 58D(b). There is nothing in drafting preventing the minister from providing relevant information for making an order; however, some information provided by AEMO and the Australian Energy Regulator will be protected information which cannot be released to a party that is not competitively neutral or to the public more generally, and the independent positions of both regulators would need to be protected. Non-sensitive information from AEMO is already published in public submissions and the Victorian Gas Planning Report. It should be noted the drafting is consistent, again, with the National Electricity (Victoria) Act 2005. It notes relevant factors that the minister may have reference to in making a decision and requires the minister to outline her reasons in a statement of reasons but does not dictate what must be included in the statement of reasons.

I would like to now move to the amendments from the Greens. At the outset we would like to thank the Greens for these amendments, even though the government will not be supporting them. This is due to the fact that these amendments deal with matters that are already being addressed through broader national gas policy or other government work which is ongoing. In relation to amendments 1 to 3, the government does not support these as there are already initiatives underway which will provide what this amendment seeks. The Australian Energy Market Commission is currently consulting on rule change requests to the National Gas Rules to ensure that the economic regulatory framework that applies to gas distribution networks supports the long-term interests of consumers in the context of the energy transition. The proposed rule changes cover capital expenditure criteria, depreciation, accelerated depreciation and redundancy, and planning requirements. The AEMC is also considering the use of data and planned investments for broader gas network planning, with a directions paper due to be released in April.

On amendments 4 to 8, the government does not support these as the bill already provides a number of factors that the minister may give consideration to in making the order. These include, but are not limited to, potential costs to end users and options available under the National Gas Law and the National Gas Rules to address any crucial national or Victorian gas system need. These options may include alternatives to an extension or expansion of a declared transmission system in Victoria. This bill and orders which may be made under it will also be consistent with the national gas objective, which is focused on the long-term needs of consumers while considering a range of factors and achieving an appropriate balance between price, reliability, safety and security. Crucially, the national gas objective has regard to emissions reductions as a consideration, including contributing to jurisdictional emissions reduction targets.

Finally, on amendments 9 and 10, in February the Minister for Energy and Resources wrote to gas distribution businesses in Victoria notifying them of her intent to impose new licence conditions on the gas distribution licences. The government is currently consulting with industry on this change. Consultation will be ending later this month. The proposed licence conditions will require these businesses to publish relevant data on how gas use is changing across its network. Some of the data required under these new licence conditions will assist in reporting, both internally and externally, on emissions and energy climate goals and in understanding how gas use is changing in Victoria over time and across regions to understand trends, track the transition and to inform government policy and how we can allow customers, stakeholders and government to understand where cost-effective alternatives to gas network expenditure may exist.

Again, a ministerial licence condition which covers the gas data transparency requirements to government is currently out for consultation with gas distribution businesses. The government’s intention here is very clear. The intent of the Victorian government is to make gas consumption data publicly available, with the Essential Services Commission to oversee that. Given that this work is already underway, it is unnecessary to further amend the bill.

To finish, the most important aspect of these new powers will be that they act as a measure of last resort. The government would prefer that the market provides a solution to the forecast shortfalls. However, if the market fails to find a timely solution, then government must be empowered to act in the best interests of all Victorians. That is why the government is introducing powers to shore up supply and ensure the system has the flexibility and capacity to meet demand, especially as we continue with the energy transition. Again I thank all members for their contribution, and I commend the bill to the house.

Motion agreed to.

Read second time.

Committed.

Clause 1 (19:44)

David DAVIS: Obviously there have been some amendments circulated – Dr Mansfield’s and mine. The minister has given some commentary about those amendments. I just want to put on record in response that I think the minister’s response was trite and did not understand that requiring certain consultations does not exclude other consultations and that by requiring additional consultations we provide more guarantees rather than leaving it open to a minister. Let us be clear about this: ministers vary in their knowledge and capacities from time to time. Without being critical of this minister, I will put it in the abstract and say ministers vary, but some of the purposes of the additional requirements that the opposition and indeed, I might add, the Greens have added into their amendments are to make sure that certain consultations occur, because we think the bill was deficient in requiring those. The minister’s idea that requiring certain consultations means the minister will be prevented in some way from making further consultations is flatly wrong and disingenuous. I just think it is worth me immediately putting those points on the record in response to the minister’s third-reading sum-up of sorts. I think that we are with this bill putting a series of extraordinary powers into the hands of a minister, and to circumscribe those by requirements about consultation is a very modest set of steps, and to circumscribe those by requirements for greater transparency and explanation is also a very modest step. Before we get into further points, I just want to say those points in response to the minister’s contribution in the third reading.

Ingrid STITT: I guess to contextualise things, it is important to note that the bill does require the minister to consult with the affected declared transmission asset owner, the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO), the Premier and the Treasurer, and upon making an order, the order itself and the reasons for making it will be published in the Government Gazette and on the Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action (DEECA) website.

David DAVIS: That just adds to the triteness of the response. I want to say something here, and perhaps with the committee’s leave we might discuss most of this in the first clause. The minister may make certain orders, and it may be that the operator will seek additional financial support for implementing those orders. I just want to understand from the minister: is it possible conceptually that the minister will make orders and the Australian Energy Regulator (AER) will not support additional financial support for the implementation of those orders?

