Tuesday, 12 October 2021
The PRESIDENT (Hon. N Elasmar) took the chair at 2.35 pm and read the prayer.
Announcements
Acknowledgement of country
The PRESIDENT (14:35): On behalf of the Victorian state Parliament I acknowledge the Aboriginal peoples, the traditional custodians of this land which has served as a significant meeting place of the First People of Victoria. I acknowledge and pay respect to the elders of the Aboriginal nations in Victoria past, present and emerging and welcome any elders and members of the Aboriginal communities who may visit or participate in the events or proceedings of the Parliament.
Bills
Forests Legislation Amendment (Compliance and Enforcement) Bill 2019
Royal assent
The PRESIDENT (14:36): I have a message from the Governor, dated 12 October:
The Governor informs the Legislative Council that she has, on this day, given the Royal Assent to the undermentioned Act of the present Session presented to her by the Clerk of the Parliaments:
38/2021 Forests Legislation Amendment (Compliance and Enforcement) Act 2021
Assisted Reproductive Treatment Amendment Bill 2021
Council’s amendments
The PRESIDENT (14:36): I have a message from the Assembly:
The Legislative Assembly informs the Legislative Council that, in relation to ‘A Bill for an Act to amend the Assisted Reproductive Treatment Act 2008, to consequentially amend the Status of Children Act 1974 and for other purposes’ the amendment made by the Council has been agreed to.
Announcements
COVID-19
The PRESIDENT (14:37): As a reminder regarding the COVID-safe plan, we all know and we all remember that masks should be worn all the time, whether in the chamber or outside, and that we come into the chamber from behind and exit through the opposite door. For divisions, stay in your place. Apart from divisions and adjournments, you cannot use both doors.
Petitions
Following petitions presented to house:
Breast screening
We, the undersigned Citizens of Victoria, draw to the attention of the Legislative Council that 61,000 eligible Victorian women who would ordinarily be scheduled for a breast screening have not received it.
Victorians know that preventative measures such as breast screenings are vital and potentially lifesaving.
We therefore request that the Legislative Council call on the Andrews Government and the Minister for Health to reverse their cuts to delivered breast screening services in Victoria and fully fund the program so all eligible women have proper access to this essential, life-saving program.
By Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan) (38 signatures).
Laid on table.
COVID-19
The Petition of certain citizens of the State of Victoria draws to the attention of the Legislative Council the vaccine passport trials for regional Victoria due to commence on 11 October 2021. The residents of the Greater Bendigo Local Government Area and other LGAs involved in the trial do not want the vaccine passport now or in the future.
The entities responsible for approving the COVID-19 vaccine passports trial and mandating vaccines in the workplace must be held accountable for causing harm in the form of discrimination and taking away the freedom of residents.
The petitioners therefore request that the Legislative Council call on the Government to withdraw the Greater Bendigo Local Government Area from the COVID-19 vaccine passport trial before its commencement.
By Mr QUILTY (Northern Victoria) (52 signatures).
Laid on table.
Bills
Local Government Amendment (Rates and Charges) Bill 2021
Introduction and first reading
Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan—Leader of the Opposition) (14:39): I move to introduce a bill for an act to ensure council fees, rates and charges of any kind payable by businesses are not increased or imposed in respect of specified years, and I move:
That the bill be now read a first time.
Motion agreed to.
Read first time.
Mr DAVIS: I move:
That the second reading be made an order of the day for the next day of meeting.
Motion agreed to.
Committees
Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee
Alert Digest No. 13
Ms WATT (Northern Metropolitan) (14:39): Pursuant to section 35 of the Parliamentary Committees Act 2003, I lay on the table Alert Digest No. 13 of 2021 from the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee, including appendices. I move:
That the report be published.
Motion agreed to.
Papers
Department of Health
19th Report to Parliament on the State of Emergency
The Clerk: Pursuant to section 198(8)(B)(b) of the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 and following the transmission of the report on 8 October 2021, I lay on the table a copy of the 19th report to Parliament on the extension of the declaration of the state of emergency.
Papers
Tabled by Clerk:
Ombudsman—Investigation into allegations of collusion with property developers at Kingston City Council, October 2021 (Ordered to be published).
A Statutory Rule under the Tobacco Act 1987—No. 126.
Subordinate Legislation Act 1994—
Documents under section 15 in respect of Statutory Rule No. 126.
Legislative instruments and related documents under section 16B in respect of Ministerial Order No. 1337—Order Amending Ministerial Order No. 615—Amendment to Order Fixing Fees Administered by the Victorian Registration and Qualifications Authority, of 29 September 2021, under the Education and Training Reform Act 2006.
Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan—Leader of the Opposition) (14:41): I move:
That the Ombudsman’s report be taken into account on the next day of meeting.
Motion agreed to.
Business of the house
Notices
Notices of motion given.
Notices of intention to make a statement given.
General business
Dr RATNAM (Northern Metropolitan) (14:50): I move, by leave:
That precedence be given to the following general business on Wednesday, 13 October 2021:
(1) order of the day 1, second reading of the Planning and Environment Amendment Bill 2021;
(2) order of the day made this day, second reading of the Local Government Amendment (Rates and Charges) Bill 2021;
(3) the notice of motion given this day by Mr Davis on job losses;
(4) order of the day 47, resumption of debate on a motion on the West Gate Tunnel Project;
(5) notice of motion 608, standing in the name of Dr Ratnam, revoking the minister’s consent to Beach Energy Limited conducting operations within Port Campbell National Park;
(6) notice of motion 631, standing in the name of Dr Ratnam, referring issues relating to the rise of the far-right, right-wing nationalist and neo-Nazi movement in Victoria to the Legal and Social Issues Committee;
(7) the notice of motion given this day by Mr Bourman on the production of documents relating to the closure of the Victorian native timber industry; and
(8) notice of motion 616, standing in Mr Bourman’s name on digital licences.
Motion agreed to.
Members statements
Walsh Street shootings anniversary
Ms LOVELL (Northern Victoria) (14:51): I wish to acknowledge that today is the 33rd anniversary of the horrific police shootings in Walsh Street that claimed the lives of two young constables from my electorate, Damian Eyre and Steven Tynan. My thoughts are with the Eyre and Tynan families today.
COVID-19
Ms LOVELL: I also wish to raise a separate matter, but this matter also has a connection to Constable Damian Eyre’s family. Last Friday, 8 October, members of the Shepparton community received text messages advising them that they may have been exposed to COVID-19 on 30 September at Fairleys IGA in Shepparton. The text went on to advise them to get tested and isolate for a 14-day period. The problem is that these texts had been sent in error. IGA is not a tier 1 site. There was a case that had visited the cafe there, but only the cafe was affected and not even the staff at the supermarket were considered close contacts or required to isolate, let alone customers who were nowhere near the cafe area.
Yesterday I raised this with the Minister for Health’s office on behalf of a constituent, and the Department of Health immediately contacted her to advise her an error had been made. But there has been no blanket correction of this incorrect advice to other customers, and they continue to isolate for no reason.
This morning I was contacted by Damian Eyre’s father, Frank, to advise me that Damian’s mother, Carmel, has also received the incorrect text message from the department. I immediately contacted the minister’s office advising of the importance of today as the anniversary of their son’s death. Unfortunately Carmel has still not been contacted to release her from isolation so she can visit her son’s grave.
Planning scheme amendments
Mr HAYES (Southern Metropolitan) (14:53): This week I want to highlight a Facebook post from a local group called ‘Saving Melbourne’, who wrote:
No matter what side of politics you support—recent changes to Victorian Planning Scheme give unprecedented powers to the Planning Minister Richard Wynne.
This means parks like Lorne Parade Reserve, where it was previously prohibited to build a railway station can now be used to build one under new Planning Scheme Clause 52.03.
This is just one of the ‘BIG BUILD’ projects across Melbourne where public assets are being stripped—
away—
from local communities. These poorly designed ‘BIG BUILD’ projects force poor outcomes into local communities for the next 100+ years.
Surrey Hills and Mont Albert is seeing the loss of Lorne Parade Reserve—
affecting—
surrounding residential streets and complete disconnection of the proposed station from shopping precincts and commuter carpark.
The consultation process on this project is like all other ‘BIG BUILD’ initiatives … just token information dissemination.
We support Infrastructure Projects, but not at the expense of communities, suburbs, streets and public open space which is being used by the Victorian government as a free land.
Communities, Municipal Councils and even Government Departments across Melbourne are tired of not having a voice.
COVID-19
Dr BACH (Eastern Metropolitan) (14:54): As we on this side of the house put forward our positive plans to reopen, recover and rebuild, the wellbeing of Victorian children remains uppermost in our minds. I was very pleased recently to learn that some Victorians will get to go to the Melbourne Cup. That is great. The government had some announcement last year too about horseracing. But what I do not understand is that if so many people can congregate for a horserace, why can’t we embrace the suite of emerging technologies that are there and evidence based to get far more of our students back to school?
Ms Crozier: How about rapid tests?
Dr BACH: We are facing a mental health shadow pandemic among our children. Every week more than 340 Victorian kids show up to our hospitals—which as you have already heard today are overstretched, to say the least—with a mental health emergency. We are seeing rapidly increasing rates of depression and anxiety among our kids, as well as self-harm, suicidal ideation and even suicide among some groups of young people, and yet the government’s priorities are still so out of whack. I know they are busy on other things this week, but I would urge the government to join with us and to place the wellbeing of Victorian children uppermost.
Ms Crozier interjected just before to say that one of the things that we could do to get children back to school safely and more quickly than the government is planning to do is to embrace rapid testing. Why hasn’t the government done the work—like it has not done the work with our health system—to get ready so that we can safely open up and seek to rebuild the shattered mental health of Victorian kids?
Williamsons Road, Templestowe
Mr BARTON (Eastern Metropolitan) (14:56): On 9 September I wrote a letter to both Minister Carroll’s office and Minister Allan’s regarding the Williamsons Road expansion project. On 16 September I directed a constituency question to Minister Carroll regarding this project. Surprisingly, I received a response from Minister Allan’s office saying that this project is Minister Carroll’s responsibility and a response from Minister Carroll saying it is Minister Allan’s responsibility. So who is responsible for the Williamsons Road development? It has now been over a month since we inquired on behalf of our constituent, and we are in no better position to get back to them with an answer. The irony is that the constituent had concerns over the lack of consultation with the community and the absence of publicly available development plans. These developments do impact our community. In fact an eight-lane expansion will impact the daily lives of many residents. These residents deserve accountability and transparency. Certainly I would, and my constituents would, appreciate a more respectful response when we bring an issue to the ministers’ attention.
Dominic Perrottet
Mr FINN (Western Metropolitan) (14:57): I rise to offer my very warmest congratulations to the new Premier of New South Wales, Dominic Perrottet. I have known, liked and admired Dom for some time and was delighted by his elevation to lead his state. He will do an outstanding job and has already started by beginning the reopening of Sydney. Millions of Melburnians have looked at their television sets in stunned amazement as they have seen Sydney residents drinking in a pub, dining in a restaurant, having their hair cut, working out at the gym or even going shopping—some have even visited friends and family—all things banned in Melbourne and with very little hope of happening anytime soon.
Victorians would love a Premier like Dom Perrottet—someone who respects them, somebody who will give them freedom, somebody who will not use lockdown as a blunt instrument with which to bludgeon the community into submission. Melburnians are green with envy at our Sydney cousins’ experience. They are experiencing exactly what we used to take for granted. As businesses continue to crash, as our kids continue to suffer, as families crack under the pressure, Victorians need a Premier with vision, with activity, with energy—
Ms Crozier: And honesty.
Mr FINN: and honesty, indeed. Unfortunately that Premier is in New South Wales.
Family violence
Dr RATNAM (Northern Metropolitan) (14:59): Forty-one women have been killed in Australia by family violence in 2021 already—that is one woman a week—and the toll keeps rising. Many of these women are from culturally diverse communities but are still not able to access the type of culturally appropriate support they need. Victoria still does not have a culturally specific women’s refuge, despite both New South Wales and Queensland establishing these vital services.
I recently hosted a forum to hear from grassroots organisations working on the front line with women from migrant backgrounds who are urging the government to urgently increase funding to culturally specific services. We heard heartbreaking accounts from women with lived experience of family violence about the torture and abuse they suffered at the hands of men who held so much power over them. Women who are on temporary visas face so much uncertainty, making it even harder for them to escape violence. They also face issues such as social isolation, language barriers, cultural norms and pressures that make it hard to escape.
We also heard that offering culturally appropriate services is more than just translation and interpreting. One participant spoke to how difficult it is to share sensitive information through a third party in a room to a counsellor, and that limited her ability to disclose what was occurring. Victoria’s Royal Commission into Family Violence was groundbreaking, but if we are to end violence against all women, we need to ensure that the funding reaches all communities.
I want to thank Shakti, IndianCare, Jatinder Kaur, my parliamentary colleagues the honourable Josh Bull, Fiona Patten and Bruce Atkinson for being part of the forum, and most importantly the women who spoke to their stories of survival. For them, let us work together to ensure not one more woman is killed or injured because of family violence.
Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission
Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan—Leader of the Opposition) (15:00): You know, I think most of us have been very shocked by what we have heard on the IBAC hearings in the last 48 hours. The decision of Mr Donnellan to step aside after the sensational and damaging evidence—to go, to jump and fall on his sword—is a very significant indication of the corruption at the heart of the Labor Party. I think the community is very concerned about what they are hearing. I think the community knows that this is not right. They know that the community wants a focus on the pandemic; they do not want a focus on this sort of nonsense. They do not want parties doing this sort of thing. Equally, they want to focus on recovery and getting out of the problems and the terrible place that we find ourselves in as a state and indeed as a nation. But the Labor Party’s answer to that is all of this terrible misbehaviour, and I think the community are very angry with what they have heard. I think they are actually shocked with what they have heard. The what seems to me on the surface to be outright corruption is just simply appalling. This will be a matter I suspect the police may even take an interest in as time goes on. This is a very concerning development, a concerning development for our democracy, and I think it is wrong that a major political party has behaved in this way. The red shirts rorts that occurred and were documented by the Ombudsman are clearly just the tip of the iceberg—hundreds of thousands of dollars—
Mr Leane interjected.
Mr DAVIS: stolen, Mr Leane, from the community.
Diwali
Mr ERDOGAN (Southern Metropolitan)
Incorporated pursuant to order of Council of 7 September:
Diwali is a joyous occasion that has become a permanent fixture in the calendars of so many people across Victoria.
I had the pleasure of addressing the Swinburne University Diwali celebrations last week in the presence of my Labor colleague in the other place the member for Hawthorn, John Kennedy; Girish Singh Kavia, from the office of the Consul-General of India; and Bwe Thay, the deputy chair of the Victorian Multicultural Commission.
The event, organised by Swinburne Punjabi Club and Swinburne Student Life, was a fantastic occasion that celebrated the diversity that distinguishes Australia and India alike.
We are so fortunate to enjoy so many wonderful festivals and events here in Victoria, where are have such a vibrant multicultural society. The efforts of these students to continue festivities remotely and in a COVID-safe way is testament to their resilience during this time.
I offer my very warm wishes for everyone who will be celebrating Diwali.
Business interrupted pursuant to order of Council of 5 October.
Questions without notice and ministers statements
Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission
Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan—Leader of the Opposition) (15:02): My question is to the Leader of the Government. Minister, will government ministers have their fees and legal representation paid for by Victorian taxpayers at the current IBAC hearings, or will these crooked individuals, like former Minister Donnellan, be required to pay their own legal fees?
Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Attorney-General, Minister for Emergency Services) (15:03): I thank Mr Davis for his question. They are questions that I do not have the answer to, nor should I have the answer to. In relation to the legal fees, the legal representation of individuals that appear before tribunals, commissions or the courts is very often a matter for that individual. Of course there are insurance and policies within government that would apply in particular situations, but in relation to the specific questions that you have asked, I do not know.
Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan—Leader of the Opposition) (15:03): Minister, I thank you for the answer, but I think the answer is wholly unsatisfactory. I am told that the government has actually made consideration of these matters—
Members interjecting.
Mr DAVIS: Well, I am told that actually a contingency has been made. I am told that a contingency of up to a million dollars has actually been made, but I do not have the document to prove that. And I therefore ask, Minister: is it a fact that there has been a contingency set aside for legal costs at the current investigations by IBAC into ALP practices?
Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Attorney-General, Minister for Emergency Services) (15:05): Mr Davis, I answered your query in response to your substantive question. In relation to individuals’ legal representation, as the Attorney-General I certainly expect and encourage people to seek legal advice and legal representation in relation to any matters that involve legal questions. In relation to the legal fees of individuals, I do not know those personal situations.
Mr Davis: On a point of order, President, I did not ask about personal decisions of people and their own legal representation; I asked whether a contingency had been set aside by government.
The PRESIDENT: The answer is there.
