Bill - Energy and Land Legislation Amendment (Energy Safety) Bill 2025

BILL

‘ENERGY AND LAND LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (ENERGY SAFETY) BILL 2025 ‘.

Wednesday, 19 February 2025.

James NEWBURY (Brighton) (10:42):

I rise to speak on the Energy and Land Legislation Amendment (Energy Safety) Bill 2025.

This Bill, like a number of Bills that we have spoken about in this place, seemingly does some good things. It seemingly does some good things, and it would seem to be fixing issues that exist. The guise, if you listen to the Minister and the Government, is that this Bill is about fixing problems that exist in the energy system, but it does not.

What this Bill actually does is sneakily try to bring through amendments, under the guise of a more generic Bill, which do not fix the problems we have in the energy system, and which remove proper accountability measures for the Government. What is worse, and this is an issue that we have seen for the life of this Government and frankly is a cornerstone of this Minister, the Minister for Energy and Resources, is the removal of the private sector, the pushing away of the private sector, from the energy system. I heard one of the Government Members say ‘Thank God’ when it was said, which just confirms the type of attitude this Government has to –

Steve McGhie interjected.

James NEWBURY: The Member continues to attack energy providers who get energy into people’s homes. I started, when speaking about this Bill, by saying that this Bill tries to sneakily bring through changes that frankly do not fix issues that exist but attack the private sector in the work that they do.

It turns out it was not just sneaky, because Members of this Chamber have confirmed it and the sector knows it. So, it is important to put on the record at the start that this is a furtherance of the Government’s ideological agenda to ban gas in this state. This is another step in that process of banning gas in people’s homes and in access for businesses to gas. We know the absolutely diabolical effect that Labor’s gas ban, which we as a coalition do not support and will never support, will have on this State.

I will briefly mention what this Bill supposedly does, and then we will get into more detail. It makes a number of Amendments to the Electricity Safety Act 1998, the Gas Safety Act 1997, the Pipelines Act 2005 and the Energy Safe Victoria Act 2005 under the guise of the Government saying that these changes are required because of the shift in the way our energy system operates in this state – a move from a centralised system, which we have talked about in this Chamber around a number of legislative reforms over recent years, to a, for want of a better term, grid-like model. We have gone from a centralised system towards a grid-like model. So, it does make sense that there are changes needed in the way that we operate the oversight of that because of those changes. Some of the changes the Coalition does not oppose. We talk about a deterrence needing to be put in place in the way that energy is provided, and operators perform. That makes sense, because if you are changing how energy is generated and the type of provider that generates it, you need to make sure that there is a safeguard and a framework around that. We have seen a small number of examples where things have gone wrong and people have done the wrong thing, so having a framework is important. That is why it is important to note that the Coalition does not oppose certain frameworks of safety.

But the Bill also does things like remove the Electric Line Clearance Consultative Committee and the Victorian Electrolysis Committee from the system, which is a practical example of what we were talking about earlier – the Government removing expert advice because of course this Government thinks it knows best. Why would you remove an independent set of experts from providing advice on where things could be done differently or better? The Coalition strongly opposes the Government’s attempt to remove the Committees from the process, because I think it underlines exactly where this Government goes wrong – this Government, which thinks that the bureaucrats or the Department or the Minister know better than the independent experts. On that particular measure the Coalition does not support what the Government is proposing.

There are a number of other issues, including, for example, Energy Safe’s corporate plan being moved from one year to three years. Clearly it is concerning to see any measure –and the Coalition again has concerns with this one – in which accountability is reduced. Why would you propose a system whereby there is less transparent reporting? Transparent reporting should be the cornerstone of a good democratic Government. The amendment to remove accountability in the way that it currently exists is another element about which the Coalition has concerns.

I note the importance of and the need for ongoing accountability in the energy space, because if you just look at the Victorian Greenhouse Gas Emissions Report, which was tabled in November last year, at the end of the year we saw a 5.4 per cent increase in total State emissions. If we let the Government do what they want to do – that is, reduce accountability in this space – we would see less truth being told in terms of their performance, because we know that there are performance issues. We know that the Government’s management of this transition is flawed. We have heard very little about the Government’s emissions increase, which was reported in November last year. The Government has spent 10 years talking about their emissions reduction, and yet this report, which was tabled in November – for the record, the Victorian Greenhouse Gas Emissions Report – shows a 5.4 per cent increase in emissions. If you overlay that type of reporting on this Bill and the requirement to delay reporting from one year to three years, what won’t we know as a community? It is important to recognise that this, frankly, removes accountability other than potentially private side conversations with the minister rather than full public transparency which all Victorians deserve.

The Bill does a number of other things too, including allowing the Minister to enter into lease agreements. It changes arrangements for and clarifies lease agreements. Again, it is an issue that is not fully transparent, so the Coalition will be proposing a number of Amendments that deal with issues that have been raised and to deal with that matter. The lease arrangements of the Minister power is another concern that the Coalition has with this Bill. Having noted the three concerns thus far, which I will speak to in more detail, under Standing Orders I wish to advise the House of Amendments to this Bill and request that they be circulated.