Ingrid STITT: Thank you, Mr Davis, for your patience. Obviously the Australian Energy Regulator are an independent regulator, so that is the first important point to note. But the orders are not intended to curtail market independence or interference with the standing role of either AEMO or the AER, and where the market appropriately responds to the projected supply shortfalls facing Victoria, orders will not be needed. They will only be used when the market has failed to provide an adequate and timely solution and there is a need to intervene on the basis of the public interest. Of course it is the case that before any order is made, the minister may take advice on technical solutions which best meet and balance the current and future demands and uses of the declared transmission system (DTS) and provide the greatest benefit for Victorians.

David DAVIS: I think that means yes. I wonder if the minister might point to anywhere in the bill where the minister, in making the decisions for which the bill is giving new powers, is required to consult with consumers or the representatives of consumers.

Ingrid STITT: I think in answering that question I want to again just take the opportunity to remind the house that the changes that are being introduced in this bill will provide a pretty prudent measure. We have also indicated on the record that it is a last resort when the market fails to provide a timely and effective solution to maintain energy supply security and reliability so that at the heart of it it is all about making sure that consumers are not adversely impacted by any energy supply security or reliability issues in the network.

David DAVIS: If I can ask the minister directly – I take that not in a favourable sense. But if I move to a different point –

Ingrid STITT: I can answer that, if you do not mind, Mr Davis. We are also obviously bound by the national gas objective, which does require consumers to be considered.

David DAVIS: But nothing specific. If I ask another simple question there, the bill seems to be squarely aimed at the pipeline in the south-west. Has the minister considered or begun considering steps to implement requirements for that pipeline?

Ingrid STITT: This bill is about the declared transmission system, which of course the pipeline you cite is part of, but this bill is not specifically about any one part of the network.

David DAVIS: But my question is: has the minister considered or is the minister considering now, concurrently with this bill, matters around the South West Pipeline?

Ingrid STITT: I do not have any advice on that. I will have to take that question on notice.

David DAVIS: Perhaps the minister might seek some advice from the box.

Ingrid STITT: I am just getting that advice, so I will give it to you as soon as I get it, Mr Davis.

David DAVIS: We have not had a lot of success on this mode where we seek advice to be provided to the chamber at a later point. In recent times when you have said you will provide things it has not been forthcoming at a later point, so I am not warmed by that approach.

Ingrid STITT: The advisers are hearing your question. We are seeking some advice on that, and as soon as I have something I will let you know in committee.

Sarah MANSFIELD: Minister, orders under this bill can only be used to create new gas assets. Can the government provide any updates or assurances that orders made under this bill will not be used to ignore cheaper demand reduction options like electrification, bypass Victoria’s own 2045 net zero laws or gold-plate the network or create stranded assets?

Ingrid STITT: The government has clear and ambitious renewable energy and emission reduction targets, and we have been clear on our commitment to the energy transition for a long time now. These targets are written into law, and they cannot be overridden by a ministerial order. In Victoria our emissions have fallen by 31.4 per cent. We are decarbonising much faster than the rest of the country, cutting our emissions intensity by 50 per cent more than the national average since 2014, and we are committed to the energy transition. This bill is about ensuring that energy supply is provided where and when it is needed while we transition to renewable energy, and the bill already provides a number of factors that the minister may give consideration to in making the order. This includes but is not limited to potential costs to end users and options available under the National Gas Law (NGL) and the National Gas Rules (NGR) to address any crucial national or Victorian gas system need, and these options may include alternatives to extension or expansion of a declared transmission system in Victoria. The amendments and orders are also consistent with the national gas objective, which is focused on the long-term needs of consumers while considering a range of factors and achieving an appropriate balance between price, reliability, safety and security. These already include emission reductions as a consideration, including contributing to jurisdictional emission target reductions.

Sarah MANSFIELD: Orders can only be made for upgrades to assets, not transition off gas. The bill does nothing to plan for the inevitable retirement of the gas transmission network, something we know companies will do over the next 20 years or so whether or not the government plans for it, as more and more Victorians get off gas and onto cheaper, cleaner electrical products. Can the government provide any updates or assurances that Victoria is planning to demand companies provide something akin to gas transition plans so we do not see a repeat of what Solstice Energy just did to 10 regional Victorian towns and private gas companies leaving communities scrambling?

Ingrid STITT: There are already initiatives underway in this space. The Australian Energy Market Commission is currently consulting on rule change requests to the National Gas Rules to ensure that the economic regulatory framework that applies to gas distribution networks supports the long-term interests of consumers in the context of the energy transition. The proposed rule changes cover capital expenditure criteria, depreciation, accelerated depreciation and redundancy, and planning requirements, and the AEMC is also considering the use of data and planned investment for broader gas network planning, with a directions paper due to be released in April this year.

Sarah MANSFIELD: What work is the government undertaking to address the long-term socio-economic risks of the gas network death spiral, which I mentioned in my second-reading speech, where operator fees increase as more people leave the network and go all electric and those fees fall to fewer and fewer customers, who are not able to make the transition easily, which will typically be poorer homes, renters, people living in apartments et cetera?