Victims of crime
Mr GRIMLEY (Western Victoria) (15:05): My question is for the Attorney-General. The Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse in 2017 recommended that, and I quote:
Each Australian Director of Public Prosecutions should establish robust and effective internal audit processes to audit their compliance with policies for decision-making and consultation with victims and police.
The Office of Public Prosecutions undertook such an audit and reported in their 2019–20 annual report that only 80 per cent of victims were treated in compliance with organisational policies. This is despite the victims charter mandating consultation with victims of crime at a number of stages in the criminal trial process. It is unacceptable that 20 per cent of victims of crime are not provided with standards of service which are their right under law. There is a significant risk that they are further traumatised through these failures. My question is: can the Attorney explain if the OPP have taken steps to improve this outcome and, given the insights of this audit, if they intend to run it annually or in the future?
Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Attorney-General, Minister for Emergency Services) (15:06): Whilst I thank Mr Grimley for his question, it is a very, very specific question about an independent body and the assurances that I have in relation to the matters that he has raised. First of all, you have quoted some statistics. I do not dispute you, but I have not got that level of information in front of me. I can commit to take it on notice and seek some further information from the OPP. I would repeat that they are an independent organisation that I do not have operational control over. However, I work fantastically with them. The work they do in relation to protecting the community and ensuring the upholding of prosecution of perpetrators is fantastic. Their dealings with victims in my experience are first and forefront at the front of the work that they do. They have always identified opportunities for improvement. But in relation to your specific question, I think I should seek some specific advice because it is a very specific question.
Mr GRIMLEY (Western Victoria) (15:08): Thanks, Attorney. The poor compliance is not limited to the OPP. The victims of crime commissioner reported in its 2019–20 annual report that only 31 per cent of prescribed agencies have mechanisms in place to comply with the legislation. Despite recommendations by the Victorian Law Reform Commission in their 2016 report to institute remedies for victims failed by the system, there remains no penalty or consequence for agencies that do not meet compliance with the charter. As I said last week, the charter is a toothless tiger without means to hold agencies to account. To strengthen victims rights, one of the recommendations of this same report was to provide guarantees for the treatment of victims of crime in the human rights charter. This would mean that every bill in this place would need to be compliant with victims rights. That can only be a good thing, but to date it has not been implemented. My supplementary question therefore is: given departments are lacking in their compliance with the toothless tiger, why has the government not implemented this recommendation to uphold victims rights through the human rights charter?
The PRESIDENT: Mr Grimley, I have problems with your supplementary, to be honest with you. I do not know how it is related to the question or the answer. I think it is broader than was sought of the Attorney-General, so I am going to give you a chance to rephrase it in a different way.
Mr GRIMLEY: I am not too sure how I can rephrase it. My substantive question was in relation to the victims charter specifically, and my supplementary question is asking the Attorney-General if the human rights charter can incorporate the victims charter when we are debating bills in this place. It is tricky to reword the supplementary question, but I am happy to perhaps—
Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Attorney-General, Minister for Emergency Services) (15:10): Thank you, Mr Grimley, for your supplementary question. You are asking for a significant policy announcement right now. What I would say is that the charter of human rights applies to victims. Victims are afforded the rights afforded to every Victorian that are provided for in the charter of human rights. In relation to strengthening support for victims, that is something that I committed to in my response to your question last week in relation to the victims charter, which we acknowledge is 15 years old, in relation to how organisations and departments are across the issues that are important to victims. I think that that is something that we should always continue to do. We have a proud history of supporting victims. The victims of crime commissioner is someone that I am working with on ensuring that we can continue to evolve government policies and awareness within government to support our victims throughout the process and their recovery processes et cetera, and our commitment to that remains.
Ministers statements: GenV
Ms PULFORD (Western Victoria—Minister for Employment, Minister for Innovation, Medical Research and the Digital Economy, Minister for Small Business, Minister for Resources) (15:11): I am delighted to update the house on the GenV project, and perhaps particularly Ms Lovell, because I was telling her about it just last week when we were here. Last Friday I met four-week-old Matilda and her mum, Caitlin Farquhar, in Ballarat. Matilda is one of the first Ballarat children to participate in the Murdoch Children’s Research Institute (MCRI) GenV project.
A member: A fine institute.
Ms PULFORD: It is a fabulous institute. I am very excited that families in Ballarat but also across regional Victoria are now joining Australia’s largest ever child and parent research project, helping to drive better health outcomes for the next generation of young Victorians.
Ballarat Health Services and St John of God hospital have joined 27 other regional hospitals across the state taking part in the study, which will track the wellbeing of 150 000 Victorians through their lives in a pioneering bid to map the health of an entire generation of young people. Expanding the project across the state’s populations will drive better health outcomes for children, helping doctors and researchers to identify if there are health issues that are specific or unique to certain areas. Participating families will receive regular communication to ensure that they are fully aware of the project’s progression and how data will be used. Families can opt out of the study at any time. So far more than 5000 newborn babies have become involved in the study, with a fifth of those in regional Victoria. Data from the trial shows that 99.1 per cent of parents feel positive about taking part in the voluntary initiative.
GenV is leading the world in studying the first post-COVID-19 generation and will be able to measure the physical, economic and policy impacts of the virus across this population. When the project was conceived, COVID was not something we had heard of or thought of, but it is now of course uniquely placed to study this generation of babies, and the results will no doubt be of interest to researchers around the world. The MCRI is leading the project and working with the children’s hospital, the University of Melbourne and the Paul Ramsay Foundation, and we are delighted to be backing it with a $30 million investment. This is a groundbreaking project to paint a complete health and wellbeing map of the state.
Emergency Services Telecommunications Authority
Ms CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan) (15:13): My question is to the Minister for Emergency Services. Minister, can you confirm that on Wednesday, 6 October 2021, last week, phone calls to the Emergency Services Telecommunications Authority (ESTA) were being left on hold for up to 30 minutes?
Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Attorney-General, Minister for Emergency Services) (15:14): I thank Ms Crozier for her question and the opportunity to talk about our hardworking staff at ESTA. Like the rest of the health system, our ESTA call takers are facing unprecedented demand due to COVID-19, and they are working extremely hard to make sure that they can meet this surge in calls. They of course are at the front line of this continuing fight against the delta outbreak, and I certainly thank them for their ongoing commitment. While demand for ambulances through our 000 call takers has reached unprecedented numbers, it is no surprise that the demand flows on to the call centre. As has been reported, there are delays. There are efforts to urgently deal with this.
I certainly do not want to lay any blame on people who are scared, in distress and want to call 000, but one of the issues is that up to 40 per cent of those calling 000 do not need to be. There are other opportunities with going to see your GP, your pharmacist or Nurse-on-Call, and police matters can go to the police assistance line, so we are doing work to make sure that people know that you really should only call 000 in an emergency.
We have been certainly focused on urgent and long-term fixes for some of the issues that we are experiencing. At ESTA I have had many meetings in the last couple of weeks in relation to this matter. I am obviously a new minister, but I have been very impressed with people’s focus and attention on this. I have all confidence that all eyes are on this across government. The emergency management commissioner has stood up a multi-agency task force with representatives from Emergency Management Victoria, Ambulance Victoria, Victoria Police, the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning and the ESTA board to really look at every avenue and options to explore bringing down call wait times and any delays. We have got Deb Abbott, the deputy commissioner of EMV, who has gone in in a support role, and indeed there was money in the budget to employ additional staff. There are 43 full-time equivalent—
Ms Crozier: On a point of order, President, I realise the minister is pointing out all the very concerning issues surrounding ESTA, but she has not gone to the very simple answer to what I asked: were phone calls to ESTA being left on hold for up to 30 minutes last week? That is a very simple question, and I would ask you to bring the minister back in the last few seconds that we have.
The PRESIDENT: I believe the minister’s answer was relevant to the question, and she has still got 40 seconds.
Ms SYMES: Thank you, President. I think it is really important for the house to hear all of the initiatives that are important in dealing with ESTA’s commitment to protecting the lives of Victorians, and I thank them for that work—as I said, employing 43 new staff, offering overtime shifts to existing staff, encouraging people who have recently retired or are on secondment to come back, and reskilling police and fire call takers to the ambulance line, which is obviously, as I described, where the biggest issues are.
Mr Davis: On a point of order, President, we are still no closer to the simple yes or no answer that is required on the 30-minute wait. Was it 30 minutes or wasn’t it? It is a simple answer.
The PRESIDENT: Mr Davis, you know I cannot direct the minister on how to answer a question.
Ms SYMES: Thank you, President. I am absolutely focused on outcomes and improvements in ESTA, and I believe that my answer hopefully has given the house some comfort in relation to the government’s efforts and our agencies in that regard.
Ms CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan) (15:18): President, as you are aware, I was listening to the minister for over 3 minutes. While she pointed out the many concerns and issues with ESTA and the failures that are occurring across the system, she did not answer the question about whether people were being left on hold for up to 30 minutes last week. So I will ask a very simple question: in May the government announced $46.2 million to, and I quote:
… allow ESTA to maintain consistent Triple Zero service delivery and provide additional full-time equivalents … to meet service demand increases.
As of today, Minister, how much of that $46.2 million has actually been spent?
Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Attorney-General, Minister for Emergency Services) (15:18): Ms Crozier, I do not have a breakdown of how much has been spent on every initiative, but I think what I did in my substantive answer was highlight the number of initiatives that are being taken to ensure that we can respond to this unprecedented demand, which we hope is for a short period of time—looking at getting staff back, supporting the existing staff, supporting management, putting in EMV. There are lots of good things that are happening at ESTA to support them.
Ms Crozier interjected.
Ms SYMES: All of the things that I went through, Ms Crozier, in relation to employing new staff and providing assistance for overtime, involves investment from government, and this government will continue to invest appropriately in ESTA to ensure that their life-saving activities can be supported.
Ms CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan) (15:19): I move:
That the minister’s answers be taken into account on the next day of meeting.
Motion agreed to.
Deer control
Mr BOURMAN (Eastern Victoria) (15:20): My question is for the minister representing the minister for environment. It changes so often, I am not really sure who that is at the moment.
Mr Leane: I can take that for you, Jeff.
Mr BOURMAN: Thank you, Minister Leane. Come on down. Minister, the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning has been conducting aerial culling of wild deer in the Victorian High Country for a number of years now. These operations lead to closures which disrupt large numbers of locals and tourists, as well as displacing recreational hunters in some areas. There is a real and growing concern that the department is completely unaccountable for this imposition, and what public reporting there has been is strangely meaningless. Will the minister please advise the house when clear and transparent reporting will be released detailing pre- and post-operation population management, the real cost per operation and the oversight of animal welfare?
Mr LEANE (Eastern Metropolitan—Minister for Local Government, Minister for Suburban Development, Minister for Veterans) (15:21): I thank Mr Bourman for his question, which is directed to the minister for environment, and I will ensure that he gets an answer in line with what is determined in the standing orders.
Mr BOURMAN (Eastern Victoria) (15:21): I thank the minister. The supplementary is: can the minister please advise specific costs of the oversight, such as independent observers and the filming of flights, that is undertaken to ensure animal welfare concerns are addressed?
Mr LEANE (Eastern Metropolitan—Minister for Local Government, Minister for Suburban Development, Minister for Veterans) (15:21): I thank Mr Bourman for his supplementary question, and I will ensure that his question gets to the minister for environment and he gets a response in line with what is prescribed in the standing orders.
Ministers statements: Victorian Skills Authority
Ms TIERNEY (Western Victoria—Minister for Training and Skills, Minister for Higher Education) (15:21): Today I am proud to speak on the Victorian Skills Authority, which was established in July to build on this government’s significant achievements in skills and training and job creation. The VSA was a key recommendation of the Skills for Victoria’s Growing Economy review. Craig Robertson was recently appointed as the founding CEO and brings a wealth of experience and expertise to the role, and today I am pleased to announce the establishment of the ministerial advisory board, which will be chaired by Lisa Line, who has a breadth of experience and knowledge in higher education and training. The board features people of the highest calibre. They all represent great expertise in industry and education. They will focus on ensuring our training and higher education sector meets the needs of jobseekers and industry.
The VSA will develop the first-ever statewide skills plan, which will set out training needs for our local communities and industries and really focus on areas for economic growth. Collaboration is the key. They will identify areas of growth and opportunity. One of the first duties of the VSA is the Clean Economy Skills and Jobs Taskforce, which is supported by a $10 million investment in the clean economy workforce. The VSA will help prepare Victoria’s clean energy future and net zero emissions by 2050. This task force will develop a 10-year workforce strategy exploring renewable energy, circular economy practices and climate change adaptation. I am proud that this government invests in listening to industry and the post-secondary school sector and is committed to delivering the skills needed by industries for Victoria’s economy and socially cohesive future.
COVID-19
Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan—Leader of the Opposition) (15:23): My question is for the Minister for Workplace Safety. Minister, in December last year WorkSafe CEO Mr Colin Radford told the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee that WorkSafe’s investigation into your government’s hotel quarantine program was looking at a number of duty holders: hotel operators, security companies, contractors, suppliers and providers, and the Department of Jobs, Precincts and Regions and the Department of Health and Human Services. Minister, why has the decision been made by WorkSafe to only prosecute one of these duty holders—namely, the Department of Health?
Ms STITT (Western Metropolitan—Minister for Workplace Safety, Minister for Early Childhood) (15:24): I thank Mr Davis for his question, and that is a question that is much better directed to the CEO of WorkSafe. As I have said on a number of occasions in the house in answers to similar questions about investigations into the hotel quarantine program by WorkSafe, these are matters that are not my responsibility as Minister for Workplace Safety. The independent safety regulator is responsible for compliance activity, and that is absolutely appropriate.
Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan—Leader of the Opposition) (15:24): That is a pathetic answer. What I would say is that Colin Radford is a Labor lackey; he is stacked into that place there. The board has been stacked with Labor mates and friends, and I have got to say that Radford is not up to the job. I ask you: do you consider such a prosecution, a narrow prosecution, to be an abuse of process aimed at protecting individual duty holders?
Ms STITT (Western Metropolitan—Minister for Workplace Safety, Minister for Early Childhood) (15:25): The Leader of the Opposition is actually asking me to run a commentary on matters that are before the courts, and I have no intention of doing so.
COVID-19 vaccination
Mr BARTON (Eastern Metropolitan) (15:25): My question is to Minister Pulford, representing the minister for transport. The Victorian government has announced that all commercial passenger vehicle drivers must have a COVID-19 vaccine if they wish to continue providing CPV services. If a CPV driver has a driver agreement in place with the vehicle owner, then it is the responsibility of the vehicle owner to keep a record of those vaccinations. However, those who are not registered as a booking service provider are expected to keep their own record. So my question is: why is Commercial Passenger Vehicles Victoria not keeping a register of full vaccination status against every driver’s accreditation details, instead choosing to rely on an honesty system?
Ms PULFORD (Western Victoria—Minister for Employment, Minister for Innovation, Medical Research and the Digital Economy, Minister for Small Business, Minister for Resources) (15:26): I thank Mr Barton for his question and his interest in the safe travel of people using commercial passenger vehicles and those who drive those vehicles, both as employees and as self-employed people. I imagine that the question goes to the legal effect and nature of the chief health officer’s direction rather than being a question of CPVV’s regulatory role, but I will seek a response from Minister Carroll for you, who may in turn seek some advice from Minister Foley to assist in providing you with some certainty around that.
Mr BARTON (Eastern Metropolitan) (15:27): Whilst we are talking about COVID requirements by the CPVV, I have been informed that the CPVV have not been following the government’s lead on requiring proof of vaccinations from patrons. While soon all patrons entering a pub or a shopping centre will be scanning their QR code to show they are double vaxxed, there will be no such requirement for travelling CPV passengers. This certainly seems to be at odds with the public health message as we know it today, so in the interests of providing the best public health outcomes for our drivers, why have the CPVV and Health chosen not to make it a requirement for patrons to prove that they are double vaxxed when requesting a commercial passenger vehicle?
Ms PULFORD (Western Victoria—Minister for Employment, Minister for Innovation, Medical Research and the Digital Economy, Minister for Small Business, Minister for Resources) (15:28): I thank Mr Barton for his supplementary question, and I will seek some further advice perhaps, probably again from Minister Carroll and Minister Foley. The supplementary question even more directly than the substantive goes to the question of the health directions. It is not really a matter for the CPVV when you are talking about vaccination mandates and the health orders that give them effect. That is very much a matter for the chief health officer, and as I think all members will appreciate, he has made some decisions—some of which have taken effect already, others of which are yet to take effect—that are based on his assessment of the need to have people at particular risk of exposure kept safe. The public health message is absolutely clear, though. The public health message is that we think everybody should be vaccinated, and quickly, so that we can all get back to doing the things that everybody loves and misses and to doing so safely. But I will seek that further advice from ministers Carroll and Foley for you.
