Friday, 28 August 2026

 David DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan) (10:51): I am pleased to rise and make a contribution to the Energy and Resources Legislation Amendment (VEET Strategic Review and Other Matters) Bill 2026. The Victorian energy efficiency target (VEET) is the legislative and certificate-based scheme established under the Victorian Energy Efficiency Target Act 2007. It requires energy retailers to generate certificates representing emissions reduction or else pay a shortfall penalty if they fail to meet the targets. The act is designed to promote the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and energy efficiency. The Victorian energy upgrades is the public-facing part of that program. Accredited providers create certificates by delivering eligible energy upgrades, and the value of those certificates helps fund discounts for households and businesses. When consumers switch or upgrade to more energy-efficient products and services, they can access discounts and rebates through the VEU. The scheme is in the order of $600 million to $700 million and is paid through a levy on every household and business electricity consumer.

This is an increasing matter that will require greater transparency and openness. This is a significant component of the bills of families and businesses. The VEU program and the VEET scheme management have been diabolical in many cases, Multiple corrupt distributors have been a highlight. People will remember at one point the delivery of multiple fridges to commercial premises. Some aspects of the scheme are unopposed, but we had shonks and crooks running the scheme for a while and there were multiple efforts to constrain that. Then we had the incompetence of the delivery of up to six fridges to one business premises. In many cases people were keen on a single energy-efficient fridge, but very few of the businesses needed two or four or even in some cases six new energy-efficient fridges delivered to their premises. What I am saying here – it was very stark, as people will remember, the fridges lined up outside the front of the businesses or stacked in some cases up high – is that the scheme has been run in a diabolically bad way on many occasions. There has not been proper cost control and there has not been proper oversight over the scheme.

The department runs the scheme, and the department undertook a strategic review in 2025. That strategic review has never been released despite multiple requests and documents orders. It is notable that the documents orders for the scheme have been flagrantly disregarded by government and the strategic review has not been released. We do seek its release and we will move a reasoned amendment to say we should not proceed until the government provides that review. The documents were ordered by the Parliament – Ms Terpstra was talking about documents a moment ago – but this is a classic case where the department does a review into its own performance. We think it is like getting your kids to mark their own homework. It is probably not the best review, but there has been a review done. The government has based two tranches of legislation on that review and they refuse to show it to anyone.

The Parliament asked for it on 2 April 2025, seeking the submissions to the VEU strategic review as well. On 16 April 2025 the government gave the standard response that they did not have enough time. They have since made no attempt to comply with the orders of Parliament and provide the documents. Really? It is a strategic review paid for by the department and taxpayers. It looks at the program that is in the previous bill and in this bill and it makes recommendations, but the government does not want to show us what the review says. Why would that be? Why is the government so resistant? What do they have to hide? I think they have got quite a lot to hide, because I think even a modest strategic review done by the department looking at itself would not be able to sweep every failing of the scheme away. We think the review should be in the public domain. We do not think that is a lot to ask. It has already been paid for by taxpayers, and the chamber ought to have a chance to look at this strategic review. No document provision despite the request – what on earth is the reason for that? I do not believe there is any legitimate reason.

We will put a second-reading reasoned amendment to demand that the bill should not proceed until the strategic review is released. Of course the government could just release the strategic review now. They could just give it to every member of the chamber and say, ‘Have a look; you can make your own conclusions about what’s in the review.’ It would take them literally minutes to comply with that request. Alternatively, we could even have moved this at the beginning of the committee of the whole as a way to seek some further information. I also make it clear that most of the amendments in this bill are not rejected by the opposition; we will not oppose the bill in that sense, so let us be clear about that.

We do also make an election commitment that we will release the strategic review – the secret strategic review that the government has now for 18 months sought to hide. Why? What is the terrible thing that is in that review? The election commitment is that we will release that review quickly on coming to government. Let us see what they had to hide and why.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Gaelle Broad): Mr Davis, would you like to move the reasoned amendment now?

David DAVIS: Yes, that would be fine. It is actually quite straightforward. I move:

That all the words after ‘That’ be omitted and replaced with ‘this house refuses to read this bill a second time until the government releases the strategic review of the Victorian energy upgrades scheme undertaken by the Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action.’

The main purpose of the bill is to expand and update the energy upgrades scheme following the government’s strategic review – the secret strategic review – broadening the objectives beyond greenhouse gas emissions reduction, including principles and updating terminology to align with that particular expansion. The bill also has a mechanism to allow certificates to be created for the delivery of benefits in addition to emissions reduction in line with the expanded objectives of the VEU. My concern with these sorts of expansions is you have got a scheme that is poorly run, a scheme that has got a track record of careering out of control, a scheme that has got a track record of delivering multiple fridges to businesses when they are not requested, and you want to expand it. So we have a level of caution in this. We are not opposing the bill, but we mark this out with a measure of caution. We do not trust the government’s ability to do this. We think the review should be in the public domain.

The role of the Essential Services Commission (ESC) is also strengthened in regulating the VEU and providing greater consumer protection, it is claimed. I think there are legitimate questions about how well the Essential Services Commission has managed its role in this scheme, and the strategic review, you would hope, actually goes to those matters. There are legitimate questions about how effectively the Essential Services Commission has managed these matters. The bill also makes some separate amendments to the electricity industry and gas industry acts to establish a register of gas licence exemptions held by the ESC and extend mine rehabilitation licences and obligations. In particular, the bill extends the Hazelwood mining licence for rehabilitation purposes.