Ingrid STITT: Again, it goes to the issues that I have just outlined, Dr Mansfield, that the Australian Energy Market Commission is currently consulting on the rule change request, which ensures that we are making sure that the network supports the long-term interests of consumers in the context of the energy transition. That is a key focus of that work that is underway.

Sarah MANSFIELD: Does the government agree that to genuinely manage this gas spiral, the network will ultimately have to be bought by the government wholesale and require new federal rules to remove the obligation for network owners to make a profit?

Ingrid STITT: Whilst it is slightly outside the scope of the bill, this is work that I have currently described in terms of the National Gas Rules and the work that will be undertaken to ensure there is proper planning for the gas network and for the transition.

Sarah MANSFIELD: The bill will enable orders to demand geospatial information for the purpose of network improvements. However, the minister herself said that such orders will only be made as a last resort. If we want to avoid a repeat of Solstice, the minister, the SEC and the general public should have this information well before that point. Is the government doing anything to ensure Victorians do not have to go begging to monopoly gas companies for key network data?

Ingrid STITT: In February the Minister for Energy and Resources wrote to gas distribution businesses in Victoria notifying them of her intent to impose new licence conditions on their gas distribution licences. I think I touched on this in my second-reading contribution. The government is currently consulting with the industry on this change, as is required around such changes, and consultation will be ending later this month. The government will have further updates following the end of this consultation period. The proposed licence conditions will require these businesses to provide relevant data on how gas use is changing across its network. Some of the data required under these new licence conditions will assist in reporting, both internally and externally, on emissions and energy climate goals and in understanding how gas use is changing in Victoria over time and across regions to understand trends, track the transition and inform government policy and how we can allow customers, stakeholders and government to understand where cost-effective alternatives to gas network expenditure may exist. Again, a ministerial licence condition which covers the gas data transparency requirements to government is currently being worked on by the Minister for Energy and Resources, and the government’s intention here is very clear. The Victorian government also intends to make this gas consumption data publicly available, with the Essential Services Commission to oversee that. Given that this work is already underway, they are the key factors around why the government does not consider it necessary to further amend the bill in this way.

Sarah MANSFIELD: I just want to confirm that, based on the answer you provided, the SEC and communities will be able to access this information even if network holders lobby hard to try and keep that information private.

Ingrid STITT: As I indicated, we intend to make this gas consumption data publicly available, with the Essential Services Commission being responsible for overseeing that data release.

Sarah MANSFIELD: Are you able to provide any possible timeframes as to when licences will be updated to require that sort of information sharing?

Ingrid STITT: I will have to check that specifically, but as I indicated in my previous answer around these issues, the consultation will be ending later this month, and the government will have further updates following the end of that consultation process. I will just check with my trusty advisers as to whether there is anything further I can add.

Consultation closes on 25 March, and then there is further consultation with the Premier and the Treasurer to come after that, and it is likely to be before the end of the financial year.

Sarah MANSFIELD: Just following on from some of Mr Davis’s questions, we understand that the government has an issue with mandating greater consultation in a blanket sort of way, because there might be some situations where it is less relevant and mandated consultation might be a bit too prescriptive. But why couldn’t the government update the bill to mandate those greater consultations where relevant? Can the government confirm the bill has been designed with the intent to consult with bodies where relevant?

Ingrid STITT: There is a bit of information to provide you here, Dr Mansfield. Proposed new section 58D provides a non-exhaustive list of matters which the minister may consider when making an order, and it is the clear expectation that when a matter is relevant to the reasons for making an order, they should be published with all the other reasonings. It is the expectation that when particular consultation is relevant, it should be done. Legislation should strike the right balance between flexibility and being overly prescriptive, and this bill as written does strike that balance. None of the matters or anything else which may have a bearing on the minister taking an informed decision to make an order are precluded by this bill, and again, there is nothing in the bill which would prevent the minister from conducting further consultation where warranted and not covered by existing expert advice and assessments.

Further, it should be noted that this drafting is consistent – and I think I covered this in my second-reading contribution – with amendments to the National Electricity (Victoria) Act 2005 for ministerial orders for augmentations to the electricity transmission network. In practical terms and in relation specifically to the proposed new section 58B(3)(d), some information provided by AEMO and the AER will be protected information which cannot be released to a party that is not competitively neutral or to the public more generally, and the independent positions of both market bodies would need to be protected. Non-sensitive information from AEMO is already published in public submissions and the Victorian Gas Planning Report. So again, Dr Mansfield, in practical terms, if the minister were required to consult everyone, as the opposition proposes, on every order and publish their selected reasonings for every order, this would cause issues when they are not required. In the event the minister used the order to request information from AEMO or the APA, the minister would not be able to comply with the requirement to outline costs to end users, as there would not be any costs to users. This would put the minister in a position of contravening the law further, and again AEMO, the AER or APA may provide information that is sensitive that would not be able to be outlined in a public statement of reasons.

Another example could be where in an existing process – for example, the current rule 80 Australian Energy Regulator process – orders could be used to require delivery to certain timelines and the rule 80 process has already undertaken consultation with information from AEMO already in the public domain and mandatory consultation requirements would duplicate this. So again, I kind of labour the point a bit, I know, but the bill does not prevent the minister from consulting with other relevant parties as part of the process or publishing those reasons as outlined in these amendments. It is expected and it is the expectation that if it was relevant, then details such as cost to the user should be part of the published list of reasonings, just by way of another example.