Ministers statements: veterans employment
Mr LEANE (Eastern Metropolitan—Minister for Local Government, Minister for Suburban Development, Minister for Veterans) (15:29): Today I would like to update the house on the Andrews Labor government’s public sector veterans employment strategy. The strategy was launched in 2017. The government committed to employing 250 veterans in the public service sector by the middle of this year, and I am glad to say that target was well surpassed and reached. Earlier this year I met with Major General David MacLachlan, who is the Victorian veteran employment advocate, to get his thoughts on what our next aim should be. Mr MacLachlan said we should be ambitious and set at a minimum the same target of 750 veterans in the Victorian public sector over the next four years, and I am more than happy for us to announce today that that is the target we will set. We have also made a $1.3 million commitment to the budget to advance this and also to support the major general’s ongoing work. I have got to say that it is an absolute privilege to have worked alongside the major general and got to know him, and I really appreciate his advice in many, many areas.
One aspect of the successful strategy is a mentoring program that has paired 83 mentors with mentees, promoting supportive professional relationships, since it was launched early last year. The veteran employee network, which started in 2020 and now has over 100 veteran members. The strategy also delivered online resources to support veterans to translate their military experience into understandable skills for public sector management, a veteran-specific guide for those applying for public sector roles and workshops for veterans regarding employment and opportunities. In the near future I and Minister Pulford will be announcing work that we will be doing in the private sector as well, along the lines of the successful public sector employment program, which we are very proud of.
Remembrance Day
Ms BATH (Eastern Victoria) (15:31): My question is to the Minister for Veterans. Minister, will you confirm the advice received by Traralgon RSL and other sub-branches across the state that, as president Ron Culliver said, unless attendees are fully vaccinated Remembrance Day services will be limited to just 10 people, as per the outdoor gathering restrictions?
Mr LEANE (Eastern Metropolitan—Minister for Local Government, Minister for Suburban Development, Minister for Veterans) (15:31): Ms Bath, I am not too sure where that advice has come from, in terms of where it came from to Traralgon. The custodians of these particular ceremonies are the RSL and the shrine trust. I am very respectful of that. I have interacted with both those entities in the last week after a question last week around Remembrance Day services, and they have confirmed to me that they are more than happy to deal with it. They have had a lot of support from government departments—from Health and from the Department of Jobs, Precincts and Regions—around events, as far as how they can go forward during a pandemic goes. They have had a lot of support and advice. But at the end of the day, I do not think they appreciate, whether it be the opposition or the government, thinking that we should be controlling or telling them how to run an event, even during this time of a pandemic. I find it a bit disrespectful. If anyone looks at the mission statement of RSL Victoria, they are an apolitical, independent, membership-based organisation—
Mr Davis: Doesn’t make you immune from questions as Minister for Veterans.
Mr LEANE: I have actually answered the question. I am not too sure where that advice has actually come from. I think that any event in the next few weeks will be limited to people that are double vaccinated, no matter what the event, and that is for obvious health and safety reasons. The RSL and the shrine trust are the same as me; I wish there was not a pandemic. I really wish that we had all been vaccinated in April, like the federal government promised. I really wish that New South Wales did not infect us and we did not go through a second—
Ms Bath: On a point of order, President, as to relevance, this has nothing to do with the federal government or what they are doing. This actually has to do with government directives, and my president, Ron Culliver, wishes to know what their directions are. They are at a loss. So I ask you to bring him back to the actual question.
The PRESIDENT: The minister to continue.
Mr LEANE: I thank the member for her clarification. The RSL, in days, will be putting out guidelines around having events on Remembrance Day. Once again, it is not for me to dictate to them how they go about events they have been organising for decades. I still find it a bit disrespectful. The opposition have not even contacted Anzac House, yet they are coming and asking questions and making public statements when they have not even had the respect to actually contact them.
Ms BATH (Eastern Victoria) (15:35): Given that some of these veterans and their families who will want to pay their respects may not be vaccinated, can you confirm that they will be able to attend Remembrance Day services, or will they be turned away, Minister?
Mr LEANE (Eastern Metropolitan—Minister for Local Government, Minister for Suburban Development, Minister for Veterans) (15:35): I think I answered that. In line with the health directions, any sorts of events in the future will be limited to people that are double vaccinated. But I can say, similar to previous events, that there will be broadcasts of different ceremonies. There will be other ways for people to pay respect. I completely appreciate people want to pay their respects on this sacred day, and I understand. I am frustrated too. I wish we were not in this health situation, but the reality is we are. Organisations like the RSL and the shrine trust, the same as everyone, need to ensure that people that they represent are as safe as possible. As I said, it is a global pandemic. I want to take this opportunity to compliment the RSL and the shrine trust for the work that they do. It has been a really difficult time for everyone, and they have gone to the best ends they can to actually make it available for people to pay their respects.
Mental health funding
Ms PATTEN (Northern Metropolitan) (15:36): My question is for Minister Pulford in her portfolio of medical research, and it relates to the neuromedicines discovery centre, which is a new and unique research venture by Monash University. Trials have shown that medically assisted psychotherapy is an effective and long-lasting treatment option for PTSD, depression and substance use disorders, and I am pleased that Minister Leane has also taken an interest in this. But we need more research, and Victoria is the best place to do it. This project responds to the royal commission’s key research priority recommendation on innovation in pharmacology and is headed by world-renowned expert Professor Arthur Christopoulos. It stands to not only benefit patients but create jobs in education and health and strengthen our economy via novel IP and manufacturing for commercial supply of pharmaceutical-grade psychoactive medicines. The university is keen to build on this, so my question is: will the minister take steps to fund this important research centre?
Ms PULFORD (Western Victoria—Minister for Employment, Minister for Innovation, Medical Research and the Digital Economy, Minister for Small Business, Minister for Resources) (15:37): I thank Ms Patten for her question—such an important question on such an important subject. I certainly look forward to working with researchers in this endeavour, with Minister Merlino in his capacity as the Minister for Mental Health, who has, in the first instance for the government, responsibility for delivery of the royal commission recommendations. But we have had a number of very good conversations about the intersection of some of those recommendations and my responsibilities as minister for medical research.
My office and department have met with some of the scientists undertaking some of this cutting-edge research into the impact of new and not so new drug treatments for PTSD in particular. I know Mr Leane and I have had discussions about this as well, including after your previous question to Mr Leane about that insofar as it affects our veteran communities, but of course PTSD is also experienced by many people who have experienced trauma throughout the Victorian community, and it is an incredibly debilitating condition that can be very, very stubborn and resistant to treatment.
Whilst I am not in a position to make a funding commitment now—and I would remind Ms Patten and the house that the primary funder of research grants is the federal government, through the Future Fund and the NHMRC, the regular grants rounds—we certainly do support our sector in a whole lot of different ways, including with our own grants rounds and indeed some really important work that we are able to do in terms of facilitating partnerships and building the ecosystem.
Ms Patten said that Melbourne is the best place to do this kind of medical research. Melbourne is very much the best place—certainly the best place in Australia—to do any kind of medical research, and that is not to be dismissive of the exceptional skill and capability and dedication that exist in other states, with whom our researchers work in partnership. But what we have here is very, very special, with around 40 per cent of those national grants, which is the way in which the share is assessed. Our government has made now over a billion dollars of investment into medical research, including in a really wide range of different areas of endeavour. It is a very rapidly changing area as well, as we see new platforms like mRNA, for instance, presenting a multitude of potential new research frontiers for things that have persistently been very difficult problems to solve. We are at a particular point of time in human history where we see a really interesting confluence between data science and computing with research as well.
Ms PATTEN (Northern Metropolitan) (15:40): Thank you, Minister. I take note that, yes, a lot of this comes through federal funding, but as you mentioned, there are some state grants there and also that ability, as you said, to help them fit into that ecosystem. We know that this type of medicine is now in stage 3 trials in the United States. It has got Food and Drug Administration approval. We are at that tipping point, so now is just such an important time. Certainly Monash University through their discovery centre have done some really great work on their own, so I am just wondering if you would meet with them again to talk about how you can provide assistance to take them to that next step, just to ensure that this opportunity is not lost.
Ms PULFORD (Western Victoria—Minister for Employment, Minister for Innovation, Medical Research and the Digital Economy, Minister for Small Business, Minister for Resources) (15:41): I thank Ms Patten for her interest and her advocacy. I am really happy to meet with the people running this project and to hear their latest as well. Of course there is a role for us in advocating to the federal government, but we are certainly much more active and interventionist than just that, and we have for 20 years now in Victoria as a state been really actively supporting and nurturing our extraordinary ecosystem. The goals of our research community are constantly moving and constantly changing, and we pretty ruthlessly pursue making sure that our scientists have the support that they need to do what they do in all sorts of different ways. I think this is a really interesting field of inquiry and research, and I wish them every success. I am certainly happy to meet with them and to hear from them about what more we can do to support them.
Ministers statements: Coronial Council of Victoria
Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Attorney-General, Minister for Emergency Services) (15:42): I would like to use this opportunity to update the house on two reports from the Coronial Council of Victoria that improve the experiences of bereaved families involved in the coronial system.
The coronial council has released its report on the experiences of diverse cultural and faith communities during the challenging coronial process. It is important that in multicultural Victoria our death investigation practices are as inclusive and as respectful as possible and serve all Victorians, taking into account their diverse beliefs. There are many cultural and religious practices observed in connection with death and bereavement. Sometimes it is the timely release of bodies for burial, or it is avoiding invasive post-mortem examinations where possible. The coronial council’s report highlights the great work our coroners and forensic pathologists do to acknowledge and embed diversity into their work. It also identifies ways that processes can be improved to minimise distress for families affected by an unexpected death. I welcome the recommendations, and I am looking forward to working with the State Coroner and other agencies to implement them. The council consulted widely with many religious and cultural communities to formulate its recommendations, with a focus on the Baha’i, Buddhist, Hindu, Jewish, Muslim, Orthodox Christian and other faiths. I want to thank the council, the Victorian Multicultural Commission and all the community and faith leaders who participated in these important consultations.
The council also released its report today on how and when deaths are reported to a coroner. This report will help us make sure that death investigations focus on cases where the public stands to benefit the most so that families are not needlessly caught up in the process where it may not be justified. The Coroners Court is a place that no-one really wants to encounter, but thanks to the work of the council this experience will be better for families touched by unexpected tragedy.
Written responses
The PRESIDENT (15:44): Regarding questions and answers today: Mr Grimley, one day for the substantive question to the Attorney-General; Mr Bourman to the environment minister, via Mr Leane, question and supplementary, two days; Mr Davis to Minister Stitt, one day, the question; and Mr Barton to transport, via Ms Pulford, two days, question and supplementary.
Ms Crozier: On a point of order, President, my questions were fairly simple in terms of what I was asking of the Minister for Emergency Services—very precise. It was about whether the minister could confirm that phone calls to the Emergency Services Telecommunications Authority were being left on hold for up to 30 minutes last week. That is a very precise question that the minister went nowhere near to answering. The next question, my supplementary, I would also suggest—$46.2 million was budgeted; has all that money been spent?—was, again, a very simple yes or no.
The PRESIDENT: From memory, Ms Crozier, I remember your point of order at the beginning, on the substantive question, and I said to you that the minister was being relevant to the question. But I am happy to look at Hansard and get back to you.
Members statements
Dyslexia Awareness Month
Dr CUMMING (Western Metropolitan) (15:46): I rise today to speak about Dyslexia Awareness Month, which runs throughout October. This cause is close to my heart, because I have made no secret of the fact in this house that I am a dyslexic. People with dyslexia have trouble with reading and spelling, but it does not stop their ability to learn or to understand things; they just learn differently. Our brains work a little differently, and no two people with dyslexia will have the same experience. There are two ways for people to get involved in dyslexia month: either the Red Paper Plane Challenge or Light it Red for Dyslexia, which is lighting buildings or monuments red. You might ask the question, ‘Why the red colour?’. It is because many dyslexics will tell you that when they were at school many of their papers were marked in red because of crosses for not being able to spell and corrections. We used to dread the red pen when it came to our work and our drafts. These events are all about taking back the colour red and taking back the power of red. I believe that we should acknowledge dyslexia month, seeing that we have had the harshest lockdowns. Many children have had a very disrupted ability to learn this year under the lockdowns, so dyslexia month is a month that we should acknowledge.
COVID-19 vaccination
Mr QUILTY (Northern Victoria) (15:48): Eighty-five per cent of Victorians over 16 have received their first dose of the COVID vaccine. This is not a result of the vaccine mandates. Until recently the rate of vaccination in Victoria was limited by vaccine availability and the government ruling people ineligible. Since the expansion of eligibility, vaccination appointments have been booked solid weeks in advance. This shows that close to 85 per cent of Victorians are willing to get vaccinated without mandates, well above the government’s own arbitrary 80 per cent double-dose target. Despite this the government is going to violate the consent of many thousands of Victorians and coerce them into receiving a vaccine.
For this government the use of force is their first resort rather than their last, because they do not trust Victorians to make their own decisions. This week the government will attempt to expel MPs exposed to vaccine mandates, in breach of centuries of parliamentary tradition. After 18 months of rule by decree they will now take extraordinary action to exclude their opposition from Parliament. This government complains that people do not trust them. The problem is that this government cannot be trusted. For the vaccine hesitant, seeing the government forcing them to be vaccinated even when it is clearly not necessary only increases that distrust. Seeing MPs expelled from Parliament for opposing these extraordinary breaches of consent and human rights only increases that distrust. With over 80 per cent of people willingly getting their first dose, it is clear vaccine hesitancy is not the issue. Vaccine mandates are not necessary; they are just the heavy-handed response of a government that does not understand the meaning of consent.
Constituency questions
Northern Metropolitan Region
Mr ONDARCHIE (Northern Metropolitan) (15:49): (1429) My constituency question is for the Minister for Roads and Road Safety. Roxburgh Park residents are concerned about traffic, congestion and the time it takes them to get to work. The money allocated in the 2021–22 state budget to upgrade Mickleham Road and Somerton Road is less than one-tenth of what is required to fix them. It is tokenism at best. The minister might be aware that in 2019 I conducted a traffic survey in the suburb of Roxburgh Park and was inundated with responses. I later made the feelings of those constituents known to this house. I have again been contacted by those same constituents, who are still frustrated with the traffic flow of these intersections. The question I have for the minister is: will the government commit to investigating the sequencing of the lights at the intersections of Somerton Road and Pascoe Vale Road, Somerton Park Drive and Somerton Road and Somerton Road and Cooper Street to assist the traffic flow for my residents so they can get home safely to their families?
Western Victoria Region
Mr GRIMLEY (Western Victoria) (15:50): (1430) My question is for the Minister for Tourism, Sport and Major Events. The Barwon south-west region is well known for our AFL prowess. It is no secret that we love AFL, and our local facilities showcase the effort that is put into grassroots footy. What many people do not realise is that the other form of football, that some would know as soccer, is growing in popularity also in the Barwon south-west region. I have been approached by a constituent who believes that as the participation in soccer grows in our region our grassroots facilities are not keeping up. In their facility strategy in 2018 Football Victoria predicted that anywhere between 16 and 27 pitches would be needed across the Barwon south-west region by 2026. Greater Geelong, Warrnambool and Surf Coast are projected to account for 95 per cent of registered players in the Barwon south-west region in 2026. The number of projected registered players in 2026 for the region is between 4600 and 7600, depending on growth. It is safe to say that soccer is growing exponentially. My question is: will the minister explain what plans the government have to ensure that grassroots soccer infrastructure will keep up with the projected growth in the Barwon south-west region?
Northern Victoria Region
Ms LOVELL (Northern Victoria) (15:51): (1431) My question is for the Premier. On 1 September Victoria removed six Victorian local government areas from the border community bubble. This decision caused significant difficulties for services and businesses in the region who have regular work in New South Wales. Last week it was announced that five of these six LGAs had been returned to the border bubble, with the exception of Greater Shepparton. Shepparton is a major service centre for many communities in the southern Riverina. Its exclusion from the border bubble has caused the greatest impact of all six LGAs, and its continued exclusion will mean that many Greater Shepparton businesses are unable to resume providing goods and services to this area, complete contracts or begin to recover economically from the impacts of the lockdowns. Will the Premier reinstate the Greater Shepparton local government area into the border community bubble so local businesses can resume providing goods and services into southern New South Wales?
Northern Victoria Region
Ms MAXWELL (Northern Victoria) (15:52): (1432) My question is to the Minister for Industry Support and Recovery. My office was contacted yesterday by a retailer in Wangaratta who is going to lose 50 per cent of their staff because they are hesitant to be vaccinated. There is no mandate that people entering their store have to be vaccinated, because they supply food. They cannot deny entry to unvaccinated customers, but their staff will not be able to attend work despite other COVID-safe measures being put into place. Minister, this business will struggle to advertise, interview, appoint and train new staff in one week. The COVID hotline told them to simply close their doors until the process is completed, but they could not tell them if they would be given any financial assistance. So my question is: what financial support will be given to this constituent and others in these circumstances?