Amendments circulated under standing orders.

James NEWBURY: If I may reiterate the concerns that are framed in those Amendments, firstly, the bill’s removal and cutting of the Electric Line Clearance Consultative Committee and the Victorian Electrolysis Committee – we will seek to amend the legislation to ensure that the Committees are not disbanded and that their advice remains ongoing, because those Committees provide independent expert advice.

One of the hallmarks of having the Minister for Energy and Resources manage the energy system is centralisation and being a Minister who knows better than everybody else. Given what we have seen in terms of outcomes, clearly that is not the case. We certainly do not support the disbanding of those Committees, and we will be seeking to amend the Bill to ensure that they continue.

You cannot scrap a Committee because you do not like the advice they deliver, and that is actually what this comes down to on one of these particular Committees. The Minister does not like the advice the Committee provided. That is not a reason to stop the advice being given, because experts do know better, I would submit, than the minister. Simply not liking the advice is not a reason to disband a committee. That is the first amendment.

The Energy Safe requirement for annual corporate plans, which I touched on before, the tabling of those and the annual nature of that reporting, is being sought to be amended by the government. We do not support that. We support ongoing transparency. We see no reason as a coalition for it not to be published annually. We see absolutely no reason to go around proper measures of transparency, so our second Amendment goes to that particular issue.

And finally, our third issue raised in the Amendments goes to the new lease arrangements on unreserved Crown land. We would seek to add a transparency measure in relation to that power which would require the publishing of the agreements that are entered into. That is not unreasonable. Again, it is a transparency measure.

If you look at all three of the Amendments that the Coalition is seeking to move, all of them go to the heart of ongoing transparency, all of them go to stopping the Government from not being transparent and in the strongest case, in relation to the Committee, stopping the government from cutting a committee where the Minister does not like the advice from independent experts. Across all three measures there is a strong theme. Though this House will not have a process to deal with each Amendments separately, because the Government, as I understand it, has refused to take this Bill into Consideration in Detail, we do hope that the other place may consider these Amendments too.

It is disappointing, I should note, that the Government has refused to take this Bill into Consideration in Detail. Frankly, it is not overly surprising given that in this term of Parliament only one Bill has been taken by the Government into Consideration in Detail. The government would have the option of providing a fixed time on Consideration in Detail, so you certainly could not argue that it is too time onerous. There could be a small allotment of time which would allow the house to consider each of the Amendments on their merits, and you could do that in a time-reasonable way. But in this term, we have seen one instance. I believe in the last term there was one instance as well, which is an extremely, extremely small proportion in terms of the presumably couple of hundred Bills that we would deal with over a term for less than 1 per cent of them, half of 1 per cent, to be taken into consideration. The Coalition had hoped that on this Bill there would be an opportunity to take it into consideration, but that was not the case.

I spoke earlier not only about transparency but this Bill being a furtherance to the Government’s ideological gas ban. We know this Government wants to ban gas, and we know that it is coming at the expense of security of gas supply and security of energy supply for current Victorians, for future Victorians and for future generations.

Steve Dimopoulos interjected.

James NEWBURY: The Minister is saying energy bills are too high. I completely agree, Minister. No-one else pays my energy bills; I pay my energy bills. Can you believe that the Minister has admitted that energy bills are too high? Of course they are too high.

Steve Dimopoulos: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, the Member for Brighton, as always, has misrepresented me.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is not a point of order, Minister, it is a matter for debate.

James NEWBURY: The tape will show what the minister said, Deputy Speaker. Earlier we had one Member confirm that energy providers should somehow not be in the energy system – in fact the quote was ‘Thank God the Government is pushing them out’ – and another Minister complained about energy bills being too high. Well, I tell you what –

Steve Dimopoulos interjected.

James NEWBURY: Who else pays the energy Bills in my house? Me. Of course I pay them. We have the Minister confirming the problem that we are talking about over and over on this side of the place, what Victorians are talking about over and over. Mismanagement of the energy system leads to higher bills. That is what has happened. I am trying to educate the Minister as to why energy bills are higher. I think the Minister does not understand that mismanagement of the energy system has caused bills to increase in the way he is complaining about. It is as if he has come into this place and suddenly energy bills have got higher by magic – that they just somehow got more expensive by magic. No, they got more expensive because this Government for 10 years has mismanaged the system.

You hear the same thing when it comes to the management of our economy. We have got too much debt, and we are paying too much interest on it, and somehow the Government have not worked out it is their financial vandalism that has caused it. It is extraordinary that we had the Minister himself come into this place and complain about the cost of energy without accepting any responsibility as a Government for causing it. How completely extraordinary.