Clauses 1 and 2 set out the main purposes of the bill and establish the phased commencement. Clauses 3 to 7 rename the Victorian Energy Efficiency Target Act to the Victorian Energy Upgrades Target Act 2007 – so we change the name – and add objectives concerning energy affordability and flexible demand together. I should say that the response of demand management is a very important part of our approach as a community. Certainly, if we are elected, the opposition will be focusing on what we can do to enhance demand management of our energy supplies. We are obviously awash in many parts of the day with solar now. Batteries have got a critical role, and we understand that. But more can be done with demand management, shifting usage and shifting the time periods when appliance and other energy consumption occur to the times closer to and as part of those periods where there is significant energy in the system that sometimes is seeking a home. Clauses 8 to 9 give the ESC a clearer responsibility for administering the VEU, and we do not disagree with that. But at the same time, the review should have looked at the behaviour and the competence of the ESC, and the review is still secret. So we are giving more power over here although it is very clear that the ESC has been less than perfect in oversighting the scheme.

Clauses 10 to 34 establish activities allowing the minister to declare eligible VEU activities and determine classification calculations and conditions. Powers may be delegated to the departmental secretary. Clauses 35 and 36 target adjustment orders, allowing the minister to increase or decrease the annual VEU target when considered necessary. Clauses 37 to 40 allow energy retailers and other relevant entities to carry forward up to 10 per cent of their annual certificate liability into the following year. Clauses 41 to 46 require information relating to consumer discounts, upgrade prices and certificate transfer prices to be given to the ESC and in special circumstances published. Clauses 47 and 48 widen the circumstance in which the ESC can share information. Clause 49 requires the minister to cause a review of the operations of the act to be concluded on or before 1 October 2032. We think that is too far away given the secret strategic review has never been released. We think that needs to be in the public domain, and it may be that any deficiencies in that review need to be remedied by further, earlier review. Clauses 50 to 54 limit statutory self-incrimination protections to natural persons rather than corporations. Clauses 55 to 64 broaden officer inspection, search, questioning and warrant powers. This government is always after more powers. Clauses 65 to 118 – ‘Other amendments’ – make terminology and consequential changes.

Part 3 amends the Essential Services Commission Act 2001 to replace terminology dealing with the ESC’s function and amends the Local Government Act 1989 and the Victorian Energy Efficiency Target Act 2007. Parts 4 and 5 amend the Electricity Industry Act 2000 and the Gas Industry Act 2001 to regulate or prohibit specified electricity and gas fees and establish a register of gas licence exemptions. Part 6 deals with extending the rehabilitation and bond obligations of the former authority holders and extends Hazelwood’s mining licence until its declared mine rehabilitation plan takes effect. Part 7, through clause 146, automatically repeals the amending act.

As I say, this is not a bill that we want to oppose, but we do have those issues. Where are the public submissions to the review? A wide range of stakeholders submitted.

Jacinta Ermacora: Just say what you are going to do.

David DAVIS: Well, a large amount of public money has been spent on the review. What do you have to hide, Ms Ermacora? What is it that the government wants to hide? Why?

Members interjecting.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Gaelle Broad): Order! I will just remind members to speak through the Chair.

David DAVIS: We consulted with a large range of stakeholders on this bill. They raised concerns about the bill’s impact on consumers – costs and prices – and the effect on investment. These are legitimate points in the context of the failure to release the review and all of the submissions to the review. We think it has been hard to pull out some of the detail that we would have liked on this.

Let us make the point very clearly. We are not opposing the bill. We do have some reservations about the management of the scheme. Even you, Ms Ermacora, cannot think it is a good idea to see six fridges delivered to a business unrequested. That is not a good idea. Even you have to admit that. Come on, let us be generous and admit that that is not a good thing, or do you want to defend it? You want to defend it, do you?

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Gaelle Broad): Mr Davis, I remind you to make comments via the Chair.

David DAVIS: Yes, I do know I have got to talk through the Chair. I have said what I need to say. We have moved the reasoned amendment. We will not oppose the bill. We know there are problems with the scheme. The scheme does perform some very useful functions, though, and they need to be performed in a way that delivers for the community and does that in a cost-effective way.

 Tom McINTOSH (Eastern Victoria) (11:06): I rise to speak in support of the Energy and Resources Legislation Amendment (VEET Strategic Review and Other Matters) Bill 2026. I am going to follow on from the interjection of Ms Ermacora. Energy is an incredibly serious matter. It is central to our economy. Our economy does not function without energy. We have just seen the Shadow Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction – the alternative government on the other side – waffling on for 15 to 20 minutes, as we have seen him do repeatedly when he needs to speak on energy, offering nothing to Victorians. Our families in their homes need affordable electricity. Our industry needs affordable, reliable electricity, and our small businesses need it. It is so crucial to everything we do in this state, and that is why I am incredibly proud to be a member of the Labor Party, which has put consistent policy out to the public and out to industry for two decades. Meanwhile those on the other side have played politics with it all.

From a consumer perspective the Labor Party supported solar on people’s homes and the Liberals opposed it – they laughed at it. Now 40 per cent of homes have solar on their rooftops. Batteries have rolled out and are now in 600,000 homes across Australia. EVs – we know they have smirked and laughed at them. One in three cars sold is now a plug-in electric vehicle. This is all about people getting energy independence. It is about ensuring affordable electricity flows down the wires to their homes and to their businesses. It is about ensuring that they feel secure in the electricity that they can generate and consume in their own homes. Part of that security, from a grid perspective, is the support that solar and wind farms have had in clear policy settings, and that has been absent from those on the other side. There is the investment the Victorian government has made in bringing back the SEC and public investment in generation and in storage. We saw the Southern Hemisphere’s biggest battery installed near Melton – 1.6 gigawatts – taking demand off the grid at peak times. We know what that has done: that has reduced power prices. We have got the cheapest power prices in Australia in Victoria because we have been consistent with our policies and we have given certainty to investment.