Eastern Metropolitan Region
Dr BACH (Eastern Metropolitan) (15:53): (1433) The matter I raise this afternoon is regarding Victoria’s health crisis and the way that that is working its way through in my electorate, in particular regarding Eastern Health. There are so many troubling examples that I could recite for the benefit of the house. In particular I will refer to ramping today. There have been more recent reports of ramping at Box Hill Hospital, such an important health hub in my electorate. So my question to the Minister for Health is: what are you doing to ensure that hospitals in my electorate, such as the crucially important hospital in Box Hill, have the capacity to ensure that this does not happen again? The government has had so long to ready our health system for this inevitable surge in cases, this inevitable surge in the need for our hospitals. It was on 1 April last year that the Premier said that quickly—quote, ‘quickly’—he would establish an additional 4000 ICU beds. They have not arrived. The broader health system is in crisis. That crisis is impacting my electorate and my constituents.
Western Metropolitan Region
Dr CUMMING (Western Metropolitan) (15:54): (1434) My question is to the Minister for Housing from a resident in Ascot Vale. How many people are on the waiting list for the public housing in Western Metropolitan Region, and what is the breakdown according to the local government areas? My office has an increasing number of people contacting it regarding public housing, and many have been on the priority list for many months with no resolution. My constituent was granted a priority transfer for urgent medical needs and a year later is still waiting for suitable housing. During that time there has been another addition to their family—congratulations. Now, their needs were not being met before their family situation changed, and their requirements are increasing. Will the supply ever match the demand?
Western Victoria Region
Mrs McARTHUR (Western Victoria) (15:56): (1435) My question is for the minister for police and emergency services. For well over 100 years our national flag has been flown proudly at the historic CFA building in Barkly Street, Ballarat. I was there this morning at this beautiful site, yet it seems a request from local volunteers to help fix the flagpole has gone unheeded. An elevated platform unit is needed to get the job done, yet the now FRV station on Sturt Street, the professional operation, and the district’s assistant chief officer will not help their colleagues in the volunteer station. So I ask the minister: what will you do to ensure that this fantastic CFA brigade can once again proudly fly the flag on their historic station?
Northern Metropolitan Region
Ms PATTEN (Northern Metropolitan) (15:57): (1436) My constituency question is for the Minister for Education, and it is in regard to John Fawkner College, which is just north of my electorate office. The college was very pleased to receive $50 000 in funding in the 2019 budget for a master plan for the school’s much-needed redevelopment. I know, President, you would be well aware of this too. The master plan has been finished. It is great, but they are yet to hear any more about the works for that school. So can the minister confirm that John Fawkner College will be funded in next year’s budget to undertake its much-needed redevelopment?
Southern Metropolitan Region
Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan—Leader of the Opposition) (15:57): (1437) My matter for the constituency question today is for the attention of the Minister for Transport Infrastructure, and it relates to the Surrey Hills and Mont Albert level crossings. The community is very, very unhappy with the issue of trees. Mr Buchanan said to me:
… vegetation management for the project is sketchy and non-specific, giving the LXRP flexibility to remove most trees …
We have already heard in this chamber several times about the avenue of honour and the nine trees that commemorate Anzacs, but in this case he said:
We seek your urgent assistance to clarify—
this is to the minister—
this aspect of the project, which was made no clearer at a Community Reference Group (CRG) meeting held on 6 October.
He said they want to see the release of the maps that show which trees will go and which trees will stay, which trees will be chopped down and which trees will be retained. That is a very reasonable request, I believe, and the minister should accede to that request and release those maps of trees to be culled and trees to be retained. It appears almost all will be culled and clear-felled.
Northern Victoria Region
Mr QUILTY (Northern Victoria) (15:59): (1438) My constituency question is to the Minister for Health. From today northern Victorian students in grades 3 through 6 and 8 through 10 will be returning to onsite learning two days a week. In two weeks time all regional students will return to full onsite learning, but parents in Northern Victoria have been left wondering: why the elaborate staging? They would like to know why their children in these grades missed out on the first week of school and why they are expected to miss out on attending school with their brothers and sisters for another two weeks. Many of us cannot see any sense to this. It is disruptive; it requires one parent to remain home to support their child’s remote learning when they could be learning with their peers at school. Again, given the few COVID cases we have had in many towns in the region, this staged return defies logic. It is baffling that this is rolled out across all communities in Northern Victoria regardless of size or COVID cases. Again regional diversity is ignored. Minister, how do you justify this one-size-fits-all staggered return to school for regional students? We just want our kids back in class.
Southern Metropolitan Region
Ms CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan) (16:00): (1439) My constituency question is to the Minister for Planning, and it relates to the Bills Street development, which I have raised on a number of occasions in the house. Again I note that various constituents that I have met with, the local community, have been concerned with the proposed development. They have been very supportive of social housing. They have had social housing in the area; that is not the issue. It is about the size and scale of the proposed development. Where the previous structures were typically around one or two storeys, under the current development plan the constructions will be between three and seven storeys. This will have a very large impact on the local amenity, as I have raised, whether that be overshadowing, the removal of trees or the inability to have appropriate transport infrastructure or parking on the site. These concerns have been raised through the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning. The local member has done little to appease my constituents. So I ask the minister that he actually meet with these constituents so that he can hear their concerns.
Bills
Great Ocean Road and Environs Protection Amendment Bill 2021
Second reading
Debate resumed on motion of Ms SYMES:
That the bill be now read a second time.
Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan—Leader of the Opposition) (16:01): I am pleased to rise and make a contribution on the Great Ocean Road and Environs Protection Amendment Bill 2021, a bill that is dear to the hearts of many in this chamber. I know that Mr Riordan and Mrs McArthur have worked very hard to see a better structure to coordinate activities along the Great Ocean Road. We support a coordinated committee, but we do not support this bill’s option. Unfortunately the government has taken some very good ideas—I think is the way to describe it—and got them wrong. That is partly because they have not listened to the community. They have not put in place the right structures and the right outcome, and that is unfortunate because it is a lost opportunity to, in a reasonable way, put in reasonable structures that will both protect the environment and enhance tourism and do so in a cost-effective way that has community involvement. But that is not what has ended up here, and I am going to outline very briefly how this has gone wrong.
The bill outlines the powers and functions of the Great Ocean Road Coast and Parks Authority as a public land manager, including its powers to prescribe regulations. It provides for the transfer of land management responsibilities for land managed under six acts of Parliament—and to that extent the principle of bringing these together was the right approach; it is just that they have botched the next part of it—and provides for the creation of a new trust account and trust fund which will receive the revenue generated. And I think the fear increasingly with this body is it is going to become a heavy tax authority that is going to scoop in a lot of money. Now, some of it might be legitimately collected from tourists, but locals are about to be clobbered, and I think that that is one of the fears that people have.
So it defines public land. It lays out a number of points. It amends the definition of ‘responsible entity’ in section 3 of the act to exclude a traditional owner management board. In clauses 5, 6 and 7 it talks about scenic landscapes. It amends the Great Ocean Road and Environs Protection Act 2020 and allows for the land that the Great Ocean Road is located on to be declared part of the Great Ocean Road region and coast and the scenic landscapes. The object of the authority is to protect, conserve, enhance and manage public land. It is intended to broaden the authority’s object to include maximising the environmental values of public land and costal assets—and that is important, long haul.
Clause 11 sees section 48 substituted by new sections, and they deal with agreements for services. This prevents the authority from entering into a management agreement in relation to the land managed under the National Parks Act 1975 unless an agreement is entered into with Parks Victoria—so it does not take land from Parks Victoria. It makes some minor technical amendments and provides for further powers and the delegation of authority, appointment of directors and so forth that you would expect with such an authority.
The new section 70A at clause 19 allows the authority to enter into agreements for control and management of assets. Clause 20 has the effect of treating any lease, licence or permit granted as though it were granted by the authority, so it is a continuity clause, and as we go forward there are a number of issues that arise.
The Great Ocean Road is very important for Victorian tourism, as I am sure my colleagues will say. In August 2018 the opposition released a policy. We said:
An elected Liberal Nationals Government will create a new Great Ocean Road Authority to manage designated Crown Land along the Great Ocean Road.
This new authority will replace existing organisations including local government, Parks Victoria, DELWP and the Great Ocean Road Coast Committee …
to manage land along the coast. The government established a Great Ocean Road task force chaired by former public transport ministers Mr Batchelor and Terry Mulder, which reported in August 2018 and made a number of significant recommendations. All of this is important just to know some of the history.
The bill reinforces many of the concerns and leaves many issues unresolved to be dealt with by the regulations, and this is increasingly the way of this government. Stuff is not specified in the act in the way it ought to be. It is left to more-nebulous regulation. There has been very considerable consultation with all of the shires, the Victorian Tourism Industry Council, many of the chambers of commerce and many of the tourism bodies, as well as local MPs and others.
The truth is, though, that the bill provides the authority with broad powers and authority over public land along the Great Ocean Road. However, there is a lot of uncertainty over how the bill will impact on locals and existing agencies in the region as well as the impact on consolidated revenue. The government has conceded there will be extensive regulations to cover all areas of the bill not yet dealt with, making it difficult to assess the full impact on residents, businesses and other stakeholders. That is why we seek to move a reasoned amendment. I move:
That all the words after ‘That’ be omitted and replaced with the words ‘this house refuses to read this bill a second time until the government has provided adequate time for consultation with stakeholders to assess the impact of this bill and has released the proposed regulations.’.
The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Melhem): Would you like that to be circulated?
Mr DAVIS: I would like that to be circulated, thank you, Acting President. We think it is a reasonable request. We think that the truth of the matter is that this is a very impactful bill and the full impacts cannot be properly assessed without seeing what the regulations actually do. And increasingly, as I say, the government is using these regulation powers. They just get a head of power in a bill, and then they go nuts and knock their socks off later. That is, I think, one of the great concerns.
I think that by and large the councils in the area do the best they can, but the coordination of a lot of the activities along the Great Ocean Road cannot be left to councils, because they do not cover sufficient area. The coordination cannot happen with coastal management authorities in the traditional way, because again they do not cover sufficient area. There is obviously Parks Victoria. They have a significant holding of land through all of that area of course, and that is proper, but we note the need to get a better arrangement there.
Now, for a lot of these things the governance of this is going to be very important. I am reminded today that we have actually seen the investigation into allegations of collusion, with property developers at Kingston City Council in October 2021 by the Ombudsman, which draws our attention, I think, to questions of proper governance and how things can be operated. I note that in this case allegations were made and they were followed up by the Ombudsman quite properly. I am not sure that she had any alternative in the end. The allegations were all nameless allegations, and the findings of this were that there was no improper conduct.
It is in that sense a clean bill of health. It does make recommendations, as I said, about governance. The senior planner, Mr Ian Nice, is effectively pointed to and not given a full negative finding but nonetheless does not come out of this as a bureaucrat with the capacity that you would expect. And for the planning department—Jonathan Guttman and Ian Nice both—I think this looks bad, and the relationship between Cavendish Properties and Ian Nice is I think concerning. But having said that, it does make, in the probity findings and on the access to council, very clear findings on the conduct of former councillors. It clears absolutely Cr Geoff Gledhill. It clears other officers and councillors. In that sense this matter of governance that is so central to what we do at the moment is actually quite a significant focus for I think most of us at the moment. I was interested to read in the paper ‘Council planner dined with developer of a local marina but was not corrupt: Ombudsman’. You can scratch your head about all that. I think the Ombudsman has done a very thorough job. I think her clearing a number of councillors and actually in effect saying that they had done everything proper in terms of declarations is important.
This land management task that we are going to have down along the coast is significant. There is going to be a lot of development in the Surf Coast and along the Otways. All of that is going to be important because it has got to be regulated properly. There has got to be proper oversight over that development. And these case studies that come to us from the Ombudsman increasingly—and Operation Sandon at IBAC—make it clear that there has got to be a really close look at how this operates to ensure that we have got proper oversight.
I note that one of these developers, Cavendish Properties, has sued Cameron Howe, and let me clear about this: this developing trend where a developer who has an application before a council can put a defamation action against someone as a way to knock them out of voting is a concern, I have got to say, again coming back to this point of oversight, transparency and proper governance over many of the developments that we are going to see along the Great Ocean Road.
I for one want to see the area preserved in a way that the community also I think by and large wants. And as somebody, like so many Melburnians, who has a long history of travelling to the Great Ocean Road and having holidays there from quite a young age, we have seen in parts of Torquay the density and the intensity of development, and that of course has to be managed. The point I would make is that, in parallel with the work of this authority that this bill establishes, we would want to make sure that the development that occurs along the coast is sensitive, does recognise the environmental values and is within proper and reasonable bounds.
Now, there is no question that that whole coast is going to see more population growth. I should say about the population growth that we have actually had a significant pause or a stop and a reversal indeed of population growth. The new figures released to 30 March by the ABS show a tremendously bad outcome for Victoria. We are the only state or territory that had a net negative change in population. We had a 0.6 per cent fall in the 12 months to the end of March. That is 42 900 people less in the state than 12 months before, so that is a very significant impost.
Mr Finn: Wait until the borders open.
Mr DAVIS: Well, Mr Finn, I think some people have flown the coop already. Daniel Andrews has not made this a welcoming place. We are the most locked down place in the world—a long, long, long lockdown. It is a record that no city aspired to or would be proud of, and you can see why people have made the decision to move to other states and in this case particularly to Queensland.
But I am taking a step beyond the bill. My point in talking about population was that there will be a resumption of population increase. I think it is unlikely that it would be on the same scale and intensity of its own accord as was occurring before—in some of those years through the 2000s, well over 100 000. I think one year we were up to 147 000 additional people—in one year. That is a huge population increase, and you can see that when you drive through Armstrong Creek, you can see it when you drive into Torquay. People know the pressure that is on the Bellarine and other areas down this coast.
I want to note that Mrs McArthur and Mr Riordan have done quite a lot of work on this concept of having a proper oversight group that would manage many of these points here and be in a position to levy a sensible tax, as it were, a sensible charge, on those who would come to the area and enable them to make some contribution. But I think this has to be managed very carefully, and all the signs are that the government intends to in an unsophisticated way slap increased taxes and charges on everyone for miles around through this mechanism. That would concern us.
I note that there is a number of amendments. Mr Meddick has withdrawn his amendment. He seems to have come to some arrangement with the government. He will no doubt explain that when he stands up in the chamber. The amendments of Mr Grimley we do not think go far enough. They do not provide enough protections. To the extent that they are better than nothing, we would not oppose them, but notwithstanding that, we do not think they go far enough. I am sure Mrs McArthur in particular will have more to say on those matters. We have sought to put a reasoned amendment to the chamber. If that is unsuccessful, we will oppose the bill.
Ms TERPSTRA (Eastern Metropolitan) (16:17): It is with great pleasure that I rise to speak on this very important bill, the Great Ocean Road and Environs Protection Amendment Bill 2021. It is a very important bill because the Great Ocean Road is a very significant and national treasure. At 243 kilometres it is the world’s largest war memorial, built by veterans. It attracts more visitors than the Great Barrier Reef and Uluru combined and it runs along several national parks and marine sanctuaries. That just tells you how important the Great Ocean Road is and there will be—particularly after COVID and particularly when we start to open up—I know many, many visitors. As I just said, it attracts more visitors than the Great Barrier Reef and Uluru combined, so it is amazing. I know that once we open up again, once our vaccination rates begin to climb and we can have a bit more confidence in the case numbers not being so high, people will be flocking back to seeing the Great Ocean Road, so it will be fantastic.
It is on the traditional lands of the Eastern Maar and the Wadawurrung people, and 24 000 people live in the cities and towns along this road and those people call it home. Even with the limited travel in 2020 due to COVID restrictions, there were 3.9 million visitors to the region, spending $1.1 billion and supporting 13 100 jobs.
But it is not all rosy for our Great Ocean Road unfortunately, and it faces many challenges in regard to infrastructure requirements to support all of our visitors, the weather and storm damage, erosion, and the pressures of climate change. So as a first step we established the Great Ocean Road task force in September 2017 to assess the management and oversight of the entirety of the Great Ocean Road region. The task force had representatives of the traditional owner groups and local government and from tourism and coastal management organisations. Most importantly, this was a bipartisan effort, with the co-chairs both being former ministers, the Honourable Peter Batchelor and the Honourable Terry Mulder. The action plan was released in October 2018, concluding that:
The iconic land and seascapes along the Great Ocean Road have outstanding natural, heritage and cultural values and are to be treated as the one integrated and living natural entity for the protection and appreciation of future generations.
A single management authority will strategically coordinate a better response to the pressures identified earlier, such as extra visitation, weather and storm events and climate change.