We know that this Government, when they see there is a political problem, pretend to do something about it. We heard before Christmas the Premier talk about gas – only once. Only once have we heard the Premier talk about gas: ‘Gas isn’t so bad.’ The Premier dipped her toe into the water. ‘Gas isn’t too bad. I don’t hate gas,’ the Premier said, just the once, at the same time as introducing a Bill into this place to ban gas in homes. Can you believe it? The Premier came out, realised there was a political problem and said, ‘I don’t hate gas. Don’t go after me.’ She recognised, because the polling was telling her – not because it actually is needed, only because the polls tell her – that she cannot hate gas.

So, the Premier said she does not hate gas and then introduced a Bill into this Parliament to ban gas in homes. Victorians have seen through it. Victorians know this Government is banning gas, and Victorians know that the alternate Government, the Opposition, do not want to ban gas. We do not want to ban gas, and we will not. We will not ban gas. We will reverse Labor’s gas ban, and Victorians know that. Victorians know that we will reverse Labor’s gas ban.

This Government now, for a second time, in the second sitting week of the year, has a Bill that has been brought into this place that furthers Labor’s ideological gas ban. Since the Premier came out and pretended that she cared about gas, which Victorians need and rely on, the Government has since introduced two bills into this Chamber – two Bills in the two sitting weeks thereafter –the first one banning gas in homes and this one increasing the penalties around gas. Anything this Government says to you, Victorians, about gas is fake. It is totally and utterly fake. In the last sitting week, they banned gas in your homes, and in this they are increasing penalties around gas. That is what they are doing.

At the start of this contribution I talked about the Government introducing a Bill which would seemingly do some good things, but they have tried to sneak a number of measures into this Bill which we fundamentally disagree with. So not only have we circulated Amendments to the Bill, but we certainly cannot support it in its current form, and we will not support it in its current form. It does not mean that every single thing in this bill we disagree with. For example, the bushfire mitigation we think is a reasonable measure. The changes in plan arrangements on that measure we support. We think they are eminently reasonable. But as I said, the Government has tried to put through a few things that make sense but sneak through a raft of others which we cannot support, and so we have circulated Amendments to the Bill.

It is worth pointing out as we talk about energy supply and security around energy supply, which is in many ways a core component of the Bill, the energy supply issues that have been raised over recent days, which we still have not heard a statement from the government on in relation to the fundamental issues of supply when they talk about the proposed renewable project at the Port of Hastings. On the weekend we saw reports of documents, minutes and other paperwork surrounding the extraordinary events last year where this government had proposed, in partnership obviously with industry, a project at the Port of Hastings, and the Federal Government – the Federal Labor Government – said no for environmental reasons. She said no, the Federal Minister for the Environment.

For the recollection of the House, we remember the Minister for Environment at the time not coming out and speaking to the Victorian community about why that failure occurred, going missing for several days, and another Minister not knowing basic details around the proposal. The Premier, embarrassingly – to be fair to the Premier, I do not think it was her fault; I think she was badly briefed and was getting basic details wrong – stated at the time that the Government had provided the Federal Government with everything they needed, and instead we found out that there were issues in relation to work the Minister for Planning had done, which was a discrepancy with the Premier. But also, then the Minister for Environment, when he finally found his way out, said that he would need to review the decision by the Federal Environment Minister because it had not yet been released. But that had been on a public website for a week. That is very, very embarrassing. You had two Ministers and the Premier not understanding the project.

What has happened over recent days is a series of documents have been released, which is very, very concerning, because they suggest that the behaviour of the State Government was ‘not appropriate’. That is a direct quote from the Secretary of the Federal Environment Department – that it would not be appropriate to push for or co-design a project with the State Government that somehow seemed to bypass or work around federal law. That is why the Shadow Minister for Energy and Resources David Davis in the other place referred those matters to the independent anti-corruption agency, IBAC, because when you have the Secretary of a Federal Department saying that a State Government’s behaviour is ‘not appropriate’ that should ring alarm bells.

I can understand, though they should not have done it, why the Government was so incredibly embarrassed that they tried to strongarm the Federal Government. I can understand the motive, but good sense should have said, ‘We are a good Government and therefore we would not seek to somehow bypass Federal law. Of course we won’t do that.’ But they have been caught behaving inappropriately, and that is why this issue has been referred to IBAC. There are serious questions that need to be answered not only about the behaviour but also as this goes to the core of energy supply. If we cannot get projects like these off the ground because the Government has not worked out how to work through with industry ways to get things right, how do we have secure energy supply? We do not. We know that when it comes to wind energy there is a legislative target, but there ain’t no way this State is going to reach it. I think we all know that to be true.

When it comes to this Bill, the Coalition has circulated Amendments. They go to issues around transparency. Frankly, they go to issues around Ministerial behaviour. Those Amendments, I would hope, not only in this place but in the other place, can be considered very seriously because we cannot support the Bill while it is in the form that it currently is. We hope that the Parliament looks closely at those Amendments, which are very reasonable and would add to a more robust system.