I was just recently out at the Delburn wind farm, the SEC’s third project, a 200-megawatt wind farm only kilometres from the Hazelwood North pit mine. There are transmission lines going past and a line of sight to the existing pit mine, the substations and everything there. What do the Nationals do? They come in with petitions against it. There are hundreds of jobs in constructing it. As I walked that site, I met local trainees and apprentices from Mirboo North and from the valley there working in the energy industry. That is something I am particularly passionate about, having been an electrician myself – I am still an electrician. We have put TAFE and training around people to be able to skill up in the sector and to be able to provide, particularly for our homes and our businesses, as they electrify their homes. It means lower costs and a lower cost of living when you have cheaper heating, when you have cheaper hot water and when you have cheaper cooking. It is a cost-of-living measure for people. To ensure that the power coming down those lines is cheaper, we have done things like ensuring the Marinus Link is put in, connecting our states. 750 megawatts, when we have got abundant solar during the middle of the day, we will be able to send there, and then when we need it, as hydro it can come back.

We know that Yallourn is reaching end of life. Six hundred million dollars went into their generators last year to keep them going. Loy Yang A is more reliable, but again, it was built in the 1980s. Loy Yang B is more reliable – built in the 1990s. But we know these technologies are coming to the end of their life, and we know the cheapest technologies to put in are solar and wind. We are talking $50 to $100 a megawatt. We are talking $120 a megawatt. Whereas the Liberals and their shadow energy spokesperson are stuck on gas. Those of us that were on the oil and gas decommissioning inquiry at the start of this year heard firsthand from industry that the oil platforms are being pulled out. There is no oil left there. The gas platforms are running out of gas, and they are strategically being decommissioned over the next 10 years.

The question to the Liberals, consistent with their 20 years of hiding away from energy policy, is: what is it you offer? What is it they offer to keep energy prices down? Mr Davis has attended two offshore wind industry events in the last week, and he has offered nothing to the tens of billions of dollars of investment, to the multigenerational jobs that are on offer or to the gigawatts of electricity supply for Victorians. You have offered nothing but cheap politics, and that is consistent with the Liberal Party for the last 20 years on energy. That is a big reason why the Liberal Party has been decimated. We know in Victoria there are probably half a dozen federal Liberal representatives left. Instead of doing the hard yards and coming up with policy, working with industry and being leaders in community, they divide people and stoke fear, and we have seen that with VNI West just in the last week. It is these actions that are going to increase power costs. It is these actions that are going to lessen power supply. A simple little theory that the Liberals might want to get across is that when you have more supply of something, it costs less.

There is another word that you will never hear the Liberals say. I spoke before about how key energy is to our economy. The other key part of that is the climate. Our farmers cannot be as productive when their soil temperatures are higher and when the weather patterns are less consistent. Our insurance bills all go up when storm events, fire and flood hit properties. We all pay for it. When food costs more to land in our supermarkets, we are all paying for it. You cannot uncouple energy and emissions. It is a massive task, decarbonising our economy, but we simply must do it to keep our cost of living low. We had the hottest day on record in January, 49 degrees, and we are consistently seeing more and more days that are breaking those temperature records. On that day our grid had its highest ever demand in Victoria – 11 gigawatts. But did you hear Mr Davis or any of the Liberals congratulate all those workers that are working in our generation and in our distribution – the thousands of electricians and engineers and everyone that has put in work in the last two decades in this massive task of designing the energy network we need for this century?

As I have said many times in this place, we acknowledge and we thank those in the energy sector, which was established last century, for everything they have done for those generation and transmission networks that continue to operate. It has been key to Victoria’s economic success, to things like our automotive industry, to have that generation and supply in our state. But for the reasons I outlined before, whether it is the cost of building or whether it is what we must do on reducing our emissions, we need to build the energy network for this century.

I have talked about various things the Liberals have talked down, particularly for home consumers. Consumers, Victorians, have seen it. They laughed at solar. They have laughed at home batteries. They laugh at new technologies. But the new technologies always prove the Liberals wrong. Central to Mr Davis’s narrative consistently is gas. We on this side recognise the need for gas. That is why there is 2.5 gigawatts of gas built into our 95 per cent renewable energy target and our emissions reduction targets. But it begs the question: if the Liberals are going to rip up everything, and presuming that nuclear has gone by the wayside – under Dutton for a good 12 to 18 months it was going to be small modular nuclear reactors, until they realised they do not exist, and then it was going to be large-scale nuclear, until they realised no-one would invest in it and no-one would vote for it. Now it is all about gas. As I said, Labor recognises the place for gas. But where are the Liberals going to get the gas? I just talked about the inquiry finding that there is no more gas in Bass Strait, so there is only one way that that leaves the Liberals to get their gas, and that is by fracking farms.

Energy is critically important to every single one of us. It is a policy that we should be taking incredibly seriously. It is incredibly serious to our cost of living and incredibly serious to the operation of our state. The Liberals have proven, year after year after year, they do not take it seriously and they are not creating the policy and the investment space to ensure more generation. I am incredibly proud to be part of a Labor Party that over decades has set those clear policies and has supported home owners and businesses to have cheaper electricity and will continue to do so going on into the future.