It will also improve business opportunities, importantly. For example, a tour operator planning a trail ride that traverses the Great Otway National Park and the beach would currently require licences from both Parks Victoria for the portion of the tour in the Otway national park and then the coast committee for the portion of the tour on the coastal reserve and beach. With only one authority, this same tour would require an application for just one licence for the entire trip. These are the types of efficiencies we can expect to see under these reforms, and I am proud to say that our government accepted in principle all 26 recommendations of the task force.
This is what we have done so far. The Victorian Parliament passed the first of two bills to enable the Great Ocean Road management reforms on 16 June 2020. The first bill established a standalone act, the Great Ocean Road and Environs Protection Act 2020, which recognised the state significance of the Great Ocean Road and its landscapes and established a new dedicated coast and parks management authority. We want to be very clear that the visitor charges will be regulated, and our government will ensure sufficient consultation to ensure these regulations balance the attractiveness to tourists with the needs of locals who call this place home.
I will just do a bit of myth busting on this bill as well, which is important because we have heard a bit of a scare campaign being run before about this bill. I will put on record what this bill does not do. It is important to note that the bill does not give planning powers to the authority. Developments will still need to go through the regular planning processes. The bill does not set tolls on the Great Ocean Road. It does not include the necessary legislative provisions that would be required to establish tolls. The management and maintenance of the actual Great Ocean Road will remain with the Department of Transport. The bill does not cut any jobs. Unlike those opposite, who cut one in 10 Parks Victoria jobs while in government, our government values workers. The aim of the new authority is to invest in the great staff we already have and ensure they have the resources to better protect our environment and to serve locals and visitors. The bill does not weaken environmental protection either. The authority has the same environmental protection and enhancement obligations as Parks Victoria do for national parks.
Now, what the bill does do—the bill gives effect to the management reforms outlined earlier in the government’s Great Ocean Road Action Plan that were not addressed in the Great Ocean Road and Environs Protection Act 2020. It amends the Great Ocean Road and Environs Protection Act 2020, which is the principal act, to expand the functions and powers of the Great Ocean Road Coast and Parks Authority in order to enable it to manage and control all types of public land within the Great Ocean Road coast and parks, including sustainable visitation, and coordinate state actions in relation to visitor facilities and infrastructure. Now, I will talk a bit in a moment about the number of acts that need to be amended by this bill, and what it actually does is harmonise and modify those pieces of legislation to enable the authority to act as one authority. It will also establish a trust account and other financial structures for the authority to self-fund its operations. It makes minor technical amendments to clarify policy intent. It provides for the management transfer of all types of public land to the Great Ocean Road Coast and Parks Authority, including the revocation of certain permanent reservations of Crown land with reservations of that land for a different public purpose, and also sets a default transfer date for the Crown land listed in the schedule to the bill. It also makes consequential amendments to the relevant acts to enable the authority to manage public land within the Great Ocean Road coast and parks, including areas of the national parks.
I will just quickly run through the bill, which will make some amendments to the following acts, and they are: the Conservation, Forests and Lands Act 1987, the Crown Land (Reserves) Act 1978, the Forests Act 1958, the Land Act 1958, the National Parks Act 1975, the Parks Victoria Act 2018 and the Wildlife Act 1975. The bill will also amend the Domestic Animals Act 1994 and the local government act in relation to compliance and enforcement. The bill also amends four other acts, but those amendments are of a consequential and minor, technical nature. The amended act will commence and come into operation on 1 September 2022 or earlier by proclamation; however, some of the new land responsibilities of the authority may not commence until 1 November 2025 at the absolute latest.
In terms of consultation, I can say that the Great Ocean Road task force consulted widely in regard to the preparations for this bill. They consulted widely on governance issues in conversations with 780 people, and there were 580 submissions that informed the task force co-chairs’ recommendations. There were businesses who hold leases among the contributors as well, so you can see that the consultation process was quite in-depth, and 580 submissions is fantastic, really, because what it demonstrates is the significance of the Great Ocean Road not only to the people who live there but the businesses that offer tourism services and the like. So it was good to see a lot of engagement in that consultation process.
Importantly, this bill will also assist on the path for traditional owners in terms of self-determination. The bill will not impact on traditional owner interests and rights. The act already includes a provision specifically stating that the act does not affect native title rights and interests or other Aboriginal rights. The bill supports Aboriginal self-determination. As I said, it amends the Great Ocean Road and Environs Protection Act 2020 to support the self-determination of traditional owners by exempting traditional owner nominees for board appointments from the ineligibility criteria specified in the principal act. It removes traditional owner land management boards from the list of responsible entities in the definitions of the act, as this imposes a requirement to have regard to the Great Ocean Road strategic framework plan. It also provides a streamlined process for amendments to the Great Ocean Road strategic framework plan in order to align with an approved joint management plan by a traditional owner group, so it is recognising the rights of the traditional owners, and requires the Great Ocean Road Coast and Parks Authority in performing its functions to ensure that the rights and interests of specified Aboriginal parties in relation to the Great Ocean Road coast and parks are protected.
The Eastern Maar and Wadawurrung Aboriginal Corporations were involved in the development of the policy position outlined in the Great Ocean Road Action Plan and also provided bilingual statements of the importance, which are enshrined in the preamble of the Great Ocean Road and Environs Protection Act 2020, which is being amendment by this bill.
The Victorian government has committed to a genuine partnership with the traditional owners of country in the governance of the Great Ocean Road and its landscapes. The bill provides for the involvement of any traditional owner group that has been recognised as the registered Aboriginal party, or RAP as they are known, for that land, or recognised as the traditional owners where recognition has been established through settlement agreements under either the commonwealth Native Title Act 2003 or the Victorian Traditional Owner Settlement Act 2010.
The Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning is working with Parks Victoria and the Great Ocean Road Coast and Parks Authority to develop and implement a transition plan for the transfer of management responsibility for the areas of the national park. This is important and complex work, and it is estimated that it will take between two and four years to complete this task. At the latest the responsibility for the National Parks Act land will be transferred to the authority on 1 November 2025. So you can see there is a lot of work to do, but we are getting on with it by starting with the commencement of this bill.
In terms of what this bill means for traditional owner joint future recognition and settlement agreements and joint management planning, the Great Ocean Road and Environs Protection Act 2020 already includes a provision specifically stating that the act does not affect native title rights and interests or other Aboriginal rights. The bill has been drafted so the Great Ocean Road Coast and Parks Authority must manage land consistently with the underlying legislation and has the same functions and obligations as Parks Victoria for any land that it is assigned responsibility for. Transfer of land management responsibility to the authority will therefore not impact on traditional owners recognising settlement agreements, joint management plans, land use activity agreements or natural resource agreements. So this is an important first step in making sure that we give absolute primacy and recognition to traditional owners and how they use or enjoy the land.
It is an important bill. I commend this bill to the house. I know there will be a committee stage and there are going to be some amendments proposed later on, and I make no observations about those amendments. I think there is a process that is still going on in regard to one of them. But nevertheless it is an important piece of legislation, an important change, that will also amend some of the other laws that govern this. It is a very important public asset. As I said, it is the largest war memorial and natural asset, and it is great that we have this in Victoria. It does face some challenges. As I said, it faces challenges due to the climate and climate change, so it is important that we put in place the appropriate framework and mechanism to allow the set-up of an authority that can appropriately manage that, and that is something that needs to be done in harmony and in consultation with traditional owners as well.
I look forward to us all being able to get back and visit this very important iconic landmark in the not too distant future once we open up in a more COVID-safe way, and I know Victoria and Victorians will also look forward to welcoming back many visitors to the Great Ocean Road, not only local but international, when that happens. I will leave my contribution there.
Mr GRIMLEY (Western Victoria) (16:31): I rise today to speak on the Great Ocean Road and Environs Protection Amendment Bill 2021, and my contribution will not be too long. As other speakers have noted in here and in the other place, this is the second of two bills dealing with the new Great Ocean Road Coast and Parks Authority. The authority was a recommendation of the Great Ocean Road Taskforce about five years ago and has bipartisan support—or it did have back then. It was an idea that stemmed from the bureaucratic nature of having, quite literally, tens of bodies of committees having management roles in the same areas. This authority is supposed to reduce red tape, though many think it will do the reverse, which is worrying.
The Great Ocean Road is in my electorate. It is about 20 minutes down the road, actually, from where I live, and living quite close to it I have been lucky enough to travel it many, many times. There are many statistics that the minister and members in the other place and this place have cited about its visitorship and its income generation, and they have made comments about its historical significance, including that it was built by our diggers, as we all know. I will echo all of these statements and sentiments. I will also say that if anyone in this place has not experienced its beauty with their own eyes, they have to do it. It is just magical. This bill therefore, I hope, will allow the governing of this incredibly important asset and make sure that it is preserved for generations to come.
I do not think the bill is perfect, and in fact I have an amendment, which I will circulate now, if that is okay, which deals with the one imperfection of the bill.
Derryn Hinch’s Justice Party amendment circulated by Mr GRIMLEY pursuant to standing orders.
Mr GRIMLEY: I have circulated information about this amendment, but it basically deals with the issue of the authority asking for tolls, fees and other charges for things like car parking and entry to attractions. This is something that was established in the first bill, and I am grateful to see that the first bill allows certain persons to be exempt. This ‘certain persons’ could mean locals, for instance. What this bill does not do is mandate that any of these fees, tolls or charges that are regulated must be assessed against any financial burden on local communities. My amendment, if passed, will ensure that this happens.
I understand that the government has the belief that these considerations and therefore the amendment will already be covered through the regulatory impact statement, and while this may be the case, the point remains that there is no current mandate. It is not legislated and therefore is not subject to potential oversight through the regulatory impact statement. The other reason for the government’s opposition to this amendment is apparently that it is not legal, due to the Governor in Council not receiving advice from the authority by convention. What the government will be very happy to hear is that the legal advice we have received is that this amendment is sound, and it is sound because the way that it has been drafted requires the Governor in Council to receive advice from the minister, who would in practice receive advice from the authority. This is how the regulatory impact statement would be formed anyway. My amendment simply requires the minister on advice from the authority, if any, to consider, and I quote, ‘any financial impacts or burdens on local communities’ of the fees. This is really straightforward, and I am not sure how the government can dispute it.
What might this look like in practice? Well, if you live in Torquay and you work in Lorne, and you have to pay to park your car out the front of, for instance, Chopstix every day, where you work, it will be a cost of $25. This should be considered by the minister on advice from the authority. If I want to go for a walk on one side of the coastal trail, I should not have to pay for it, and if the authority decide that they want to charge people to use this asset, they should have to assess what the financial impact on locals might be. I look forward to the chamber’s support of this amendment in the committee stage.
There are a few other things about this bill that I am not particularly happy about, and they are not necessarily things in the bill—in fact they are things that should have been in the bill that are not. There is no asset register, for a start. How are we supposed to know which assets the authority will take over and which ones it will not? Councils are understandably worried about the financial position that they may be put in because of the authority’s seniority and the assets it may feel obliged to adopt. I would seek clarity from the government about what the processes for negotiations are when there are assets that the authority does not want to take over.
The second thing missing that I thought would have been fairly important is a business case. I know I said earlier that this authority is bipartisan, but if we are spending public money, shouldn’t we have weighed up the benefits versus the costs of the authority, and further, shouldn’t this business case have flagged ways the authority will make money to stay self-sufficient in the future? For example, will we see every car park along the Great Ocean Road turned into a money-making exercise so the authority can buy investments and securities, as allowed by the bill? These are things that, as members voting on this bill today, should have been given to us. It is important that we have the full picture on exactly what we are voting for.
In terms of the authority’s job to govern the Great Ocean Road, I have had a few members of the community and committees of management making it clear that the authority needs to represent all townships. My office is in Torquay, and this is where the authority has set up their office. Whilst Torquay’s township is amongst the biggest—if not the biggest—along the road, there are fears it will get all the funding. I am not able to say who should get the funding, but I will pass on those comments that the distribution of not only money but also time, energy and careful planning should go into the length of the road.
The last thing I want to raise about this bill is its role in managing national parks. I have been given assurances by the government that the authority will adopt all obligations currently bestowed on Parks Victoria in relation to becoming the land manager for national parks. My office has spoken to the Victorian National Parks Association (VNPA), who are concerned about the conflicting responsibilities of the authority to create and maintain tourism opportunities as well as preserve the land they manage. They are the same objectives on one hand and completely conflicting on the other.
I concur that it will be a hard job to achieve both objectives at the same time, but I do commend the government on a few protections in the bill to ensure that national parks are held as the highest responsibility and the commitment that Parks Victoria staff will not be made redundant by the passage of this bill. The VNPA did wonder why a veto power or memorandum of understanding was not explored to allow Parks Victoria to have a say in the decisions made in regard to national parks. It seems like it would have been a good idea, given Parks Victoria apparently already has an obligation to cooperate with tourism bodies. I understand that this unfortunately was not part of the government’s plan for this bill, though.
I just wanted to get on the record the handful of issues that I have mentioned. I do not think this was done perfectly, but our party does support the authority. We hope it increases good governance of the Great Ocean Road and surrounding townships, and I will look forward to reducing bureaucracy for locals, councils and tourists alike. I commend this bill to the house.
Mrs McARTHUR (Western Victoria) (16:38): I rise today to speak on this Great Ocean Road and Environs Protection Amendment Bill 2021, which outlines the powers and functions of the Great Ocean Road Coast and Parks Authority as a public land manager, including the power to prescribe regulations. It also provides for the transfer of land management responsibilities for public land managed under six acts of Parliament within the Great Ocean Road coast and parks area, along the Great Ocean Road, to the Great Ocean Road Coast and Parks Authority. It also provides for the creation of a new trust account and a trust fund as part of the public account, which will receive all revenue generated by the Great Ocean Road Coast and Parks Authority in its capacity as a land manager, and it makes other minor amendments.
When I spoke on this bill in its first incarnation I said various things, and I can repeat some of them. The Great Ocean Road is an extraordinary asset for Victoria and for Australia, and yet this bill fails to do it justice, to create the governance which could truly enable residents and local businesses to thrive. Prior to entering this place I was a local councillor in the Corangamite shire, which is responsible for the iconic Twelve Apostles site, road and hinterland and coastal towns like Port Campbell and Princetown, and it had council jurisdiction over these areas. It presented a significant cost burden to local ratepayers, with virtually no economic benefit. It was estimated that less than 20 cents in the dollar got returned to the local communities and ratepayers.
As for the Twelve Apostles site itself, which Parks Victoria currently manage—which in reality is effectively a lavatory block in a container and a very inadequate car park—the visitor experience is appalling. This land, incidentally, is all privately owned and could be far better managed and developed if the government was not involved and was out of the picture.
I would like to also acknowledge my colleague in this area the member for Polwarth, Richard Riordan, who worked with me for a very long time before we went into Parliament to try and get some better system for managing this very important area. We were very passionate about having one authority, but that is not what we have got here. The 243 kilometres of National Heritage listed road between Torquay and Allansford is Victoria’s top tourism attraction—pre COVID of course—and 2.6 million people visit each year. That is more, as Ms Terpstra has said, than Uluru and the Great Barrier Reef combined.
But the problem is clear: the Great Ocean Road itself and the surrounding land is currently managed by at least 14 authorities, as Mr Grimley has referred to, so for any issue of consultation, planning and everything, extraordinary overlap is involved. Different public entities are responsible for strategic development and implementation, land use, planning and development, infrastructure delivery, asset maintenance, emergency management, investment facilitation, destination promotion and the management of the environment and local ecology. I could list so many of them. But what we have got now is all these authorities staying in place and another one over the top. That just beggars belief. We were hoping to have one authority, not one sitting on top of everything else.
Alarmingly there also appears to be no business case and no identified new funding. Princetown, for example, currently earns nearly $200 000 a year from its caravan park. Will the new authority, bereft of other funding, continue to spend the money, as Princetown does, on the community itself, or will it go to consultants, for example? I am pretty confident I know where it will go, and it will not go back to the community.
The minister in her second-reading speech in the Assembly noted that there would not be a single job lost, and the Premier’s press release following the bill’s passage in that house notes:
All staff working for existing committees of management that will be eventually incorporated into—
the Great Ocean Road Coast and Parks Authority—
… will retain their jobs, conditions and working locations.
Well, how do we make something more efficient if we keep everybody in place? In a briefing I attended it was actually suggested that we would need more. So we are not making this more efficient, more streamlined, we are making it more heavy handed and more bureaucratic. With that level of bureaucracy, if it is going to be self-sustaining, can we just imagine where the money is coming from to fund all this? That just beggars belief in itself.
