Parliament of Victoria | Legislative Council | Second Reading Debate
28th of August, 2025
David ETTERSHANK (Western Metropolitan Region):
I rise to make a contribution on behalf of Legalise Cannabis Victoria on the National Electricity (Victoria) Amendment (VicGrid Stage 2 Reform) Bill 2025. From the outset, I want to make it crystal clear that Legalise Cannabis Victoria (LCV) are 100 per cent supportive of Victoria’s switch to renewable energy. We recognise the absolute necessity of transitioning from coal-powered energy, of establishing transmission infrastructure and of creating certainty for renewable investors. It has to happen, but we have been deeply concerned by the way the government has gone about it, particularly around seeking social licence from the community and the encroachment upon people’s property rights.
As members have noted, regional communities have not been treated with appropriate respect or provided with an appropriate suite of consultative services. Further, we believe that certain basic civil liberties have been eroded by this bill – for example, with regard to restricting the ability of magistrates to consider compliance with applications for access orders. I know our colleague Georgie Purcell from the Animal Justice Party (AJP) shares our concerns, and these are reflected in the position we put to the chamber today.
Labor has been in government for a long time in Victoria. In the past 25 years there has only been one term when Victoria has not been governed by the Labor Party. It is almost hard to remember a time when they were not in power. But governments do change and governments’ time in power will inevitably end, and that applies to the present government as it has to every other elected government. And what happens then? The old government will have left behind a legacy of precedents of residual powers that new governments can use, as they will.
While oppositions may argue vociferously against the government’s adoption of increased powers, those same opponents, when they find themselves on the other side of the chamber, rarely unwind those laws. Nobody likes to cede power. We cannot say how these questionable or even dangerous precedents will be used by future governments, so it is incumbent on us as lawmakers to proceed with caution when governments introduce laws that set these kinds of precedents.
The proposed land access amendment in the bill represents exactly the sort of precedent I am talking about. For this reason, LCV and the Animal Justice Party have negotiated amendments to try to ameliorate some of the concerns of our regional constituents. So I would like to circulate the amendments, and I ask that these amendments be distributed now.
In relation to the appointment of authorised officers in the bill, these officers have broad powers to access private land, but there is no definition of eligibility criteria for appointing these officers, and we had concerns that private contractors were being given broad powers to enter private land, issue fines and even use reasonable force to access land. I must say, the image of the sheriff swearing in the deputies – ‘Let’s go get ’em’ – was rather in our mind, given that lack of discipline or definition.
Our amendment 1 inserts a new clause 62A, adding a definition into the Electricity Industry Act 2000 that ‘public sector employee’ has the same meaning as it does in the Public Administration Act 2004, and further amendments to clauses 63 and 65 ensure that only a public sector employee can be appointed as an authorised officer. This ensures that the authorised officers are bound by the Victorian public sector code of conduct, have undergone the necessary pre-employment checks and are subject to the relevant performance management or misconduct processes. It also guarantees that private contractors cannot be appointed and given those broad powers to enter private property without consent.
The stakeholders we consulted with were alarmed by provisions in clause 65 relating to an authorised officer’s ability to apply to the Magistrates’ Court for an entry order to gain access to land where access to that land had previously been hindered, delayed or obstructed. Our stakeholders felt that the requirements for the issuing of an entry order were too narrow, with the magistrate directed only to have regard to the need for the expeditious development of electricity transmission infrastructure and not required to consider the proportionality or necessity of the officer’s intended actions or any concerns of the landholder, only whether the statutory criteria was satisfied. There is no way that that sort of approach can be justified.
Our proposed amendment 8 ensures that the magistrate must have regard to whether the authorised officer has complied with the relevant obligations under the essential services code of practice in relation to entering onto the applicable land, the circumstances of entry and the purpose of entry.
This code of practice has been in place since 2015, and I guess we draw some comfort that since it has been in place for that length of time it is probably a pretty safe bet. Importantly, the code requires that all necessary steps to ensure access are taken before – not during, not after – entry onto the land and before an access order can be applied for, and that step must be undertaken before seeking an access order. The penalties for noncompliance across these provisions were in our view excessive – and I know a number of speakers have referred to this.
Our proposed amendments 6, 7, 9, 10 and 11 halve the penalty units for landholders’ breaches under the act. Our proposed amendments 12 to 14 reduce those penalties by one-third. Our proposed amendment 16 inserts a new provision to restrict the creation of an entry order to a magistrate and removes the power of the VicGrid CEO to make such an order. These are things which are appropriately dealt with in the realm of magistrates within a jurisdictional framework, not by the appointed executive of VicGrid.
As I said at the beginning of my contribution, LCV are 100 per cent supportive of the transition to renewable energy. The installation of transmission lines is necessary, and it just has to happen. We enter the debate on this bill primarily through the lens of what constitutes reasonable powers and how those powers might be exercised. There are a lot of worthwhile provisions in this bill that have been overshadowed by the clumsy way the government has gone about achieving the social licence to undertake necessary works, including the provisions around extending the benefits of funds collected by VicGrid to traditional owners.
While far from perfect, we believe our proposed amendments go some way to ameliorating the concerns expressed around the broad powers that this bill grants to government agents to enter land where landholder consent has been withheld and other areas of potential administrative overreach. We will continue to be vigilant in ensuring that the government does not misapply the broad powers conferred under this act.
On behalf of both LCV and AJP I would like to thank Minister Lily D’Ambrosio and her staff, including Nick Parry, for the assistance provided to us in getting our heads around the bill and working through these changes in a productive manner. I would indicate that we will also be supporting the amendments proposed by the Greens. I commend the bill, as amended, to the chamber.
[Council divided on amended Bill]
Voted for: Ryan Batchelor, John Berger, Lizzie Blandthorn, Katherine Copsey, Enver Erdogan, Jacinta Ermacora, David Ettershank, Michael Galea, Anasina Gray-Barberio, Shaun Leane, Sarah Mansfield, Tom McIntosh, Rachel Payne, Aiv Puglielli, Georgie Purcell, Harriet Shing, Ingrid Stitt, Jaclyn Symes, Lee Tarlamis, Gayle Tierney, Sheena Watt
Voted against: Melina Bath, Jeff Bourman, Gaelle Broad, Georgie Crozier, David Davis, Moira Deeming, Renee Heath, Ann-Marie Hermans, David Limbrick, Wendy Lovell, Trung Luu, Bev McArthur, Joe McCracken, Nick McGowan, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell, Richard Welch
[Bill passed 21 votes to 16]