 Sheena WATT (Northern Metropolitan) (11:18): Thank you so much for the opportunity to follow my colleague, Mr McIntosh, and make a contribution on the Energy and Resources Legislation Amendment (VEET Strategic Review and Other Matters) Bill 2026. Perhaps I might speak to the particulars of this bill for the benefit of the chamber and note that this bill makes amendments across several key acts, but today I want to focus particularly on the changes to the Victorian Energy Efficiency Target Act 2007, which modernise, expand and futureproof the Victorian energy upgrades (VEU) program.

At its absolute core this legislation is about helping Victorian families, households and small businesses cut down their energy bills right across our state. In our regional towns, throughout our outer suburbs and across inner-city neighbourhoods household budgets are under strain, and power and gas bills represent a major portion of weekly living expenses. That is why our Labor government approach energy policy with a relentless focus on practical household relief. We know that the clean energy transition must include long-term targets to keep us on track but also deliver immediate, workable benefits that show up as lower bills at the kitchen table and reduced overheads on the factory floor.

The VEU is key to that delivery. It is the largest and most successful household energy savings initiative in Australia. The structure of the scheme is straightforward and effective. It provides households and businesses with generous up-front discounts so they can replace outdated equipment with modern, highly efficient electric technology. Since its commencement the VEU has helped over 2.4 million homes and 1800 businesses complete energy efficiency upgrades. Over that time the scheme has saved more than 90 million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions from the atmosphere. In 2025 alone more than 147 households and 13,000 businesses participated in the program, carrying out over 340,000 individual upgrades and cutting 6.9 million tonnes of carbon emissions in a single 12-month window. That included a record-breaking 70,000 heating and cooling upgrades, alongside 32,000 families who replaced old and inefficient gas hot water units with modern heat pumps, a feature right across the northern suburbs.

These numbers represent significant financial relief for Victorian families. When a household replaces an inefficient gas heater with an energy-efficient, reverse-cycle split system, they can save money off the purchase and installation costs through the VEU discounts. Following that, there is up to $1000 every single year in ongoing bill savings. Upgrading an old gas hot water system to a heat pump delivers up to $560 in up-front discounts and cuts around $400 a year off power bills. When a home transitions completely off gas and disconnects from the gas network entirely, they eliminate fixed network supply charges, keeping an extra $360 a year in their pocket. For small businesses, participating in VEU upgrades can deliver yearly savings from $500 right up to $74,000 depending on the scale and nature of their operations.

The beauty of the VEU program is that its benefits extend to every single Victorian, including those who have not yet undertaken an upgrade themselves. By supporting millions of energy-efficient upgrades, the VEU permanently reduces the overall demand across the grid. It lowers energy demand, reduces wholesale electricity costs and avoids the need to build expensive new generation, transmission and distribution assets. Between 2021 and 2025 alone the VEU program avoided an estimated $3.8 billion in energy system costs, ensuring that all Victorians benefit from downward pressure on energy prices.

I certainly had the good fortune during my time as Parliamentary Secretary for Climate Action to spend a lot of time with community organisations and local groups right across the state. I sat down and I talked to those communities, I talked to those organisations, and I saw firsthand their commitment to environmental sustainability. It is genuine, it is passionate and it is very real. You also hear their practical concerns. They want to reduce emissions. They want to switch away from fossil gas, but they need the up-front costs to be manageable. They want clear, affordable pathways to installing rooftop solar, home battery storage, reverse-cycle air conditioning and induction cooktops. The VEU is the practical mechanism that puts those technologies within financial reach for working families.

It is true that the operating environment for energy in Victoria has changed since the original legislation passed in 2007. Back then almost all of our electricity came from burning brown coal, and renewable energy accounted for just 3 per cent of generation. But today, under this Labor government, over 44 per cent of Victoria’s electricity comes from renewables. The system has evolved. The legislative framework underpinning the VEU must evolve as well. That is why I am here and so proud to speak to this bill before us.

We will continue to build a modern, reliable renewable energy grid, hold energy retailers accountable and ensure the VEU program delivers cheap, cleaner energy for every Victorian household and business. Without doubt and with great pride I commend the bill to the house.

 Sarah MANSFIELD (Western Victoria) (11:24): I rise to speak on the Energy and Resources Legislation Amendment (VEET Strategic Review and Other Matters) Bill 2026. The bill implements recommendations from the 2024 review into the Victorian energy upgrades (VEU) scheme and makes some improvements to the plan for rehabilitating the Hazelwood coalmine. Importantly, this bill amends the legal framework for Victorian energy upgrades to recognise not just emissions reduction but also the social, environmental and economic benefits.

Having energy-efficient appliances like electric hot water systems, heating and cooktops makes a huge difference to the comfort and wellbeing of households as well as to their bills, and it is important to recognise this. For example, gas cooktops have been strongly linked to childhood asthma and, along with other gas appliances, they keep people hooked on an expensive form of energy. The VEU has promoted the uptake of efficient electric appliances like induction cooktops, as has been said, which are a brilliant replacement for gas. If you do not believe me, there are some really great community groups who run cooking workshops to show you how to use an induction cooktop. I will give a shout-out to Asian Australians for Climate Action, who run some of these workshops in my electorate. I had the pleasure of attending one at the Health Festival of Geelong last year. Other things covered by the scheme include window glazing and, thanks to Greens advocacy, ceiling insulation. These are really important measures that improve the efficiency and thermal comfort of homes.