David DAVIS: I have a number of further questions here, and I will ask the minister: why is the government bypassing the national gas access framework and introducing a unilateral directions power when Victoria is a signatory to the Australian Energy Market Agreement, which explicitly commits to national consistency?

Ingrid STITT: That is a bit of a weird question because it is already a separate regulatory framework that we are operating in.

David DAVIS: With respect, I do not think it is a weird question; but let me ask another question: what evidence does the government have that the existing national gas access regime is failing consumers, given it has not been demonstrated publicly or to the industry?

Ingrid STITT: I think the way that I will deal with your question, Mr Davis, is to point you to why the new powers for the minister to make orders are necessary. The proposed orders, as we have said a number of times on the record, are a tool of last resort to ensure that our regulated gas transmission pipeline network has the capacity and the flexibility it needs to maintain secure and reliable energy supply, something I know the opposition is not opposed to, in terms of the passage of this bill. It both meets the gas demand and gas power generation of electricity to provide firming capacity, and these changes are intended to protect Victoria against projected annual gas shortfalls, ensuring that industry, business and households have access to gas during the important and complex transition to renewable energy. That is all outlined in Victoria’s Gas Security Statement.

David DAVIS: I will ask the minister: can the minister explain why no public consultation, exposure draft or industry review was undertaken before introducing this bill that fundamentally alters Victoria’s gas regulatory framework?

Ingrid STITT: The answer is the consultation will take place if an order is required. We have gone through this, and the minister makes no apology for bringing forward legislative change which is about protecting Victorians as we transition to renewable energy.

David DAVIS: My reading of the bill suggests that it allows ministerial orders to be made without them being tabled in Parliament or subject to disallowance, despite the major economic impacts, and I ask: is that correct? Can decisions be made without them being tabled in Parliament? And is it a fact that they are not subject to disallowance?

Ingrid STITT: Yes.

David DAVIS: I just record my concern on that matter. Can the minister guarantee that orders will not be used to circumvent proper planning, environmental regulation or economic assessment processes?

Ingrid STITT: As I have indicated on the record a number of times, these are pretty prudent measures, and they are ones that will be used as a last resort when the market fails to provide that timely and effective solution to maintain energy security and reliability.

David DAVIS: I ask the minister: what mechanisms ensure that the minister cannot compel expenditures that lack technical justification or industry support?

Ingrid STITT: Mr Davis, it is important to ensure that new orders do not distort the market. The orders are not intended to curtail market independence or to interfere with the standing roles of various bodies, including the Australian Energy Market Operator or the Australian Energy Regulator. Where the market appropriately responds to the projected supply shortfalls facing Victoria, orders will not be needed. I would add that the APA, as the pipeline owner, will always be consulted, as I think I indicated in my second-reading contribution.

David DAVIS: Does the bill allow the minister to deem expenditure conforming capital expenditure, overriding NGR 79, without AER involvement or independent assessment of prudency and efficiency?

Ingrid STITT: Thank you for your patience, Mr Davis. The answer is yes, the bill does allow that; the Australian Energy Regulator plays a role in assessing that capital expenditure and ensuring that it is prudent and efficient.

David DAVIS: Minister, I thereby ask: will the minister commit to AER oversight of any cost recovery arrangements, including prudency, efficiency and consistency with the national gas objective?

Ingrid STITT: Thank you for the question, and I am not being churlish, but I am not the minister, so I will seek some advice about that; I am representing the minister.

The bill will enable the Australian Energy Regulator to independently monitor and enforce compliance with the orders. The Australian Energy Regulator has enforcement powers relating to laws under the National Gas (Victoria) Law. The bill provides for an order to be read as a law under the National Gas (Victoria) Law, and the bill also provides for the Australian Energy Regulator to apply civil penalties for noncompliance with an order. The Australian Energy Regulator will also undertake its usual economic role in ensuring the consequential capital expenditure costs from works and infrastructure that are made under the orders and rolled into the declared transmission systems owners’ regulated asset base are efficient and prudent, and in this way cost to consumers will be minimised.

David DAVIS: Minister, I also ask: how will ministerial orders interact with existing access arrangements, particularly where orders conflict with NGL, NGR and AER processes or existing contractual rights?

Ingrid STITT: Again, I think it is important to reiterate that this is a last resort mechanism and it is only used where the market has failed to provide a timely and effective solution, in particular when it comes to energy supply, security and reliability. In considering the making of those orders, all of these matters would be taken into consideration. But I just go back to that point that this is a last resort measure that only would operate in the event that there is a failure on the part of the market to provide an effective solution to maintain security of supply.

David DAVIS: The minister says it is a last resort, but I am asking here because there is nothing in the act to require that. I ask: what assurance can the government provide that these powers will be used only as a last resort and not as a substitute for proper planning or regulatory processes? How can you give that commitment when it is not there in black and white?