We have also of course learned that we do not like local people being involved in the authority. They have been excluded. We are going to have hand-picked directors. I think a former Premier’s wife might be on the authority. I quote from Mr Andrew Mason, the CEO of Corangamite shire, who is very concerned about this matter. He said that:
Clause 212 of the Bill amends section 57 of the Act preventing councillors or officers to be appointed to the Board. This appears to be extremely heavy handed and appears to presume that councillors/officers are inherently untrustworthy and unable to manage conflicts of interest, and thus the integrity of the Board would be compromised and confidence in the Authority undermined. It is noted that no such limitations currently apply to councillors and council staff being on other State Government Boards, such as the Regional Waste Management Group or Regional Partnerships. Presumably the State Government is not contemplating changes to the Local Government Act to stop State Government employees from becoming councillors? Why don’t similar restrictions apply to former politicians, public servants or academics?
He also is very concerned about the revenue generation aspects:
Council accepts that the Authority will need to generate independent revenue and the Bill will allow this to occur, with enablement of the Authority to generate and retain revenue on land that it manages to fund its operations, removing this revenue from both Parks Victoria and Consolidated Revenue. We believe that local people should be exempt—
as Mr Grimley has referred to—
from any revenue generating activities and this should be explicit in the legislation. Further, if revenue generation impacts on Council, such as car parking charges, this must be done in consultation with Council and consideration given to cost recovery.
He went on about the recognition of community use:
The Authority will take over some parcels of Crown Land that are currently used by the community for recreational purposes, examples include the Princetown and Port Campbell Recreational Reserves. The Bill should recognise that existing community uses of Crown land should be allowed to continue without additional costs or control.
There are many problems with this bill. There is limited scrutiny; the bill is complex and grants extensive new powers and responsibilities to this authority. It transfers responsibility for land managed under six acts to an authority, but it does not create any efficiencies. Instead it creates a new superstructure. The bill is structured to ensure that the authority enters into agreements for the provision of certain services with Parks Victoria and the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning, requiring ministerial approval before it can enter into certain service agreements with third entities. This means it will largely be dependent on existing agencies for delivery of services. This is inefficient, as there is now uncertainty around how these arrangements will work and no time frame for determining how these agencies will continue to deliver existing services. And I might say that our experience recently with governments passing legislation and then providing the regulations later has been extremely problematic, and I have only got to point to the camping on farmland issues that arose. We gave carte blanche to a government to produce regulations, and look what happened with that. So I have no confidence in a government producing regulations after they pass a bill. That will be problematic.
The bill sequesters all state revenue generated through the management of public land. The bill also gives the authority the ability to levy new parking fees and charges, increasing the likelihood that attractions which are currently free will be subject to access and parking fees and, as I have said, with no exemption for local ratepayers. That should be paramount. Locals who pay the rates in these areas should be exempt from any charges. Tourists, quite rightly, should pay for the ongoing maintenance and development of the Great Ocean Road, not the locals.
The consultation has been poor with licence-holders in particular. Many of them could not get ongoing leases. We have heard how extensive the negotiation was with the Indigenous community, but certainly not with local councils and local businesses—not at all. It is appalling in that regard that everybody has been neglected. It is a bill that sets out with good intent but I am afraid has delivered the worst of all worlds. As Mr Riordan said in the other place:
… what do we get in this legislation? We get a huge tax grab by this government aimed and directed at local communities. There is not one protection in this legislation, not one. Not once are local people, local towns or local communities mentioned, and not once are they afforded any protection … We know from departmental briefings this will mean charges …
So locals are going to be disadvantaged by this whole bill, right along this Great Ocean Road, and not protected.
Now, there have been a number of people that have been very concerned about this bill, and I am sure most members of Parliament have been contacted by them. I can just quote from the Victorian National Parks Association, who said that:
The Bill unnecessarily, and dangerously, sets a new authority above Victoria’s national park management agency, Parks Victoria, as outlined in our … media release … It is a level of over-reach unprecedented in land management in Victoria.
They go on to suggest various things that might amend this problem, and I am sure we will discuss that further in committee.
But in conclusion, this is a bill that does not enhance the Great Ocean Road—this famous iconic area. This overreach by government without actually streamlining the processes that were originally asked for is incompetent and inefficient in the extreme. It is denying local people involvement, and to deny local people the ability to sit on the board is quite extraordinary. Yet to allow the hand-picked government favourites to manage this authority—most of them probably with no relationship to the area whatsoever—is outrageous. I do not believe that we are going to enhance the assets at all. They are going to be diminished, and this is extremely unfortunate. I hope that the Council will support the reasoned amendment that the coalition are putting up which would seek to delay the legislation, highlighting the limited time frame for consultation and review, the lack of opportunity to provide scrutiny and the level of uncertainty left open by this legislation and the unwritten regulations.
Mr HAYES (Southern Metropolitan) (16:53): I rise to speak on the Great Ocean Road and Environs Protection Amendment Bill 2021. The Great Ocean Road is a tremendous asset that belongs to all Victorians. It is a place of natural beauty and a place where many people visit to marvel, wonder and get away from it all. We want to preserve it, but at the same time we do want to share it. Currently, may I emphasise, it is being preserved and shared. While there have been a number of problems highlighted around tourism infrastructure needing maintenance and upgrading—and Mrs McArthur spoke to that—I also believe Parks Victoria needs more funding. I do not believe the case has been made that there needs to be a comprehensive new arrangement such as this bill proposes. You know, a massive new authority with massive power is in fact not needed. Any shortfalls in the current arrangements are soluble without this massive bureaucratic blob dominating the region.
The Great Ocean Road includes several wonderful national parks, and these are currently being administered and protected by Parks Victoria. The government proposes that these powers over the national parks be taken away from Parks Victoria, and this bill gives them to the Great Ocean Road Coast and Parks Authority, which is essentially a tourism-focused agency. The Great Ocean Road authority, as I have previously said in this place, is a solution in search of a problem. The new authority is not needed to provide more tourism infrastructure, which is something that has been promoted in relation to this bill. There is actually nothing stopping construction of that under the current arrangements, and Parks Victoria is already fulfilling its statutory obligations to manage the national parks and manage them well in this region.
In my speech on the first bill regarding this proposed authority in 2020 I set out some serious concerns with the proposed model, and I will set them out briefly here again. One, there is no business model for the authority in any detail whatsoever. Two, the authority will weaken the environmental protection of national parks. Three, it is proposed that the authority will contract the management of national parks back to Parks Victoria. This is an unnecessary bureaucratic and costly duplication of resources. Four, the bill is complex and ambiguous, potentially inviting challenges to management decisions and creating a lawyer’s picnic. And finally—the big one, I think—the bill reduces local participation and purposely excludes local participation in decision-making. It seeks to take away from local councils and committees of management the management of the small reserves along the Great Ocean Road. This bill, which gives the authority planning power over the Great Ocean Road region, is another concentration of power. This bill essentially establishes a one-stop shop for the entire region. It focuses all power for the region on the authority.
Given the government’s poor record in planning matters in Melbourne and its centralisation of power, which has taken away decisions from local communities, setting up a powerful authority for the Great Ocean Road is not something I am comfortable with. In my time here more and more planning scheme amendments have come before the Council, all of them taking power away from communities and centralising them with the government. VC190, VC196, VC146—all of them took planning powers away from councils and communities. We had the Suburban Rail Loop Bill 2021 last week, further stripping communities of any say in planning matters. Our Legislative Council even voted to strip itself of its right to call in planning scheme amendments. The government said, ‘Trust us; we’re great at consulting’, and here they are saying it again. It is like Mr Wynne has got all the great ideas for planning and nobody else has.
One of the authority’s great powers will be to raise revenue. This is a significant power, and there are questions about how this power will be democratically scrutinised. Will the authority be a law unto itself? The authority will have the power to set tolls, parking fees and other fees, but how much will they be? We are not told. All we know is that the authority must find the funding to pay Parks Victoria to manage the region’s national parks. Does that mean a higher level of fees and charges? Possibly so, but we are not told, are we? This is what I mean by the lack of a business model. I understand the government would like this bill to be passed and that they will fill in the details of these fees and charges later. Well, we have already seen with the Parks and Crown Land Legislation Amendment Bill 2019, which Mrs McArthur just mentioned, a bad example of governing in this way.
The government in that bill wanted to allow campers to use Crown land frontages on our waterways for camping. The government said, ‘This bill can be passed without regulations on how it would actually work, and we will fill in the details later’. A year later, and the situation is confused, unresolved and causing many stakeholders much anxiety and uncertainty. I do not think that this sort of approach has worked. I have significant concerns about the bill on this basis. What will the fees and charges actually be? How will they work? How will people who live in the Great Ocean Road vicinity be charged for access to the area they pay rates on? Will they be charged at all? Will they be charged the same amount as someone from Melbourne or indeed someone from Tokyo or Los Angeles?
‘Take us on trust’ is what the government appears to be saying. But as we have seen with the Parks and Crown Land Legislation Amendment Act 2019, such an approach does not make for good government, and this bill before us today is one on a much larger scale. It does seem like the government is putting the cart before the horse.
The bill provides a requirement that in its decisions the authority consult with local residents and stakeholders, but that is a meaningless phrase often used across a range of endeavours, and nearly all the time the people who are supposedly consulted do not feel they have been listened to when decisions are later taken. What sort of consultation are they planning? Is there any obligation to take into account feedback received, or is consultation just telling the community what is going to be done? We do not know what the consultation requirement actually means. I understand that many leaseholders and businesses connected with the Great Ocean Road have felt their views have not been taken sufficiently into account up to now, so it is not a good start so far. It has also come to my attention that some local governments in the region were not aware of the proposed area the authority would operate in. Local governments still do not know how their operations and the events they conduct will be affected by the powers and fees proposed to be granted to this authority and how the responsibilities of local government around roads will be affected.
I also refer to a report in the Age last week concerning a proposed resort on the south-west coast, at Cape Bridgewater. This resort as currently proposed was rejected by the Minister for Planning, but the proponent has been asked to revise their proposal and submit it again. The message, I believe, is that the coast of Victoria is in demand from developers. The implication for the Great Ocean Road is clear. The authority is not democratically elected. There appears to be very little opportunity for local stakeholders to be guaranteed positions on the board—in actual fact they are intentionally excluded. The requirement to consult with local stakeholders is not sufficiently defined, and the authority has to fund itself.
What concerns me is that there is a huge temptation to commercialise seaside areas for tourism and hotel developments, even more so considering Victoria’s concerning budgetary position. There may not be emergency funding available if the authority goes to the government with a bailout request. What then? Will this impel the authority to authorise development to raise operating funds? This is a government whose close relationship with big developers and big money is well known, and I have spoken about it in this place on a number of occasions. I am not convinced that money will not talk louder than the priorities of the environment, the wishes of local residents and stakeholders and the concerns of democratically elected local government officials. Money talks, and the establishment of this authority makes it easier for money to talk. As I have previously said, it is a one-stop shop with extensive powers.
Allow me to conclude with the thoughts of the Victorian National Parks Association regarding this bill. They are a great group of civic-minded people with a strong track record of fighting for the protection of the unique and beautiful birds, plants and animals in our national parks. They have said, and I am reiterating once again Mrs McArthur’s previous quote of the same lines:
The Bill unnecessarily, and dangerously, sets a new authority above Victoria’s national park management agency, Parks Victoria … It is a level of over-reach unprecedented in land management in Victoria.
The association has concerns that the authority is to be self-funded through the collection of fees, such as camping and parking fees, and says it will be difficult to operate under this funding constraint if it has to take on the responsibility of paying for the management of various national parks. Where is the business case, again? As I have previously said, there is not one. The association has a very convincing alternative model for the region, which I urge the government to consider if this bill is sent back for consideration. This bill is a land management fiasco and a blank cheque. I am not prepared to sign it. I will not be supporting the bill.
Mr BARTON (Eastern Metropolitan) (17:05): I rise to speak on the Great Ocean Road and Environs Protection Amendment Bill 2021. This bill will address a number of issues that have plagued communities along the Great Ocean Road for far too long. This stretch of beautiful coastline, nature reserves and small towns is a major tourist attraction in Victoria, and it is no wonder why. The Great Ocean Road attracts 2.7 million visitors a year—more than Uluru and the Great Barrier Reef combined, which has been mentioned before. It is important that we protect the value of the Great Ocean Road not just for the tourists but importantly for the residents who have chosen to build their lives there. By creating one authority that can monitor, maintain and protect the Great Ocean Road, we can streamline this process, reduce confusion and avoid crossovers. The community will have one port of call to direct their concerns and their experiences. This will certainly improve accountability in the region and clarify responsibilities.
I believe an important feature of this bill is that the revenue raised by the authority will remain separated from state consolidated revenue, and revenue generated from the Great Ocean Road will be reinvested into its own maintenance and protection. This is a good thing. This will address a significant issue, and that is: residents have been subsidising the millions of tourists who visit the Great Ocean Road each year. It is council fees that pay for maintenance of roads, parklands, car parks and walking tracks, yet locals make up a small portion of those who use those resources every day. Absolutely, money generated from these resources should be invested back into maintaining them. Why should the burden rest on these communities?
Unfortunately the millions of tourists who enjoy the Great Ocean Road and its offerings do not bring significant investment to the region with them. In fact two-thirds of these visits to the Great Ocean Road are for daytrips. Tourism brings with it great opportunities, investment and jobs, but we cannot forget that it also brings costs, and someone has to pay. This is about fairness. I will be supporting this bill today.
Dr RATNAM (Northern Metropolitan) (17:07): I would like to make some brief comments on this bill, primarily about the potential impacts of this bill on the significant and beautiful natural environment of the Great Ocean Road region. It should surprise no-one that we are a little sceptical about the commitment of the government when it comes to valuing and protecting Victoria’s precious places. Our national parks are precious, and we know we need to be doing everything we can to protect them so we can all continue to enjoy them. However, that is not what this bill is doing.
The logic for the bill points out that the area surrounding the Great Ocean Road is currently managed by a range of bodies across levels of government. While some land is managed by local councils, Parks Victoria looks after others and some is managed by the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning. The overlap means in practice it can be hard to work out who is responsible for car parking or for rubbish collections or for facilities. So while the Greens understand the rationale for the bill, and we are sympathetic to the need to solve the problem of disjointed land management in the area, we are not convinced the approach taken in this bill is the right way to go about it.
This bill is a follow-on from last year’s bill, which created a new authority—the Great Ocean Road Coast and Parks Authority—to centralise responsibility for the land along the road in one body. This year’s bill outlines the actual transfer of the land along the Great Ocean Road to the new authority and elaborates on its functions and powers. These are effectively the same functions and powers as Parks Victoria, meaning the two of them will basically be equal bodies operating side by side, which begs the question: why not give Parks Victoria responsibility for the area?
We already have a parks manager in our state. It has been looking after our national parks for decades, looking after and caring for our environment, and it is an experienced public land manager. And in fact we understand it is very likely that Parks Victoria will be subcontracted to manage the land that previously fell under their purview. So it is disappointing that instead of giving Parks Victoria more funding to look after our national parks, including the public land along the Great Ocean Road, the government chose to create a brand new body with no specific expertise in land management to do it instead, especially when this new authority also has not been given its own proper funding and will instead be responsible for raising its own funds.
It is easy to see how down the track this might lead to the authority allowing inappropriate development within park areas and along the coast in order to stay afloat. We have seen this happen before in our parks—the Alpine National Park is one example—and it is not hard to see how this is likely to happen again when the management authority is expected to raise its own money.
This bill sets a very concerning precedent that could see Parks Victoria undermined right across the state, with land and responsibility taken off them and placed into the hands of tourism and profit-making regional authorities instead. I note that, as indicated in the minister’s second-reading speech, the new authority is really a tourism body with the purpose of attracting more visitors to the area and getting them to spend more money and that if eventually they decide they do not want to subcontract the area to Parks Victoria anymore, there is a way they can contract out public land to promote more economic activity. It is a slippery slope to the privatisation of our national parks. We know this government loves privatisation, selling off public land and transferring public assets into private hands. We cannot let our precious national parks fall prey to this agenda as well.
The area the new authority will be managing will cover Port Campbell National Park and the Twelve Apostles Marine National Park. And while the Greens want everyone to be able to visit and experience the beauty of the coast, the priority has to be protecting the environment and the local wildlife—not, for example, drilling for gas along the Twelve Apostles. This is why we would prefer to see more funding given to Parks Victoria for management and conservation of our national parks, including the national parks along the Great Ocean Road.
I also note that the Greens will be supporting the reasoned amendment circulated by the opposition. In the debate on the first iteration of this bill in 2020 we moved a similar reasoned amendment to delay the bill and ensure the government undertook more consultation on how to best manage and protect the national parks in the region. It is clear to us there is more work to be done to ensure the best outcomes for the Great Ocean Road region.
In conclusion, we are not satisfied with the government’s assurances on this bill and would prefer to see them go back to the drawing board and develop a land management plan that has protecting the environment and wildlife as a priority.