For this to have a big impact, there is a lot more work that needs to be done. Having spent the last eight years trying to retrofit an old, gas-dependent, hole-ridden weatherboard to a reasonably insulated, all-electric house, I can tell you it is not an easy process. It is hard to find information. It is hard to find experienced tradespeople who are familiar with newer options, including for any repairs you might need to make to, say, a heat pump hot water system. Even with the VEU, it is still really expensive. In short, we are a long way from efficient electric homes being business as usual in this state or accessible to most Victorians, and they are certainly not an easy option for people who are on lower incomes.

We know that renters and people on lower incomes face compounding inequalities when it comes to housing and, increasingly, exposure to climate risks. Living in a house that is sweltering in summer or freezing in winter is a significant contributor to poor health and mortality, and it is something countless Victorians experience. We have terrible-quality housing from an energy efficiency and thermal comfort perspective; it is just not built for the actual conditions we live with. The existing stock is certainly not up to scratch given the risks that we are facing as the planet heats.

Climate Safe Rooms is a brilliant initiative which originated in Geelong and has been taken up across the state. It works with people who are on lower incomes and living with chronic illnesses to modify at least one room in their home to make sure it does not become uncomfortably hot or cold. But if we are to ensure that all people have safe, comfortable and affordable housing, especially in the face of a changing climate, there is an urgent need for much more radical investment and change.

To date, Labor really has been dragging its heels when it comes to taking climate adaptation seriously. We have seen that with the planning changes that have been rolled out by Labor over the past couple of years that watered down energy-efficiency standards for townhouses and mid-rise buildings, allowed the removal of trees and vegetation and failed to properly take into account risks like flooding. The government has also ignored the major recommendations from the Greens-initiated climate resilience inquiry. One of the main recommendations was the establishment of a permanent climate adaptation fund, and this is something that still has not been responded to. The Australian Institute for Disaster Resilience has estimated that for every $1 invested in resilience before a disaster, we can save between $3 and $8 in recovery. But Victoria does not even scratch the surface. According to the Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action corporate plan for 2025–2029, less than 1 per cent of their $2.6 billion budget – just $18.4 million – is going to be spent on climate action. Meanwhile, the NSW Climate Change Fund spent almost $162 million in 2020–25 to increase community resilience and safeguard our communities from the effects of climate change, with additional funds for mitigation and energy bills.

Victoria’s new draft adaptation action plans 2027–2031 have been strongly critiqued by a number of organisations for a lack of funding, evaluation, vision and even basic due diligence. As the Biodiversity Council’s response points out, the new plans have no clear objectives, outcomes or vision for adaptation; there is barely anything on the government’s current actions, let alone how they have progressed or what gaps or challenges they are facing; there is nothing in the way of responsibilities or timeframes for actions; there is no consideration of larger cross-system risks that we are already facing under climate change; and there is not even any evaluation of the government’s last action plans, despite that being a requirement of Victoria’s own climate laws. Section 35(3) of the Climate Action Act 2017 states that:

The nominated Minister must ensure that an adaptation action plan includes a report on the implementation and effectiveness, as at the time the plan is prepared, of any previous adaptation action plan prepared by that Minister.

That is right: the government might even be in breach of its own climate laws. The Greens are calling on Labor to fundamentally overhaul those action plans and implement the Biodiversity Council’s seven recommendations. That means an audit of current actions, actual funding and vision for future actions, building some monitoring requirements in the department and tackling cross-systems risk by bringing climate action into the Premier’s office. We also need to lock in some targets for vulnerable cohorts under this bill as soon as possible.

As behind as Victoria already is – I must note that taking on the contribution of Mr Davis has only reinforced this – the Liberals, Nationals and One Nation only want to take us back even further. We have seen in the past week the coalition announce that they will rip up critical transmission infrastructure should they be elected, which will blow out both our energy bills and our climate targets. Jess Wilson has even pledged to overturn a very basic cost-of-living measure that really works hand in hand with some of the measures outlined in this bill, which is that new residential homes and most commercial buildings must be all electric. New all-electric homes would save around $1000 on energy bills compared to homes with fossil gas. The only reason the Liberals want to bring back new gas connections is to funnel even more money from everyday Victorians to their oil and gas donors. At a time when Victorians are already facing worsening fires, floods and extreme heat, locking more homes into fossil fuels will only accelerate the climate crisis. The Liberals and One Nation are in a grubby race to the bottom on climate, competing to see who can drag Victoria furthest backwards into expensive, dirty coal and gas. Sadly, Labor keeps following them there. As strong as a program like the VEU is, Labor has spent years shifting the goalposts in the same direction, watering down its electrification plans and ditching the phase-out of new gas cooktops and gas space heaters while opening new areas for gas drilling and approving the biggest new Victorian gas project in more than a decade.

Let us be absolutely clear on this: the climate cannot handle any new fossil fuel projects, and we do not need to open any new fossil fuel projects. Around 80 per cent of Australia’s gas is exported as liquefied natural gas. We actually burn more gas creating the LNG exports than the entire manufacturing sector uses. What is worse is the gas industry pays zero royalties on more than 50 per cent of our exports. Governments are basically letting these oil and gas companies destroy our country and the climate for nothing. That is a world-class rort at the best of times. Now with the war on Iran driving up fuel prices, it has gotten to absurd levels. Eight of the world’s biggest oil giants have made over $125 billion in profits in the past three months. That is textbook war profiteering, all built on human misery and the climate crisis. Australia needs to finally tax these fossil fuel giants and put the money into slashing bills and transitioning to 100 per cent cheap, clean, renewable energy.