Ingrid STITT: Again, Mr Davis, the intent of the government is pretty clear in the minister’s second-reading speech, which I am sure you have perused. We do not make any apology for coming with legislative change that gives the ability for the minister, in a circumstance where the market has failed to provide a solution, to ensure that there is energy supply, security and reliability, and that is the intent of this bill. I also point you to the minister’s second reading.

David DAVIS: So the only assurance, effectively, is the second reading. All right, we will move on. Let me ask here: given the complexity of interactions with the access arrangement, why is there no requirement to share a draft order with particular stakeholders, perhaps APA or others?

Ingrid STITT: The answer is pretty simple. The orders would be consulted on, and they would form the basis of the consultation that is undertaken.

David DAVIS: But not necessarily the draft order?

Ingrid STITT: Just to be clear about what you are asking me, Mr Davis – you are asking whether the government will release draft orders as opposed to final orders. I think the consultation that is required to be undertaken will be able to garner what issues are required to be dealt with in the terms of the order. The bill sets out clearly how orders are to be made by the minister and published.

David DAVIS: I am just troubled –

Ingrid STITT: Gazetted, I should say. I misspoke.

David DAVIS: I do not want to labour the point, but I am still troubled by it. Let us just move on. I am asking: how will the minister commit to a transparent consultation process before making any direction under the bill? How can you show that that consultation process will actually be transparent?

Ingrid STITT: In terms of how new orders will be made, they are dealt with under new sections 58D, 58E and 58F. Before any order is made the responsible minister may seek expert advice on the rationale for using an order and optimal technical and staging solutions to respond. The minister may have regard to a number of matters before making an order, including but not limited to the security and reliability of the declared gas system, immediate, medium- and long-term needs of the declared wholesale gas market or a declared transmission system in Victoria or other jurisdictions, system capacity, gas production, the costs to end users, the costs of upgrades and any other matter the minister considers relevant. The minister may also consider other options available under the National Gas (Victoria) Law and the rules as alternatives to making an order. The bill requires the minister to consult with the affected declared transmission asset owner, the Australian Energy Market Operator, and the Premier and the Treasurer. Upon making an order, the order itself and the reasons for making it will be published in the Government Gazette and on the DEECA website. These are matters that I went to in my second-reading speech, but I am not sure, Mr Davis, whether you were in the chamber at that time.

David DAVIS: Will the government ensure full capital and operating cost recovery for mandated augmentations, given it seems to me the bill does not guarantee this, especially where the government seems intent on destroying demand for gas in Victoria?

Ingrid STITT: Mr Davis, I do not accept your little flourish at the end there, but of course I have gone into, whilst we have been in committee, how the government will ensure that the new orders do not distort the market. The orders are not intended to curtail – we have gone through these issues – market independence and so on.

David DAVIS: All operating costs – capital and operating costs?

Ingrid STITT: The regulatory framework has rules to cater for asset stranding while ensuring costs to consumers are best managed and minimised. There are provisions providing flexibility around conforming capex and depreciation. For example, proponents have flexibility to negotiate depreciation of assets within their capital base with the AER as part of their access arrangement. Any ministerial order would seek to include similar considerations of these matters.

David DAVIS: A further question to the minister: will you guarantee that cost recovery will be given in an order?

Ingrid STITT: I have already indicated that in making the order there is that flexibility and any ministerial order would seek to include similar considerations of these matters.

David DAVIS: I am not sure whether that was a yes or a no. A further question: what would happen if a minister-directed augmentation became unused or underused due to declining gas demand or if an alternative supply emerges? That is exactly the sort of situation Dr Mansfield pointed to in one of her points earlier on. What would happen at that point?

Ingrid STITT: Any network expansions or upgrades under the orders will be properly targeted so only necessary upgrades that support an appropriate balance between energy security, reliability, safety, efficiency and affordability while also supporting the energy transition are made to benefit all consumers and are futureproofed against changing asset use. Again, I think it is relevant to reiterate that the orders would be informed by expert advice on which declared transmission system augmentations could be delivered in a timely manner and at the most efficient cost. Fundamentally, these issues are around having those proper considerations and only using the orders as a last resort when the market is not able to achieve that balance in relation to energy security and reliability.

David DAVIS: I have a further question for the minister. Will the minister commit to disapplying NGR 85(1) – that is a rule about capital redundancy – to ensure assets mandated by government cannot later be removed from the regulated asset base?

Ingrid STITT: The minister does have discretion when it comes to which provisions of the National Gas Law she disallows. However, I want to reassure you that these will be consulted on when drafting the order. I think we have gone to those issues a number of times already in committee and in our second-reading debate.

David DAVIS: I am not sure that will give the assurance that I would have hoped. Nonetheless I move on. What recourse exists for affected parties if the minister issues an unreasonable, technically flawed or economically harmful order? Not necessarily this minister – a different minister at a later point. What recourse?

Ingrid STITT: There is the opportunity for judicial review.

David DAVIS: Administrative law at the Supreme Court I think is what you are saying.

Ingrid STITT: Judicial review is an option to review ministerial orders.

David DAVIS: I will take it as what I have just said. I will ask another question. Does the minister agree that giving the government the power to override independent economic regulatory processes risks higher tariffs for Victorian gas consumers?