Mr QUILTY (Northern Victoria) (17:12): I will be brief. The Liberal Democrats are in two minds about this bill, and it is one of those bills which is a double-edged sword. As we are aware, this bill is a follow-up to the previous Great Ocean Road and Environs Protection Bill 2019, which does leave me wondering why it was necessary to separate them. Despite that, I would rather legislation be thorough and comprehensive rather than rushed through for convenience.
The Great Ocean Road is a magnificent scenic and environmental attraction within our great state. It brings more visitors than Uluru and the Great Barrier Reef and employs more than 13 000 people, although I am not sure how accurate that number is now or going forward post COVID. It is ironic that the government is putting forth legislation which is heavily orientated towards tourism, especially after smashing the regional Victorian industry over the last two years with repeated lockdowns, border closures and restrictions on our movement, but that is another story.
One of the bill’s positives is that in theory it gives the Great Ocean Road region more autonomy over how it is managed. As a regional MP I am encouraged by this, and I hope Melbourne bureaucrats are inspired to take the boots off the throats of more regional areas in future. This bill will give locals the chance to be involved and engaged in the management of the ecological and tourism aspects of their region. However, I am concerned it may just relocate that same unnecessary bureaucracy to the regions instead.
I can also see that it might be useful to unify decision-making from the numerous bodies and organisations controlling Crown land along the road, including councils, water management bodies and other community or environmental groups. This framework also allows the authority to retain the funds it generates to be used to manage its operations and, further, locally tailor development. If done correctly, this will allow for more practical development and spending allocations within the region. Indeed the model of self-funding authorities with an interest in actually boosting tourism instead of trying to keep people away from the tourist attractions would be both novel and valuable for regional Victoria. One concern I have is this opens the door to favouritism and potential exclusion, especially for new operators looking to establish themselves in the tourism, retail or hospitality sector in the region, but then this is the current situation as well.
It has been indicated that new leases can be established at any time for local community facilities and infrastructure. However, there is no proposal to charge local communities fees to access their public open spaces. I do not mean to suggest that local committees should be charged, but I see this as another trip-wire for extra effort and costs and community concern.
This bill provides the authority with the same powers and functions as Parks Victoria, and they will work closely with them in their duties. Sceptical as I am of how Parks Victoria manages much of the land under its control, I am not sure that they are an appropriate mentor for the new authority. I am not sure that we want Parks Victoria clones popping up across the state. But there is an opportunity to deviate from the mould, and that could only be an improvement on having Parks Victoria in charge of everything.
Overall I believe this bill offers both positive and negative elements. I am not convinced this bill hits the target for the most efficient and practical way of doing what it intends. However, I like the idea of decentralising regional land management, increasing local participation and something closer to self-sustaining funding.
Mr MEDDICK (Western Victoria) (17:15): I also rise to speak to the Great Ocean Road and Environs Protection Amendment Bill 2021. This bill, the second in the pair of bills on the creation of the Great Ocean Road Coast and Parks Authority, gives long-lasting effect to the major reforms to the management of the Great Ocean Road and its landscapes that were announced in October 2018 in the government’s Great Ocean Road Action Plan. It recognises the significance of the coast, parks and scenic landscapes of the Great Ocean Road and gives them a dedicated parks manager, the Great Ocean Road Coast and Parks Authority. Several of the points that I had intended to raise have been raised by my colleagues here, so I will not go through an exercise of repetition.
As I stated when the first of these two bills came before us, I do not have any fundamental objection to the premise put forward, but I harboured then, as I do now, misgivings about the loss of local voices in the direction and real effects the bill will have. During the debate on the first bill I tried to bring amendments specifically on the Bells Beach area, which were unsuccessful. During the time between the last bill and this one I have consulted further, and the views of local communities have not changed—that is, they are largely accepting and understanding of what the government is trying to achieve but not wanting to lose their ability to have a say in how the land, infrastructure and national parks they love are managed. This has led me to meet with the minister on several occasions and put their views forward, and I thank the minister for making commitments that there will be a mechanism to make sure that they do get their say.
Now, I have also met with the Victorian National Parks Association (VNPA) over the bill, who also expressed some concerns. They say the following, and I do not want to paraphrase Mr Hayes here:
The Bill unnecessarily, and dangerously, sets a new authority above Victoria’s national park management agency, Parks Victoria … It is a level of over-reach unprecedented in land management in Victoria.
…
We believe that if this Bill is passed, it will risk the management of the Great Ocean Road national parks across land and sea by handing over management under the guidance of a new tourism focussed authority, setting a dangerous precedent for the management of national parks across Victoria. Furthermore the doubling of agency authority for these critical areas of protected land, the very land that gives the road its character, can only cloud management responsibility and accountability.
Now, if the VNPA’s language sounds alarming, that is because they fear a situation that makes the primary function of managing our national parks one that is driven by profit and profit alone. They have come to this view based upon the fact that we are being told that the authority will be self-funding but as yet no business case has been released that shows us how that money will be raised. This naturally, in that vacuum, gives rise to suspicion that all sorts of charges will now be levied to achieve that end.
To sum up, I hope that the government will hear the concerns of the community along the nation’s most-visited tourism drawcard. It should be noted as well that this is actually the largest war memorial in the world. It was constructed by those returned servicemen coming back from the Great War. We should respect that and allow their voices, the voices of their descendants, to be heard in how the area is managed as we make our COVID recovery and international tourism again returns to the Great Ocean Road.
Dr CUMMING (Western Metropolitan)
Incorporated pursuant to order of Council of 7 September:
I rise to speak on the Great Ocean Road and Environs Protection Amendment Bill 2021.
The bill is a major piece of legislation. It, amongst other things, provides for the functions and powers of the Great Ocean Road Coast and Parks Authority.
It also provides for the transfer of public land management to that authority and amends a number of other acts.
The Great Ocean Road is very important to Victorians.
Most know it as one of the most beautiful parts of our state, and one of not just Victoria’s—but Australia’s—biggest tourist attractions.
But the Great Ocean Road is also important for another reason, which most people probably aren’t aware of.
It is the greatest, longest war memorial in the world.
At the end of World War I, the road was built by 3000 returned servicemen, funded by Victorians, as a memorial to other diggers, to their mates that they left behind.
The road is also a major piece of infrastructure for people living in the area—to move people and goods from place to place.
So it’s important that we get this right.
And does this bill get it right?
As I’ve said before, the devil is in the detail. And despite the size of this bill, there is a lot of detail lacking.
There are regulations to come, but we don’t know what will be in those regulations, or when they will available.
So what consultation has been done with stakeholders to date? With the residents, with councils?
Many of them have held responsibility for the road’s upkeep, and ratepayers got to foot the bill for more than the benefits they received.
The majority of trips along the road are day trips and like many tourist destinations, a large share of the profits don’t stay in the area but go back to operators based elsewhere.
And now, council employees and councillors are specifically excluded from being on the board of this authority. Those that possibly have the greatest knowledge about the road will be excluded.
How is this giving locals a voice, as recommended by the original review?
I have other concerns.
It’s adding another layer of management rather than simplifying it.
It outsources work back to the departments and entities that are already doing the works.
The assets of the authority can’t be provided.
There is no scrutiny by this Parliament.
The land covered by the authority is substantial, and this bill allows the Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change to add even more land without involving the Minister for Planning.
I could go on but, put simply, more consultation needs to be done and the regulations need to be drafted before we should consider this bill.
Mr TARLAMIS (South Eastern Metropolitan)
Incorporated pursuant to order of Council of 7 September:
I’m also pleased to make a contribution on the Great Ocean Road and Environs Protection Amendment Bill 2021.
And I thank my Parliamentary colleague Ms Terpstra for her comprehensive contribution, and I’ll endeavour to avoid traversing a lot of the same ground in my contribution.
The Andrews Labor Victorian government is committed to protecting the Great Ocean Road, its landscapes, its coast and parks, and its seascapes with a dedicated parks manager that is able operate independent of annual government funding outcomes.
This bill arrives before us today after a long process of community engagement and consultation about the steps that need to be taken to safeguard the future of the coastal land and waters of the Great Ocean Road.
It is the second of two bills, the first having been passed by Parliament on 16 June 2020, to give effect to the reforms outlined in the government’s Great Ocean Road Action Plan—in order to save this special area for future Victorian generations to enjoy and cherish, much similar to how many of us have in the past and no doubt will again enjoy in the near future.
I personally have many cherished memories of my time spent traveling and staying at various locations along the Great Ocean Road.
From the time spent there as a child with my family on our family getaways, to taking my first car—with no power steering, I might add—for the long drive along it, and of course more recently the many trips I have taken to enjoy its wonders with my wife, Chau. All fond memories and ones that I will be adding to in the not-too-distant future.
Situated on the traditional lands of the Eastern Maar and Wadawurrung people, the Great Ocean Road is an absolutely iconic national treasure. It is one of the world’s most scenic and iconic coastal touring routes.
Its sheer limestone cliffs, pockets of rainforest, shipwreck history and world-class surfing breaks make the Great Ocean Road one of Victoria’s most popular destinations and most significant natural tourism asset.
Even with the limited travel in 2020 due to COVID-19 restrictions, there were 3.9 million visitors to the region, spending $1.1 billion and supporting 13 100 jobs.
At 243 kilometres, it is the world’s largest war memorial, built by veterans. Returned servicemen were employed on the construction of the Great Ocean Road following World War I. Those who worked on it did so in memory of those that fell alongside them during war and when completed it became a war memorial to all those who served and those who were lost.
It attracts more visitors than the Great Barrier Reef and Uluru combined and runs along several national parks and marine sanctuaries.
The Great Ocean Road and its environs, like many other international tourist destinations, are being challenged by the ever-increasing numbers of visitors, forces of nature and severe weather events and most importantly, the impacts of climate change.
All of this is leaving a negative impact on the world-famous beaches, cliffs, plants and animals.
If these impacts are left unchecked and no action is taken to make amendments to take better care of the Great Ocean Road, these threats could destroy this precious part of our state and also have an impact on the livability of local and surrounding communities.
As previously mentioned, this bill is the second of two bills to give long-lasting effect to the major reforms to the management of the Great Ocean Road and its landscapes that were announced in October 2018, in the government’s Great Ocean Road Action Plan.
This bill seeks to amend the Great Ocean Road and Environs Protection Act 2020 in relation to land management of the Great Ocean Road coast and parks to:
• further provide for functions and powers of the Great Ocean Road Coast and Parks Authority;
• provide for the transfer of public land management to that authority; and
• consequentially amend other acts and for other purposes.
It amends the Great Ocean Road and Environs Protection Act 2020 to provide for the conferral of increased land management responsibilities to the Great Ocean Road Coast and Parks Authority (‘the authority’) within the Great Ocean Road coast and parks area.
Further, the bill amends the act to:
• expand the functions and powers of the authority to enable effective management of public land of all types and to require the authority to manage public land consistently with the underlying legislation, including enforcing compliance with laws;
• provide for the transfer of land management responsibility to the authority; and
• establish a dedicated trust account for the authority.
A single management authority would strategically coordinate a better and timely response to issues and assist with extra visitation, weather and storm events and climate change to mention but a few matters.
And it will improve business opportunities. For example, a tour operator planning a trail ride that traversed Otway national parks and the beach would currently require a licence from both Parks Victoria for a portion of the tour in the Otway national parks, and then the coast communities for the portion of the tour on the coastal reserve and beach.
With one authority, however—the same tour would require just one licence for the whole trip.
This is just one example of the types of efficiencies we can expect to see as a result of these reforms.
The legislation also strengthens the involvement of traditional owners in the governance of the coasts and parks.
In September 2017 the Victorian government established the Great Ocean Road task force.
The independent co-chairs were former members of this Parliament, the Honourable Peter Batchelor and the Honourable Terry Mulder.
Task force membership included representatives of the traditional owners, tourism and coastal management and local government.
The task force conducted the first independent assessment of the management and oversight of the entirety of the Great Ocean Road region.
It consulted with 38 organisations and found widespread agreement on the need for reform.
The task force also found that—given the Great Ocean Road’s outstanding natural, cultural and heritage values—there was a need to treat the region as a ‘single, integrated and living entity’.
In recognition that the iconic coasts, parks and scenic landscapes of the Great Ocean Road are so special, and so important to Victoria, this piece of reform will allow for a dedicated parks manager—the Great Ocean Road Coast and Parks Authority.
This bill provides the authority with the same functions, powers and obligations as Parks Victoria for this special part of our state—the authority will become equal to Parks Victoria in this respect.
The authority will bring a holistic approach to visitation management for the entire coasts and parks along the Great Ocean Road—ensuring that it’s environmentally sustainable and that the liveability of local communities is protected.
Now I’ve spoken a lot in my contribution about what this bill does but it would be remiss of me to quickly deal with some the myths being propagated by those opposite before I conclude.
Because we all know that those opposite are at their best when they are engaging in scare campaigns and creating and spreading myths as if they were facts—with the hope that if they repeat them often enough they may be accepted as truth.
They especially love engaging in this way when it involves complex reforms.
That’s why it’s important that I quickly outline what this bill does not do.
• This bill does not give planning powers to the authority—developments still need to go through the regular planning processes.
• This bill does not set tolls on the Great Ocean Road and does not include the necessary legislative provisions required to establish tolls.
• Management and maintenance of the actual Great Ocean Road will remain with the Department of Transport.
• The bill does not seek to cut any jobs.
• Unlike those on the benches opposite, who cut one in 10 Parks Victoria jobs while in government, our government values our workers. The aim of the new authority is to invest in the great staff we already have and ensure they have the resources to better protect our environment, and to serve locals and visitors.
• The bill does not weaken environmental protection. The authority has the same environmental protection and enhancement obligations as Parks Victoria for national parks
And Mr Leane in his summing up on this bill cleared up further matters that deal with other concerns that have been raised.
In conclusion, I congratulate the Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change in the other place, my good friend Minister D’Ambrosio, for her work to bring about the Great Ocean Road Coast and Parks Authority and for ensuring the protection of this amazing iconic national treasure.
The Andrews Labor government has a proud record on protecting our natural treasures.
This bill is yet another example of just that.
I commend the bill to the house, and I wish it a speedy passage.
Mr LEANE (Eastern Metropolitan—Minister for Local Government, Minister for Suburban Development, Minister for Veterans) (17:19): Thanks for the opportunity to make a speech on this important bill. This bill is the second of two bills to give long-lasting effect to the Great Ocean Road management reforms that were announced by the government’s Great Ocean Road Action Plan back in October 2018. The bill makes the authority a parks manager. It provides the authority the same functions, powers and, importantly, obligations as Parks Victoria for this special part of the state.
The authority will become equal to Parks Victoria in this respect. The authority will be dedicated to the care and protection of this iconic coast and the parks along the Great Ocean Road and bring a holistic and consolidated viewpoint across all types of public land in this highly visited region to ensure that it is protected for the benefit of future generations, along with the livability and prosperity of the local communities.
I want to emphasise that this bill will not alter the conservation objectives of any National Parks Act land for which the authority assumes responsibility. These special areas will continue to be managed under the National Parks Act 1975, with the authority being obligated to meet the same conservation objectives as Parks Victoria. The authority will be transferred management responsibility for the public land specified in the schedule by 1 November 2025. This is a major reform. It will not be rushed, and the four more years will help make it happen at a pace that the locals would require. This amendment also makes consequential amendments to various land acts to recognise the authority as a parks manager and to require the authority to manage land consistent with underlying legislation.
The opposition has proposed that we wait to undertake further consultation with stakeholders to assess the impact of the bill and has released a proposed regulation. There has been considerable consultation on reforms already. A bipartisan Great Ocean Road task force, chaired by two former transport ministers, Peter Batchelor and Terry Mulder, reviewed the government’s arrangement. The task force consulted widely, examined governance models for the popular destination, consulted widely in conversations with close to 800 people and received 580 submissions. There was overwhelming feedback that a new management model and greater environmental protection are needed. Consolidation of public land management was a common theme.
The government accepted all 26 of the task force co-chairs’ recommendations as outlined in the Great Ocean Road Action Plan that was released, as I said, in October 2018. This bill completes the legislation required to enable these reforms. The community is regularly involved with the implementation of these reforms, and there have been three rounds of community engagement since the task force finished its work. In late 2019 the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP) sought advice from local communities on their preference for the authority’s consultation structures and funding options. Local communities have a preference for a town-based consultation structure and visitor charges, provided that the funds remain in the region.
This community feedback has informed the design of the sustainable model that enables this bill. The establishment of a visitor fee is a well-established, defined, regulation-developed process that is governed by the Subordinate Legislation Act 1994 and subjected to examination by the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee. The impact on locals of any fees or charges will be a critical consideration as part of this process. Local residents can be exempt from visitor charges when developing fee-setting regulations, and the Great Ocean Road and Environs Protection Act 2020 already includes the relevant provisions. DELWP will lead the development of regulations, including the preparation of a regulatory impact statement and public consultation.