None of the establishment political parties in Australia want to tax their fossil fuel donors – not the Liberals, not the Nationals, not One Nation and not Labor. Look how hard Prime Minister Anthony Albanese just fought to kill the 25 per cent gas export tax. These political parties are fundamentally compromised, because they rely on donations from coal, oil and gas companies to fund their campaigns. Ahead of last year’s federal election just three fossil fuel companies – Adani, Hancock Prospecting and INPEX – made a combined $1.51 million in contributions to both Labor and the coalition, including to their state branches. One Nation do not even pretend to hide who they are really working for. It is why Pauline Hanson can accept a $1 million jet from Gina Rinehart and then vote against taxing the billion-dollar gas export industry.

The Greens cannot be bought like that. We do not take dirty corporate donations. Victorians deserve better than a choice between the Liberals and One Nation sabotaging the renewable energy transition and a Labor government that talks about climate action while approving more coal and gas and fails to tax the fossil fuel corporations properly. That is why we are fighting to finally tax the big coal and gas giants as well as fast-track cheaper, publicly owned renewable energy and provide support to help every household get off gas and cut their bills. All that being said, this is a step in the right direction. We will be supporting this bill. I will, however, have a number of questions during the committee stage.

 David LIMBRICK (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (11:35): I am also pleased to rise to talk on the Energy and Resources Legislation Amendment (VEET Strategic Review and Other Matters) Bill 2026. I have a very alternate view to Dr Mansfield on this bill, and I would like to challenge many of the ideas that Dr Mansfield has put forward here.

Firstly, let us start with the Victorian energy upgrades scheme. Historically, this scheme has been nothing more than dodgy accounting, a corruption magnet, as has been pointed out by the government itself and many others in the chamber. We only need to cast our minds back to what was already spoken about earlier, the fridges, but even earlier than that, when initially the power boards were given out to many people in houses, then got immediately thrown in the bin – but of course somehow they were saving on carbon emissions. People talk as if – I know the Greens talk this way but often the government does as well – Victoria is going to change global weather systems. That is not going to happen. Victoria is nothing more than a rounding error in the scheme of things here. What we do is irrelevant in the scheme of things.

The Greens would like us to sign up and tie our hands behind our backs and hold back our prosperity so that we can say that we are doing our part for the global masters. But here is the thing: we keep hearing this talk about clean renewables. Well, let us look at the polysilicate supply chain issue, shall we? We keep hearing about how solar energy is cheap, and one of the reasons it is cheap is because the polysilicate supply chain is tainted by slave labour. The Greens often talk about cheap renewables; well, when it is cheap because it is produced effectively by slave labour in China, we should be questioning why we are signing ourselves up to this. Also, we hear about clean energy with wind turbines. No-one seems to want to talk about the rare earth processing that is happening in China for this and the environmental devastation that is being caused by the rare earth production of neodymium. Yet when Victoria wants to produce its own rare earth metals, the Greens are the first to oppose it, even though the main reason that we need these rare earths is because of the renewables industry. So I completely challenge that.

Even putting aside the strategic stupidity of tying ourselves up to what we call an energy transition, which is effectively a perpetual transition because the life cycle of this infrastructure is so short – 30 years tops for a wind turbine; solar panels, much shorter than that – we are already at the point now where we are starting to have to replace the early infrastructure that was put in around the turn of the century, and we will be doing this forever. And the only reason that it is ‘cheap’ is because we are tying ourselves up to being perpetually dependent on China. Can anyone actually put their hand up and say that is a good idea? I do not think that is a good idea. I do not think many Australians think that is a good idea. We have had the opportunity and blown it to expand our nuclear capabilities, to have nuclear energy. Apparently the climate is very important, but not so important that we want to use technologies that might make us energy-independent, which is a disaster for Australia.

We are seeing a lot of people get upset – the Greens especially – about the rise of data centres. We need data centres. We need them in Australia. We need them everywhere. The reason that many people are getting upset about this is because data centres highlight just how fragile and unprepared our energy grid really is. We are actually going to need far more energy than what we are planning on. We are struggling at the moment just to roll out enough energy for what we thought we needed before. Actually, the amount of energy we need is far greater than what anyone has been planning on, because we need these data centres. The solution for many on the far left is to just oppose the data centres. What happens then? We will find ourselves again dependent on China. This is a disgraceful position to put ourselves in when we had the option all along to be energy independent. If we are not going to go ahead with rolling out a nuclear fleet, the option that sooner or later the government is going to have to realise, not because they choose to but because physical reality will come and smack them in the face, is that we need to expand our coal power generation fleet. I am sorry to break it to the government, but this idea that we are going to phase out our coal power generation in Victoria and nothing is going to go wrong is a fantasy.

The sooner people start talking about what we are going to do about replacing our coal-powered fleet – and even expanding it in Victoria – the better. There are a lot of people who are very keen on this idea. The number is growing by the day, and people these days are more worried about their energy bills than they are about climate change. Whatever rounding error Victoria might be playing a part in, we need to think about how we are going to produce our own energy and how to not be dependent on China forever. We need to think about what is best for Victoria, not what is best for the UN and not what is best for some international treaties that we have signed up for. We need to think about what is best for Australia, and I do not think that we are doing that. I do not think that we are doing that at all.

If people really cared about climate change, they would be focusing on the countries that are actually causing this. China’s expansion of its coal fleet completely eclipses anything that Victoria or Australia would do. They are the ones that are causing this expansion of carbon emissions. Australia really is not that big of a deal in the global scheme of things. Why we have hamstrung ourselves like this is totally beyond me. It is a mistake, and the mistake is going to be self-evident soon enough. The government has already realised that we cannot do this without a massive expansion of gas generation capability.

David Davis interjected.

