Wednesday, 13 May 2026

 David ETTERSHANK (Western Metropolitan) (10:11): I move:

That this house:

(1)   notes the failure of the Victorian government to release its sustainable data centre action plan; and

(2)   requires the Leader of the Government, in accordance with standing order 10.01, to table in the Council, within 30 days of the house agreeing to this resolution, a copy of the sustainable data centre action plan.

The Premier has made no secret of her intention to make Victoria the data centre capital of the Asia Pacific region. She has vowed to ruthlessly compete against other states to make that a reality. The regulatory approach the government has adopted in its bid to attract data centre investment is basically to just let it run. According to the former minister for economic growth Danny Pearson, if there are unforeseen, adverse consequences, then they will intervene and try to deal with this – ‘try’, presumably, is the operative word.

With data centres in Europe and the US wreaking havoc on local water and energy supplies, I believe we have seen sufficient evidence of numerous foreseeable adverse consequences attached to data centre facilities. Communities are not reassured by the government’s laissez-faire approach. As more of these facilities are approved, I am not the only member in this place to raise their community’s entirely reasonable concerns that these centres are receiving lightning-fast approvals without consultation, without sufficient environmental standards and without the necessary social licence.

However, the Victorian government apparently does have a plan, a $5.5 million sustainable data centre action plan, which has been mentioned in numerous press releases and by the former Minister for Water in her responses to questions without notice. The sustainable data centre action plan will:

… use transport, energy and water usage data, including recycled water, to determine where data centres can be built sustainably.

This would be achieved:

… through a coordinated, whole-of-government approach to investment, planning and workforce development.

The recently published AI driven, business-ready mission statement assures us that the action plan is a key initiative under the Victorian government’s AI mission statement, which is a vision for the state to develop and adopt AI safely, responsibly and for the benefit of all Victorians.

The plan, which will act as a set of guidelines for sector development, appears to cover many of the concerns that Victorians have around the introduction of these technologies. The whole-of-government approach to investment, planning and workforce development will purportedly deliver coordinated infrastructure, land and connectivity; energy innovation and grid readiness; sustainable water security and management; a skilled and future-ready workforce; and strengthened leadership and coordination.

Back in December, when we inquired, the action plan was only weeks away. Since then we have seen repeated statements from government and on the Department of Job, Skill Industry and Regions website that this plan has been completed and is being applied. The web page concerned, which was updated only four weeks ago, says:

As Victoria’s data centre footprint grows, we want to make sure this growth is well planned, efficient and responsible. The Sustainable Data Centre Action Plan sets out how we will achieve this through a coordinated, whole-of-government approach to investment, planning and workforce development.

Based on that sort of statement, the plan must surely exist. The only problem is that the plan does not seem to be available. As I said, it is referenced repeatedly on the government’s website and in various media releases, yet it is not downloadable, and multiple calls to ministerial staff and departmental contacts have resulted in either no greater clarity or a suggestion that it has either not been produced yet or is for internal government use only. Really?

Given the growing community concern and the urgent need for some parameters around the sector, let us recognise that is a fact. I mean, last month the government announced the approval of a gigantic data centre at Fishermans Bend that had been approved with little or no consultation only 75 days after it had been lodged with the Department of Transport and Planning. If this is a plan to truly benefit Victorians, if it is to respond strategically to the many very valid concerns that the community has, the government should be happy to release it publicly so that all Victorians can see how this government will both ensure the maximising of returns to the community while concurrently addressing the very real environmental threats posed by these so-called factories of the future. We recognise this is important technology. We are not being Luddites here, but we are saying unequivocally this should be done with a social licence and a consciousness of the social consequences of doing it. Accordingly, we call on the government to release its much-vaunted sustainable data centre action plan.

 Sonja TERPSTRA (North-Eastern Metropolitan) (10:16): I rise to make a contribution on this motion moved by Legalise Cannabis Victoria calling on the government to release its sustainable data centre action plan and requiring the Leader of the Government, in accordance with standing order 10.01, to table in the Council within 30 days of the house agreeing to the resolution a copy of the sustainable data centre action plan.

This is a documents motion, and it is the government’s practice not to oppose documents motions, so we will not be opposing this motion. I had the benefit of listening to Mr Ettershank’s contribution on this motion, and I must say I am a little bit confused. In looking at some of the research around this matter, there are a couple of points that I would like to address. Mr Ettershank did go to one of those points himself, which is that there is available on the Department of Jobs, Skills, Industry and Regions website a URL link that is titled ‘Sustainable Data Centre Action Plan’, and he acknowledges that. Within that URL there are five points to the action plan, and it goes into a bit of detail. There are other links of course. If you want to participate in being part of growing these data centres, there are various opportunities to do that with investment and the like. I do not know, it kind of looks like a plan to me, but nevertheless what I think Mr Ettershank is asking is if there is a physical copy of it. You could probably print off the URL, but nevertheless it is kind of a bit bizarre.