Ingrid STITT: You are asking for an opinion, and I suppose you are putting your spin on what you believe to be the case. In terms of the cost for consumers, that will depend on the specific work required, and it will be subject to rigorous scrutiny. A staged approach can ensure that any costs incurred are proportionate to need and to reduce the risk of future stranding. The orders will seek to ensure any works are as efficient as possible and that they are completed in a timely fashion.

We have gone over a number of times that before making an order the minister must first consult a range of organisations and individuals, including the Premier, the Treasurer, the Australian Energy Market Operator and of course the impacted declared transmission pipeline owner. This process ensures that any potential ministerial orders deliver those timely and needed improvements while striking a reasonable balance between reliability and affordability.

David DAVIS: What modelling has been done to understand the cost impacts on households and businesses if the minister directs unnecessary or uneconomic augmentations?

Ingrid STITT: Again, you are asserting that that would be the case, and I think we have indicated on a number of occasions that the process that needs to be undertaken, including the consultation, is to avoid that very instance. There is no forecasting because no orders have been made.

David DAVIS: I think ‘no forecasting’ means there is no modelling or attempt to understand what might occur. Is that where it is?

Ingrid STITT: No, that is putting words in my mouth. You are asking me about whether or not there has been modelling done on the impacts to consumers and costs.

David Davis interjected.

Ingrid STITT: I was in the process of outlining and have on a number of occasions outlined the process the minister must go through before making an order, and I have ad nauseam spoken about this being a last resort and a prudent measure to avoid a market failure when it comes to the energy supply, security and reliability that Victorians rely on as part of our transition planning. Given that you have indicated, Mr Davis, that you intend to support the bill, you now are asking me a series of questions which would suggest otherwise.

David DAVIS: I need to respond to that and say, yes, I have indicated we will not oppose the bill, but I have also indicated serious reservations about the bill and the risks that the bill imposes. What we have said is whilst we will not oppose the bill, there is a significant opportunity to improve and deal with some of the deeply rough edges around this bill and improve some aspects of it. So that is what we are seeking to do. But what I take from what the minister has said, and she may wish to confirm this, is that it is a fact, isn’t it, that there is no modelling on this bill?

Ingrid STITT: The purpose of the bill is to ensure that the minister of the day has a mechanism available to them to ensure the security of Victoria’s energy supply. The process that we have gone around and around the mulberry bush about in terms of how orders are made and who is required to be consulted ensures that any potential ministerial order delivers that timely and needed improvement. I want to reiterate that this is about proper planning and will only be triggered in circumstances where the market has been unable to guarantee that supply and security.

David DAVIS: I can only conclude that there is no modelling, but I will ask a further question on a different matter. How will Victoria manage the risk of market participants and investors shifting capital away from the state due to this unpredictable regulatory intervention? This is the sovereign risk aspect I spoke about in my second-reading speech. How does Victoria propose to manage this aspect?

Ingrid STITT: As I have said a few times now, the orders are not intended to curtail or interfere with the market and the role of AEMO and the Australian Energy Regulator. What we are dealing with here is that AEMO have forecast gas shortfalls on the east coast from 2029, and our government is taking action to ensure that Victorians have access to energy supplies that they need and doing so in a timely way and getting ahead of these issues. The DTS is a regulated asset with a regulated return.

David DAVIS: I will just note that I do not believe the minister has dealt with the sovereign risk issues, and we remain concerned on those.

Clause agreed to; clause 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 (20:50)

Sarah MANSFIELD: I move:

1.   Clause 3, page 5, after line 31 insert –

“(g) require a declared transmission system service provider or prospective declared transmission service provider to submit a gas transition plan for the specified improvement to the Minister;”.

2.   Clause 3, page 5, line 32, omit “(g)” and insert “(h)”.

3.   Clause 3, page 6, after line 26 insert –

“(4) In this section –

electricity distribution company has the same meaning as distribution company has in the Electricity Industry Act 2000;

electricity retailer has the same meaning as retailer has in the Electricity Industry Act 2000;

gas transition plan, in relation to a specified improvement, means a written plan setting out –

(a)   any actions proposed to be taken by a declared transmission system service provider or prospective declared transmission service provider to dismantle, decommission or remove the following –

(i)   any part of a declared transmission system that is to be extended, or the capacity of which is to be expanded, in the carrying out of the specified improvement;

(ii)   a pipeline or pipeline equipment that is to be improved, upgraded or connected in the carrying out of the specified improvement;

(ii)   a facility for storing liquified natural gas that is to be improved or upgraded in the carrying out of the specified improvement; and

(b)   details of the proposed timing of, or the circumstances required for, the carrying out of the actions described in paragraph (a); and

(c)   how the specified improvement will reduce greenhouse gas emissions for the purposes of consistency with the long-term emissions reduction target; and

(d)   any consultation the declared transmission system service provider or prospective declared transmission service provider proposes to take before carrying out of the actions described in paragraph (a), including but not limited to consultation with an electricity distribution company or an electricity retailer; and

(e)   proposed strategies for managing economic loss resulting from any decrease in the value of any part of a declared transmission system, pipeline, pipeline equipment or facility described in paragraph (a);

long-term emissions reduction target has the same meaning as in the Climate Action Act 2017.”.