David LIMBRICK: They are still resistant, but they have realised they need gas. They cannot do it without gas. The batteries are not going to cut it. The batteries will be fine for small-scale stabilisation, but we are going to need gas forever because we have set ourselves up this way. We did not need gas generation so much before the renewables rollout. Gas is being depended on because of the renewables rollout, because we need to maintain electricity supply when the wind is not blowing or the sun is not shining. I do not see a way out of that, actually. The government clearly does not see a way out of it. We are going to have gas as part of our network forever, pretty much. I think that we need to take a new direction, to paraphrase the Premier’s favourite saying. I think Victorians realise, and Australians realise, that this net zero fantasy needs to be abandoned. The more people that wake up to that fact, the better, because what we are doing here is not having any real effect in the real world.

 Jacinta ERMACORA (Western Victoria) (11:44): I am pleased to make a brief contribution on the Energy and Resources Legislation Amendment (VEET Strategic Review and Other Matters) Bill 2026. I am not going to reiterate what Mr McIntosh said, nor Ms Watt. They have contributed on the benefits and successes of the Victorian energy upgrades program and the reasons why it will be a very good thing for that program to be expanded and provide more opportunities for Victorians to save money on renewable energy. What I want to go into is my concern about what is not being said by those opposite about their attitude towards wind energy, their attitude towards solar energy and their attitude towards a renewable energy adaptation that we know we need to do. We are getting this ‘Say nothing’.

I was at the Gippsland celebration of offshore wind event earlier this week – and it has been a long week – where there were 50 or 60 businesspeople, community members, government people and opposition and crossbench people in the room celebrating the auction that has opened up for offshore wind in Gippsland. There were documents and enthusiasm everywhere about the job opportunities that will come from that and the transition from coal and how that will happen. This community is at the coalface of the transition – pardon the pun; I did not even realise that. All right, I will double down: they are at the coalface of the transition from coal to renewable energy, and they are showing us how they are going to do it. I can tell you there was enormous enthusiasm in the room, except for the dead silence when the Shadow Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction basically said nothing about the future of renewable energy. He used the words ‘prudence’ and ‘diligence’ but actually said nothing. The businesses in that room were not deluded. They do not trust the opposition.

The challenge that we will face in Victoria if they have to decommission the renewable energy industry in this state will be far bigger and far worse on the Victorian economy than it was between 2010 and 2014. It will duplicate that but be even worse. Where is the jobs plan for all of the renewable energy jobs that you plan to get rid of? Where are the investment opportunities for the businesses who will be told to go away, who will be told to stop investing in wind, investing in solar and investing in batteries? Where will those businesses go? What will happen to the Victorian economy? Renewable energy is one of the backbones of the Victorian economy now. It is a much bigger proportion of the Victorian economy than it was five or 10 years ago, so it is a huge risk for us as a state if we go ahead and allow those opposite to preside over an energy debacle. We know that is what we will end up with – an energy debacle – because that is what they have offered us over and over again on the policy front.

As Mr McIntosh said, it is only Labor that has an energy plan for Victoria – a renewable energy plan, a transition plan. It does not matter how many falsities, how much poor information and how much rubbish gets expressed by anybody opposite. We know what we are doing and we are conducting an orderly transition, and that is the main point that I want to make in making a contribution about this particular program today.

 Moira DEEMING (Western Metropolitan) (11:49): I rise to oppose the Energy and Resources Legislation Amendment (VEET Strategic Review and Other Matters) Bill 2026. The main reason for this is that I cannot stop thinking about all the people who are really paying for all of this: the families and small businesses in the Western Metro Region who open their bills and then open the next one. They are not interested in reading all these AEMO reports. They read the number at the bottom of their energy bills, and they just despair. That number is still about $1591 a year for the average household. The government is advertising an $84 cut – patting themselves on the back for that after a decade of this policy cost.

Let me start with what this government has built since 2022. They have written targets into the law: renewables at 65 per cent by 2030 and 95 per cent by 2035; storage of 2.6 gigawatts by 2030 and 6.3 gigawatts by 2035. These are political dates; they are not well-made engineering plans. These percentages on a whiteboard do not help anybody; they are not cheap and they do not bring reliable power at 6 pm on a winter night. Basically, we have brought back the State Electricity Commission, a government-owned generator seeded with about $1 billion of public money. So taxpayers are now silent partners in a company and the same government that owns the company also writes the rules that the company plays by – the conflicts of interest are everywhere. You have got a market with the umpire on the field wearing the colour of one team’s jersey.

This government has closed the door on gas. From 1 January 2027 a new home cannot get new mains gas connections. From 1 March 2027 when a gas hot water system dies in an existing home, it has to be replaced with electric. Nobody voted for these kinds of interferences in their housing designs. Nobody voted for this kind of thing, but all of these projects have been fast-tracked. The development facilitation program has waved through billions in wind and battery projects – speed for the technologies the minister favours, but the ones that are not ideologically aligned get obliterated through the law.

It has banned one firm, low-emission source that could compete. Mr Limbrick brought in a bill in 2023 to repeal the 1983 nuclear prohibition. Repealing that ban costs the budget nothing. Keeping it can cost billions. Victoria banned the option first and then announced the target. Now we have got this bill in front of us, and this bill takes the Victorian energy upgrades scheme and stretches its life from 2032 to 2045 – an extra 15 years of a surcharge on every single bill – and the scheme is paid for by retailers surrendering certificates. The retailers cannot absorb the cost, and if they try to recover it in their prices, they can get fined as well. These are not real discounts. In the end it costs everybody more.