I note that our government is already home to 40 data centres. Thanks to our outstanding land, energy and talent, we are emerging as a prominent data centre hub in the Asia-Pacific. I note Mr Ettershank’s comments where he said, ‘Oh, we’re not Luddites.’ Well, I am sorry, I think you are. You are Luddites, because anytime somebody tries to do anything positive for Victorians that involves growing jobs, growing opportunities for our economy, we get constant negative criticism from those on the crossbench sometimes about how we should do things better. The lecturing goes on and on and on. Mr Ettershank went to some of this in his contribution as well. We talk about the water that is involved in these sorts of things – I am reading the notes; I am reading the action plan that talks about how, for anybody who might be going to set up a data centre or whatever, recycled water is something that would be more beneficial to use. But I also then looked at how much water growing a crop of cannabis requires. For example, cannabis plants can require up to 23 litres of water per plant per day. Maybe the Nimbin Hemp Embassy could come up with a plan – it might be an optimistic plan – that involves using perhaps recycled bong water or recycled water for cannabis crops for data centres.

David Ettershank interjected.

Sonja TERPSTRA: We get the guffawing, hypocritical laughter from Legalise Cannabis down there, which is Mr Ettershank’s wont, but again they are low on solutions, high on criticism and have no solutions for a plan. As I said, Victoria is already home to 40 data centres. We have invested $5.5 million in the sustainable data centre action plan, and we are going to unlock projects worth up to $25 billion in potential capital expenditure. But if you listen to Mr Ettershank and Legalise Cannabis, again there are no solutions, just ‘We want to see a document.’ I think my advice to Mr Ettershank would be to download the URL and print it off. Honestly, if you cannot even search properly on the internet but you want a paper – and I might note that whenever we print off any paper, water is actually a very –

David Ettershank: On a point of order, President, I am not sure where Ms Terpstra is going here, but I actually specifically quoted from the webpage she is referring to as though it is the plan.

The PRESIDENT: I do not think that is a point of order.

Sonja TERPSTRA: There is no point of order there, and I know Mr Ettershank is trying to waste my clock with frivolous points of order. I would ask that you note that, because frivolous points of order should not be entertained. Nevertheless, if we want to print off documents, paper actually requires a lot of water usage as well, so I am actually quite disturbed that Mr Ettershank cannot look at a URL but wants paper that requires the use of a lot of water in its production. Really what we are hearing today is a new level of ridiculousness from Legalise Cannabis – but, hey, what have we come to expect in this chamber? As I said, it is the government’s practice not to oppose documents motions of this like. And I do look forward to the Nimbin Hemp Embassy emails. To whoever signed me up to those: wow. Aren’t they a read? They take hours to get through, and the content is so heavy I wonder who wrote it and what they were on. But nevertheless, I look forward to the Nimbin Hemp Embassy’s plan to recycle water that gets used on cannabis crops and in bongs.

 David DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan) (10:21): I thank Mr Ettershank for bringing this motion to the chamber. It is a timely and sensible and practical motion. We are all interested in the future with data centres. We all see the importance of data centres, but it is clear that there are significant challenges. The contribution that we have just heard – as the member leaves the chamber – is a contribution that I think is best left alone. I think it was an extraordinary contribution but shows how out of touch many in this government actually are.

For those who are interested, it is clear that energy usage on data centres will grow very significantly. The Australian Energy Market Operator has put out new figures, which are on the front page of the Financial Review this morning, suggesting 25 terawatts of power by 2036, up from a lower estimate just a very short period ago and climbing further beyond that – so there are genuine energy issues. There are genuine issues of community engagement and involvement, and Mr Ettershank has pointed to those. I note New South Wales, unlike Victoria, are going through a more thoughtful process of taking public submissions and working through a process of how they can put in place a proper framework to support these centres and put proper controls and practical steps around them. This is not too much to ask.

The Victorian government, in its usual secretive manner, does not want to engage with the community. The Port Melbourne case that Mr Ettershank pointed to is a case study in how not to engage the community or how to fail completely to engage the local community. The opposition, the Liberals and the Nationals, are very interested in this. We see the importance of data centres and we see the importance of the economy being driven by some of these changes, but it is important to have a proper framework around them. There do need to be proper steps for water. I note, and it has certainly been pointed out to me, that a number of the newer centres use a gel mix so the water requirements are much less, so there may be longer term some solutions to the water issue. But that is again a matter for proper investigation and proper engagement rather than the frivolous response that we had from the other side of the chamber just now.