As I spoke to my amendments at length during my second-reading debate contribution, I will take them as read.

David DAVIS: We understand why the Greens political party would move this on this occasion. We will not support it.

Ingrid STITT: The government will not be supporting this amendment. I think we have gone into the reasons why already, but in summary, there are already initiatives underway which will provide what this amendment seeks to do.

Council divided on amendments:

Sarah MANSFIELD: I move:

4.   Clause 3, page 7, line 3, before “In” insert “(1)”.

6.   Clause 3, page 7, after line 32 insert –

“(g) the long-term emissions reduction target and the interim emissions reduction targets;

(h) any reasonable alternative options for achieving the Order’s objective, including but not limited to measures designed to reduce customer demand for gas;”.

7.   Clause 3, page 7, line 33, omit “(g)” and insert “(i)”.

8.   Clause 3, page 7, after line 34 insert –

“(2) In this section –

interim emissions reduction target has the same meaning as in the Climate Action Act 2017;

long-term emissions reduction target has the same meaning as in the Climate Action Act 2017.”.

Once again, I spoke to these in my second-reading contribution, so I will take them as read.

David DAVIS: On this occasion the Liberals and Nationals will not support these amendments.

Ingrid STITT: The government will not be supporting these amendments. The bill already provides a number of factors that the minister may have consideration of in making these orders.

Council divided on amendments:

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Davis, I invite you to move your amendment 1 on new section 58D.

David DAVIS: Yes. The running sheet is wrong in its number there – it is 58D. It seeks to replace the word ‘may’ with ‘must.’ I might just prior to moving it ask the minister why the government chose to use the word ‘may’ in 58D, but use the word ‘must’ in 58E? We heard earlier in the discussions that ‘may’ guarantees all these things happen, but the common word ‘may’ does not compel in any way, whereas in 58E the government has used the word ‘must’.

Ingrid STITT: New section 58D provides a non-exhaustive list of matters which the minister may consider when making an order. None of the matters or anything else which may have a bearing on the minister taking an informed decision to make an order are precluded by this section. Again, and I think we have touched on this on numerous occasions in committee, the orders are a measure which will only be used if the market fails to provide a timely solution to securing the capacity and flexibility of the declared transmission network in the best interests of Victorians. Under section 58E the orders will also be informed by mandatory consultation with AEMO and the declared transmission network service provider. In this way, the order will align with and strengthen the standing review processes and scrutiny under the regulatory framework for gas, including robust consideration of costs and benefits and system needs.

David DAVIS: Well, that does not elucidate any more. ‘May’ means may, and it also means the minister ‘may not’. For that reason we will persist with the attempt to amend this word to ensure ‘must’. I move:

1.   Clause 3, page 7, line 4, omit “may” and insert “must”.

The ‘must’ would be the security and reliability of the operation of, and the supply of, gas; options available under the National Gas (Victoria) Law and rules to address any crucial national or Victorian need and so on down (c), (d), (e), (f) and (g) in the government’s own list.

Ingrid STITT: For the reasons I have just gone through, the government does not support this amendment.

Sarah MANSFIELD: We had similar concerns to Mr Davis, but having been provided with the response that the government has given now and also in response to questions during the clause 1 discussion in the committee stage we are satisfied and we will not be supporting this amendment.

Council divided on amendment:

David DAVIS: I move:

2.   Clause 3, page 8, line 9, omit “provider.” and insert “provider; and”.

3.   Clause 3, page 8, after line 9 insert –

“(e) the AER; and

(f) any customer advocacy body prescribed for the purposes of this section or, if no body is prescribed, any body that the Minister reasonably considers represents the interests of customers or a class of customer; and

(g) any gas retailer that the Minister reasonably considers has customers that are likely to be materially affected by the making of the proposed Order; and

(h) any other person or body (other than a small customer) that the Minister reasonably considers is likely to be materially affected by the making of the proposed Order.”.

Again, on the running sheet, 58E is the section involved. This would be inserted into 58E, where the government has chosen to use the word ‘must’. It reads:

(1)   Before making an Order … the Minister must consult with –

(a) the Premier; and

(b) the Treasurer; and

(c) AEMO; and

(d) the declared transmission system service provider.

But it makes no provision for the minister to consult with consumer and customer advocacy bodies, gas retailers or any other person or body other than a small customer that the minister reasonably considers likely to be affected. We say it should include advocacy bodies and retailers and the AER; we believe the AER should be on that list. That is the body that has overall decision-making as to whether costs are sheeted home to the consumers, and that is not a body that must be consulted. It is not even on the list here. So we have moved those amendments.

Sarah MANSFIELD: Again, we have sympathy for the Liberals’ amendments on these, but we accept the explanation that they are too prescriptive and in that sense may not I think probably serve the full intent that Mr Davis has outlined here. We think that there needs to be some greater discretion allowed. As we outlined, I think there was opportunity to have regard to some of these things where reasonable, and there could have been language tweaks to deal with some of these concerns. But as it stands, we will not be supporting this amendment, and we hope that the government come good on all the assurances that they provided during the committee stage in response to questions about this.