The bill also weakens the additionality rule. That means that the scheme can subsidise upgrades that another law is already about to force people to do. The government funded a strategic review of this scheme, and that review has not been tabled before the house. We are being asked to sign a cheque and ask questions later.

This government is pushing electric homes and electric cars onto the same grid that is losing coal and is blocked from nuclear, and we wonder why we are having to get energy from other states. Local poles and transformers were not built for every home to charge a car and run a heat pump after dark. These upgrades arrive later as the network charges are on our bills already.

The thread running through all of this is net zero used as a deadline. Net zero is used to justify every scheme, every ban and every dollar taken from families who never got to have a vote on any of it. I support energy policy that is decided on cost, reliability, physics and true environmentalism, not on this ideological political power play in the media. I support private investment in any lawful generation that can sell power into the market, including nuclear if it stacks up and it is safe. I support letting the market build up our power reserves so that we can bring down the cost of living. I do not support a state-owned generator writing its own rules. I support scheme costs on bills that sunset and do not extend out to 2045. I support households keeping the right to choose gas where the pipes already exist and install them if they want to on their own. I support a clean line between the regulator and the regulated. No minister should own the assets or have an interest in the assets that they regulate. They are not radical ideas; they are the basics of conflicts of interest, and that is why I oppose this bill.

 Jaclyn SYMES (Northern Victoria – Minister for Energy and Resources, Minister for Environment, Minister for Climate Action, Minister for the State Electricity Commission) (11:54): It is an honour to sum up on an energy bill as the new Minister for Energy and Resources. Thank you, speakers, for your contributions. Of course this bill is all about ensuring that the Victorian energy upgrades (VEU) scheme remains fit for purpose and modernises as we continue through our renewable energy transition, ensuring consumers remain at the heart of the program. The structure of the program is remaining the same – a certificate scheme with GHG abatement as the key metric. Thank you to speakers from the government side. It certainly indicates a commitment to cost-of-living relief for all Victorians, and the bill is strengthening a program that has a record of doing exactly that. The bill is about making it easier for all Victorians to access discounted electric appliances, both in their homes and in their businesses, making sure of course that our dwindling gas supply remains available for industries that cannot electrify. Reducing energy demands saves households money. It avoids costs that would have otherwise been borne by Victorians in extra energy infrastructure, and it places downward pressure on wholesale prices, which is why we continue to have the lowest prices in the country. If the VEU did not exist, Victorian energy bills would be higher, and that is a fact.

The bill will expand the VEU program and embed flexibility in its legal framework to enhance program integrity and strengthen its responsiveness. Many of these reforms are enabling in nature, meaning further policy analysis and regulatory work will be undertaken before they begin. For households, this means the reforms will make discounts clearer and more transparent, improve consumer protections and dispute resolution, increase access to upgrades that reduce bills and improve comfort, and support electrification options that reduce exposure to volatile gas prices. Importantly for businesses, it means the reforms will provide greater flexibility and clearer program direction; easier introduction of new activities as technologies evolve; reduced red tape for reliable, compliant participants; and improved investment certainty as Victoria’s energy systems transition. It will strengthen new laws made by our government to force energy retailers to provide cheap energy to households, and it will allow the minister to ban fees and charges on energy bills. It will also strengthen compliance by embedded networks with their consumer protection obligations.

The other things that the bill does are relevant particularly to my portfolio of resources. The bill also proposes targeted time-sensitive amendments to the Mineral Resources (Sustainable Development) Act 1990 to allow for continuation of the Hazelwood mining licence for rehabilitation purposes only to ensure that there are no regulatory gaps. The Hazelwood mining licence expires on 10 September 2026, and delay or non-passage would result in the removal of existing licence-based controls, which of course we would prefer not to happen because it would expose the state to public safety, environmental and financial risks.

I actually was pleased with Mr Davis’s contribution today because it was in stark contrast to some pretty incredible commentary from the opposition in the lower house, who mentioned that if a reasoned amendment was not supported, then the bill would not be supported. But that position has been tempered by the shadow, who has indicated that there will not be opposition to this bill from the Liberal Party, which I think is a good thing because it would be obviously very reckless and irresponsible to not get behind a program which provides cost-of-living relief to Victorians through discounts when they upgrade their appliances, as well as ongoing through decreased energy bills. It is the Labor government who championed this program, and I am pleased to be here today with a bill to bring further improvements to the scheme. I commend the bill to the house.

Council divided on amendment:

David Davis: On a point of order, President, yesterday you threw me out of question time – be that as it may – for half an hour in distinction to earlier rulings that you yourself have made that question time includes the constituency questions component. I understand from the clerks that you have now ruled that it does not include the constituency questions component of question time but that you have redefined it to be a narrower zone – just the questions without notice.

The PRESIDENT: I have not redefined anything. It is in the standing orders that the penalty needs to be served during questions without notice, and if it has not been served the day before, the remainder of the time needs to be served the next day.

David Davis: I will find the time for you. I will find the occasion for you.

The PRESIDENT: I cannot recall that.

Georgie Crozier interjected.

The PRESIDENT: But if I said that – thank you, Ms Crozier – I would have been wrong, because it actually says in the standing orders it needs to be during questions without notice.

David Davis: With respect, President, that is not quite what it says, and the ruling on a previous occasion was different, so it is a question of consistency.

Ryan Batchelor: Further to the point of order, President, sessional order 4(2) says:

… the member may return to the Chamber at the conclusion of question time and must serve the remainder of their suspension during the next occurrence of questions without notice.

The PRESIDENT: I will see you in 20 minutes.

David Davis: Constituency questions, by you, were defined as part of questions without notice.

The PRESIDENT: No.