Mr Welch and I are sort of looking at and talking to many people about these issues at the moment, and it is very much the state that Victoria is drifting a long way behind the other states on this in every sense of the word. Mr Pearson and others say, ‘Oh, well, we’re going to do this and we’re going to do that,’ but having a sensible framework in place is what is actually required.

This motion is in the public interest. It is in the public interest to see these documents and, I would argue, any submissions, material or consultancy work that the government has relied on around its particular plan here, because that would inform the community as well and would enable members –

David Ettershank interjected.

David DAVIS: There is one, is there?

David Ettershank interjected.

David DAVIS: Well, no. If the government has done some thoughtful research – there is no particular sign of that, but if that is the case – it would be very helpful to see those documents as well, and we may well ask through FOI for some of those documents. I understand why you are wanting to seek a single document, but this is such a case that if there is taxpayers money being used on consultancies they should properly be in the public domain as well. Without labouring the point, this is a sensible motion and we support it.

 Sarah MANSFIELD (Western Victoria) (10:26): I thank Mr Ettershank for bringing this motion to the house. I have also been disturbed by the unbridled enthusiasm with which the Victorian Labor government has embraced data centres. They have adopted an approach of ‘Bring them in and sort out the problems later’. Currently there are 58 data centres in operation, and there are many more – some extraordinarily large – on the way. These centres generate a lot of heat, and the bigger the hotter. To cool down they need to use either a lot of energy or a lot of water or a combination of both. We have seen reporting today that shows that electricity use in Victoria has gone up more than expected, largely because of data centres. But at the moment, because of water’s relatively low price in Victoria and the permissive regulatory environment, this is actually the preferred option for cooling for many centres, and it is integral to the current plans for the hyperscale facilities that are being built across Victoria. These centres have computational intensity that generates heat loads that exceed the capacity of conventional air cooling, so they rely on evaporative cooling or hybrid water-cooled systems to lower their energy costs. If you want to know about the technical details, I will refer you to an excellent paper that was recently written by the Concerned Waterways Alliance.

While there is a broad load of greenwashing going on based on potential advances in gel mixtures and other things that could reduce the energy and water impact of these facilities, there are currently no mandatory requirements in place in Victoria. When challenged on the environmental aspects of data centres, the Labor government has talked about the sustainable data centre action plan yet cannot seem to provide any details about what this is. In fact it is not even clear that the plan exists, although we are told today by Ms Terpstra that what is on the website is the plan. It cost in excess of $5 million, we are told, to develop this plan, and if what is on the website is the extent of it, that is an absolute disgrace. That is not a plan. A suggestion that recycled water might be a bit better – that is not a plan. It is not a mandatory standard. When I asked an adjournment question recently for the Premier, the response I got was:

… we want to make sure this growth is well planned, efficient and responsible. The Sustainable Data Centre Action Plan sets out how we will achieve this through a coordinated, whole-of-government approach to investment, planning and workforce development.

It:

… addresses 5 key areas to sustainably grow the sector, from information on land availability and planning, to sustainable energy and water provision, and the skilled workforce needed for the future.

That is not a plan. We need more detail than that. There are no mandatory standards currently in place. That is what a plan would provide.

As I said earlier, the approach the government has taken is ‘Approve now, deal with the problems later.’ We only have to look abroad, as Mr Ettershank pointed out, to see why this is an absolutely terrible approach. The energy and water needs are devastating communities and ecosystems overseas, and countries are now being forced to play catch-up. When we know what it leads to, why on earth wouldn’t we take the opportunity to get the settings right first? The cost of this is not just going to be felt in dollars, although as it stands water and energy costs for consumers risk being pushed up by data centres. Victoria’s river systems are already experiencing severe flow stress. We are already consuming more electricity than we can meet the needs of with our renewable energy transition. All of these things are at risk. There are the flow-on effects of that: on our food production, ecosystem decline, even our drinking water and the quality of it are at risk. Yet the Victorian Labor government are once again showing their true colours, putting the profit of private corporations ahead of people and the environment. If that is not the case, then I look forward to seeing evidence of that document that is being requested today, and I commend the motion to the house.

 Richard WELCH (North-Eastern Metropolitan) (10:30): The AI transition is going to come; there is no question about it. The real question is whether we are going to have a good transition or a bad transition. There are many attributes to a good transition, and you only need to compare them to a bad transition. One of the elements of a bad transition is lack of social licence and ethical basis. The Liberal–National position is that the ethical and social licence element of the AI transition is as foundational as data centres, and if you do not have that, then you will inhibit the actual growth of the value that we will gain from the AI transition. So I consider social licence an enabler, not problematic. If we can see where the plan is – the plan currently is whatever was in Danny Pearson’s head.

Motion agreed to.