Ingrid STITT: The government does not support this amendment. We went through the details of why in the committee stage, but in summary the 58E consultation requirements to include AER advocacy groups and energy retailers are already covered under paragraph (g) of new section 58D:

any other matter that the Minister considers relevant.

Understanding processes under the National Gas Law, we do not support the inclusion of mandatory consultation with the Australian Energy Regulator at this point, as further work would need to be done in consulting very closely with them about including them so as to preserve their independence. It also may have unintended effects of hampering the flexibility and speed of orders by possibly linking orders to standing consultation timelines under the NGL and NGR. The bill does not prevent the minister from consulting with other relevant parties as part of the process.

Council divided on amendments:

David DAVIS: I move:

4.   Clause 3, page 9, after line 5 insert –

“(3) Without limiting this section, the Minister’s reasons published under subsection (1) or (2) must include –

(a)   the potential costs to end users of the improvement or improvement services specified in the Order; and

(b)   any alternatives to the improvement or improvement services specified in the Order that were considered and assessed before the making of the Order; and

(c)   the potential costs to end users of any alternatives referred to in paragraph (b); and

(d)   details of any advice received from AEMO and the AER under section 58E(1) before the making of the Order.”.

Again, the running sheet has got the wrong point on it. It is clause 58F, just so that people know. It would insert a new subsection (3) in 58F and this publication of reasons for making an order. This makes it more transparent, and it forces the minister to consider the costs to consumers.

Sarah MANSFIELD: Once again, while we have sympathy for this amendment, in this instance we will not be supporting the Liberals amendment.

Ingrid STITT: The government does not support this amendment. We have gone through the reasons for that in detail in the committee stage, but it also should be noted that the drafting of this bill is consistent with the National Electricity (Victoria) Act 2005. It notes the relevant factors that the minister may have reference to in making a decision and requires the minister to outline her reasons in a statement of reasons but does not dictate what she must include in the statement of reasons, and that is what is consistent with the provisions in the bill before the house.

Council divided on amendment:

Sarah MANSFIELD: I move:

9.   Clause 3, page 12, line 24, omit “58B.’.” and insert “58B.”.

10.   Clause 3, page 12, after line 24 insert –

“58K Minister may require gas network data to be provided

(1) For the purposes of making an Order under section 58B, the Minister, by notice in writing, may require AEMO, a declared transmission system service provider or a prospective declared transmission system service provider to provide to the Minister details of the location, capacity, age or use of one or more of the following –

(a)   a declared transmission system;

(b)   pipeline equipment;

(b)   a facility for storing liquified natural gas.

(2) A notice under subsection (1) must –

(a)   specify or describe the information that AEMO, the declared transmission system service provider or prospective declared transmission system service provider must provide to the Minister; and

(b)   specify the date by which the information must be provided to the Minister;

(c)   specify the manner in which the information must be provided to the Minister.

(3) AEMO, the declared transmission system service provider or the prospective declared transmission system service provider must comply with the notice under subsection (1).

(4) Subject to subsection (5), the Minister, as soon as reasonably practicable after receiving information under this section, must ensure that a copy of the information is published on the Department’s internet site.

(5) If the Minister considers that any information received under this section is confidential, the Minister must omit that information from the copy of the information published under subsection (4).”.

Ingrid STITT: The government will not be supporting the amendments. We have given some assurances in the committee stage around these issues. In February the Minister for Energy and Resources wrote to gas distribution businesses in Victoria, notifying them of her intent to impose new licence conditions on their gas distribution licences. The government is currently consulting with industry on this change, and consultation will be ending later this month. The proposed licence conditions will require these businesses to publish relevant data on how gas use is changing across their networks. Some of the data required under these new licence conditions will assist in reporting, both internally and externally, on emissions and energy and climate goals and in understanding how gas use is changing in Victoria over time and across regions to understand trends, track the transition and inform government policy and how we can allow customers, stakeholders and government to understand where cost-effective alternatives to gas network expenditure may exist. Again, a ministerial licence condition which covers the gas data transparency requirements to government is currently out for consultation with gas distribution businesses. The government’s intention has been made very clear. The intent of the Victorian government is to make gas consumption data publicly available, with the Essential Services Commission to oversee that. Given that this work is already underway, it is unnecessary to further amend the bill.

Council divided on amendments:

 Ingrid STITT (Western Metropolitan – Minister for Mental Health, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Multicultural Affairs, Minister for Prevention of Family Violence) (21:23): I move:

That the report be now adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

 Ingrid STITT (Western Metropolitan – Minister for Mental Health, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Multicultural Affairs, Minister for Prevention of Family Violence) (21:23): I move:

That the bill be now read a third time.

 David DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan) (21:23): I want to make a simple comment here that this is a bill that gives extraordinary powers to a minister, whoever that may be, and there needs to be some way to ensure that those extraordinary powers are used fairly. We believe that, at a minimum, a memorandum of understanding should be signed and worked through to ensure that the bill is not used capriciously or arbitrarily by a minister, including the current minister.

Motion agreed to.

Read third time.

The PRESIDENT: Pursuant to standing order 14.28, the bill will be returned to the Assembly with a message informing them that the Council have agreed to the bill without amendment.