Another matter raised by the opposition is that this bill enables land to be moved from local council control across to the authority without consultation. What this bill does is make the authority a parks manager and provide certainty to current land managers on the timing of when those transfers will happen. The transfer of management of Crown reserves to the authority is already provided for in the Great Ocean Road and Environs Protection Act 2020. The reserves for transfer to the authority are indicated on the map on the back of the Great Ocean Road Action Plan that was publicly released in October 2018. Significant planning and preparatory work is required to transition management responsibility of Crown land reserves, and DELWP will work with the councils, Parks Victoria, committees of management and the authority. This work has a default date that allows sufficient time to get this done.
Questions have been raised about whether the bill will allow the authority to force councils to take on non-revenue-generating assets, such as recreation facilities and halls, when management responsibility for Crown land reserves is transferred to the authority. Responsibility for assets that are fixed to the land goes with the land when the management responsibility is transferred to the authority. Only on mutual agreement can Crown land leases and licences with councils, communities and other organisations be established for those facilities.
Mr Grimley has an amendment proposed to clause 18, which provides regulation-making power. The amendment proposes to require the Governor in Council to have regard to the advice of the authority in respect of any financial impacts and burdens on local communities of fees or regulation being developed. We have taken on board Mr Grimley’s concern. We believe the existing regulatory impact statement process and the associated public consultation will provide for much wider community and stakeholder input to the development of the regulations than the proposed amendment.
Mr Meddick has proposed an amendment. I am not too sure if he is still proposing it, but he did flag an amendment to institute the community consultative model of the three independent committees representing the three areas across the Great Ocean Road, based on municipal boundaries. Can I just put on the record that in the statement of expectations the minister will require the authority to create a community consultative model. Noting Mr Meddick’s concerns and understanding where his concerns come from, the issue that has arisen is that one of the consultative measures that Mr Meddick was proposing was not necessarily one of the top consultative measures that the community had been asking for.
In summary, there has been a lot of discussion, thought and sentiment from members on this amendment bill. I thank everyone for their contributions. The Great Ocean Road coast and parks are close to all our hearts and belong to all Victorians. That is why the government has enacted the reforms laid out in the Great Ocean Road Action Plan that was released three years ago—because we believe this special part of the state is so important that we need to protect it for future generations with a dedicated park manager.
We have heard concerns about impacts of user charges on local communities. This will be a critical consideration as part of the development of the regulations and transfer of land to the authority to manage. It is not the intent of the government to increase the costs of local residents accessing and enjoying their local recreation spaces. This bill will make the authority into a dedicated park manager for this special part of the state, to care for and enhance the natural environment experience that is such a great tourist attraction. It will provide the authority with the remit to bring the consolidated and holistic viewpoint that is required to tackle the big challenges ahead: increasing numbers of visitors, forces of nature and the impacts of climate change. It will help the region bounce back from the impacts of coronavirus by stimulating the nature-based tourism economy, supporting local jobs and supporting livable communities.
House divided on amendment:
| Ayes, 13 | ||
| Atkinson, Mr | Davis, Mr | Lovell, Ms |
| Bach, Dr | Finn, Mr | McArthur, Mrs |
| Bath, Ms | Hayes, Mr | Quilty, Mr |
| Bourman, Mr | Limbrick, Mr | Ratnam, Dr |
| Crozier, Ms | ||
| Noes, 20 | ||
| Barton, Mr | Maxwell, Ms | Symes, Ms |
| Cumming, Dr | Meddick, Mr | Taylor, Ms |
| Elasmar, Mr | Melhem, Mr | Terpstra, Ms |
| Erdogan, Mr | Patten, Ms | Tierney, Ms |
| Grimley, Mr | Pulford, Ms | Vaghela, Ms |
| Kieu, Dr | Shing, Ms | Watt, Ms |
| Leane, Mr | Stitt, Ms | |
Amendment negatived.
Motion agreed to.
Read second time.
Committed.
Committee
Clause 1 (17:36)
Mr DAVIS: I have a series of questions which, by leave of the committee, I think would probably be best handled in the purposes clause. I have a page of them—there are not that many. Obviously we have moved that reasoned amendment because, as indeed the minister indicated our position in part, we think the regs should have been out. There should have been a proper regulatory impact statement (RIS) process. We think that the consultation should have been much better. We maintain a number of serious concerns.
Mr Finn interjected.
Mr DAVIS: There are a couple of points I would like to make—if that is all right, Mr Finn. The bill provides the authority to raise income. Can the minister outline the sources of the income that they intend be raised?
Mr LEANE: Mr Davis, on some of the land that is managed by other entities that will come across to this one entity there are already charges as far as caravan parks and also some parking are concerned. So that will come across into the new land manager. There may be future opportunities—tour groups and so forth—from which there may be a chance for more revenue to come into the area. I think what the task force, which was well led by Mr Mulder and Mr Batchelor—I actually worked with both of them and thought they were both really good MPs and good ministers, despite being either side of the political divide—recommended and one of the things that they did discuss with local communities was the chance for revenue that is being raised and more revenue to be raised to actually stay inside the catchment area. At the moment I think with all the traffic that goes down this great road and great coastline, with all the tourism, it is estimated only about 11 cents in the tourism dollar stays inside the actual communities there. So for the communities in their discussions with the task force, this was one of the areas that they wanted to be implemented with the new authority—as well as their support to actually pull together the 10 land management organisations into one, because of coordination and it made a lot of sense to them—that any revenue raised or any future revenue raised actually is kept inside the actual catchment area and spent on the actual catchment area. It is an area which a lot of speakers today—everyone in this chamber—thinks is a great asset for Victoria and a beautiful part of the world.
Mr DAVIS: Deputy President, I am not sure that that has provided an answer to all the sources of income, but the minister may want to add to that at some point during the process. Has there been an estimated cost per year for each of these—for example, the car parking and harbour fees and roads? Is there an estimated cost and a breakdown of that?
Mr LEANE: Can I just get clarification from Mr Davis: are you talking currently, the land that—
Mr DAVIS: No, no—going forward. For example, there are certain current revenues now, and you have mentioned they will come across, but you have also flagged new future ones. So what is the breakdown? Is there a table that actually lays out the potential revenues from different sources, or is this all much too nebulous for that?
Mr LEANE: I am not too sure about ‘too nebulous’, but there is a process that is going to take four years that will be in consultation with all groups—all stakeholders and land managers—in terms of the period of time that land will transfer over to the authority. Discussions need to be had about whether there are any potential other revenue-raising initiatives, and there has been no discussion until there is discussion and that discussion proceeds.
Mr DAVIS: So there are no costs and there is no breakdown? Can I ask you to definitely rule out that there will be tolls on the roads?
Mr LEANE: I can answer Mr Davis that there is no provision in this bill that can introduce tolls on the roads. The authority does not even take carriage of the Great Ocean Road, that part of it.
Mr DAVIS: And I ask: what protections and exemptions are there for locals from some of these charges and fees?
Mr LEANE: One of the easiest ones is probably to talk about car parking fees. If there are any existing or new car parking fees, the intention is not for locals to actually be burdened by those particular fees. And there is provision, as we all know, that local residents can have permits in a lot of areas. Even in parts of Melbourne where there are car parking fees, you will see the locals have permits. There are permits. So if I could give an example where if there is a local person that is parked in a certain spot a couple of times a week to go surfing, the intention is not for them to pay any future fees, if there are any future fees, but if someone like me, who lives in an eastern Melbourne suburb, can find a wetsuit big enough to go surfing at that particular spot, I will be the person paying fees. So the intention is for the locals not to pay those sorts of fees.
Mr DAVIS: Let it record that there will be a fee for surfers, but further than that I am just not sure how you protect the locals. I am not necessarily assuaged.
Mr LEANE: I think I was pretty clear.
Mr DAVIS: You were clear about the intent, but it is not quite clear how that will be achieved. It is how it will be achieved that worries us. Just on the operating costs of the authority, what is the ballpark turnover? Has the government got some estimates? Do they have a paper that deals with this? Has a business case been done on this? What are the operating costs? What is the turnover of the new body estimated to be?
Mr LEANE: I will check that one with the box, but I think that the intent—the intent from the consultation of the task force and the two chairs’ report—was that any money raised from this particular stretch of land, local people would like to see that money stay in the area and spent in the area, but that does not divorce whatsoever an expectation that the authority will be part of the state annual budget process via the Treasurer and all sorts of works that will be funded through that process. So it is not envisaged that the fees, particularly in the early days, will be the be-all and end-all as far as funding into this great area goes, but I will check about the forecast for you, Mr Davis.
Mr DAVIS: I might ask about reliance on the state budget too. The bill says the authority will not be reliant on the state budget.
Mr LEANE: I am happy to put on record that they can. There has been some early forecasting, Mr Davis, as far as your question about the annual turnover goes. The issue is that it is not envisaged till all these 10 land managers come over to the new authority in four years time, so there will be further work done on establishing, when there is the endgame, what that would look like financially.
Mr DAVIS: Maybe the early ballpark figure would be helpful in a moment, Minister. Thank you. To what extent will the authority be able to raise significant fees? So businesses, caravan parks, boat rental businesses—will they be hit with any costs to support the running of the authority?
Mr LEANE: Unless there is a current lease arrangement with the public land that is in the schedule to come over to the authority, there is nothing in this bill, and there is no intention to put a fee on businesses, if that is what you are saying. You are saying to put a fee on local businesses?
Mr DAVIS: Boat rentals, caravan parks?
Mr LEANE: No, other than any lease arrangement that currently exists. They will be honoured. But there is no further intention. It is completely encompassed into the land that is in the schedule. So, no.
Mr DAVIS: And football ovals—would there be any charges or arrangements on them? And is there an accurate asset register that is already being worked off? Will that be available, I should ask, and will that be something that is shared with councils and others in the area?
Mr LEANE: My understanding is there is an asset register. I will get further information for you, Mr Davis. As far as things like football parks go, once again, on any land that some of these recreational facilities may exist on—the package of public land that is coming over to the authority—any arrangements in terms of leasing or anything of that nature will be respected, and they will obviously be transferred to the new authority.
Mr DAVIS: So no fees?
Mr LEANE: I will check. Any arrangements that exist will stay in place, but as I said, it is only the package of land which is in the schedule which will come over to this new authority. I will check about the asset register.
In response to Mr Davis’s question around the asset register, the authority does have an asset register. Initial due diligence by DELWP has indicated there are more than 2500 assets on public land to be transferred and that there is a wide range in the maturity of asset registers and asset information standards of the 10 current land managers. I take it that is where the bulk of the asset register has come from.
Mr DAVIS: Thank you, Minister. I just want to ask you about car parking fees again and your example of the surfie who comes down from the eastern suburbs of Melbourne, as you have described it, and so forth. The locals will be exempt from car parking fees, you are saying, but I just wonder if you can give a definition of what a local is.
Mr LEANE: I think I gave a really good definition when I actually gave that example: someone who lives locally who parks in that particular spot now a couple of times a week would be a good example of a local that is using that asset continually, and I think it is fantastic. I think there are only 26 000 people that are lucky enough to live in that part of the Great Ocean Road. I actually do envy them—it is such a beautiful place. But I will, if you want me to, check with the box about if we have a definition of a local.
Yes, Mr Davis, it is a very good question. I think it will definitely be worked through when the regulations are worked through for a definition. I know there is some concern about the regulations and exposure to the locals. It is part of the RIS process—there have to be draft regulations in the RIS, so there will be draft regulations exposed to locals if there is any concern. Again, the intent around any car parking fees is that locals will not have to endure the fees, compared to overseas and interstate and out-of-town visitors.
Mr DAVIS: Let me get down to an example. My colleague the member for South-West Coast points out, for example: could somebody in Warrnambool city drive east to one of the beaches? Would that be local? They might go to Wye River or something like that. Would that be local?
Mr LEANE: I love to go to Wye River, and I do not blame them for actually travelling to that destination. This will be worked through with the regulations. As I said, it will be a transparent process. The RIS requires that the draft regulations are actually exposed to the public. Someone who lives in Wye River may consider that person from Warrnambool an outsider; I do not know. So I think there will probably be some conversation around that.
Mrs McARTHUR: Minister, let us be clear about ‘local’. Would you exempt ratepayers in the municipalities covering this Great Ocean Road area?
Mr LEANE: I suppose, Mrs McArthur, it is not for me to exempt anyone. The regulation process will be the process. Questions will be asked around that. If I am lucky enough, and I am not, to buy two holiday houses down there but I live in Malvern—and I do not live in Malvern—I think your point is: because I am a ratepayer do I get a permit to park there any time I like? I think that is a conversation that will be had in the regulations, and I think it is a fair comment you are making—that maybe there should be consideration as to whether that is a fair thing or not.
Mrs McARTHUR: Minister, thank you for that answer. So what about if a worker is permanently or semipermanently working in Lorne, say, or Apollo Bay or Port Campbell?
Mr DAVIS: A tourist visa or something.
Mrs McARTHUR: Yes, with a tourist visa or whatever. How will they be considered local?
Mr LEANE: I think, back to my previous answer, that will be considered in the regulations, which will have to be made public because the draft regulations need to be in the RIS process. We have got a number of years for a number of these 10 parcels of land—four years actually—as an end point for them to come over to the authority. I am sure that there will be a lot of consultation and taking into account examples which you are making, Mrs McArthur, but I think that that will be a process that will be worked out through the regs.
Mrs McARTHUR: Minister, why haven’t these details been worked out now? Why can’t the community across the Great Ocean Road know now how a local is going to be defined and how they would be exempted from charges or not? Why do we have to wait for these regulations, which on past experience have not gone well, when you have said, ‘Trust us, we’ll produce regulations and it’ll all be fine’. These are very significant points but also pretty easy to resolve. Why couldn’t it be in the legislation how locals will be exempted, if indeed you intend to exempt locals from fees and charges?
Mr LEANE: I think I answered the question in that there is a fair bit to be worked through in the regulations. I mean, this is the result of a task force from 2017, where I think local people—as I said, good on them for living in a beautiful part of the world, and I understand they are very protective of this part of the world—gave feedback to the task force, which was bipartisan, to hopefully keep more fees from visitors to the area, which this achieves through this bill, rather than going to general revenue. People were actually passionate about that, and they were also very clear that they did not believe that as locals they should have to endure the same charges as the visitors. I can only put on the record now that that is not the intention with the formation of the authority and that is not the intention of the application of the authority going forward.
Mr DAVIS: I will just put on the record that we are not comforted by what we have heard there. We have really heard that all of these issues for locals will in fact be decided later under a nebulous RIS process.
Sitting suspended 5.59 pm until 6.33 pm.
Mr DAVIS: My further questions to the minister in part relate to some geography but also to the maintenance backlog. Now, a number of organisations will be rolled into one. Some of them have got assets which have deteriorated. It has been put to me that there is in fact an enormous maintenance backlog, with toilet seats not replaced and buildings deteriorating. In that sense I guess my question to the minister is: will the authority be responsible for the cost and work associated with what they inherit with this current backlog of maintenance?
Mr LEANE: The answer is, Mr Davis, that from the point of transition, as I said, there will be four years ahead to transfer all of the 10 packages from the land managers now—I think there were 11, but there has been a merger recently that has made it 10. But after the transition, of course, the authority will be responsible for, as you say, any backlog of maintenance. I think part of the consultation of the task force—and since the task force chair’s report—was that there are concerns that there are assets that could be a lot better. That is the aspiration of bringing together the land managers and having one authority responsible—to ensure that these assets are well maintained.
Mr DAVIS: I thank the minister for his answer there. There are a couple of questions that arise there. First of all, will there be some inventory of these assets and some assessment of their position as they are transferred so that we have a publicly available report of the situation? That is the first question. The second is: is there going to be government money put in over these four years and beyond to deal with that maintenance backlog, aside from the fees that are proposed to be raised?
Mr LEANE: I will get some guidance from the box for your question around the asset management register, but in terms of envisaging that there should be funding from the state government towards this particular parcel of land that has been identified in this bill, absolutely it is expected that the authority will make approaches as part of every annual budgetary process if they have concerns and want funding towards projects, particularly any major project or other projects as they see fit. The budgetary process I have covered before, but let me check about the public register of assets and conditions.
If I could respond to Mr Davis’s question around the asset register and conditions of assets being registered, the 10 landowners currently have asset registers and conditions of assets. The authority is collating that advice and material to form one asset registry, and that is ongoing. As I said, there is a four-year process in terms of moving those 10 parcels of land that are managed by different land managers to one land manager. That will be reliant on working with those current land managers as the parcels of land come over.
Mr DAVIS: I would hope, and the minister may reflect on this, that that asset register would be made public so that the community understands the baseline which the organisation starts at. I just have one further question before I move to some questions around a bit of geography. We talked about the surfer, for example. I take it that that would apply to anglers who are coming from externally—they would pay a fee—but if they are a local angler, they might not, however that is defined.
Mr LEANE: Mr Davis, that is a very similar scenario to what I explained as far as the surfer goes. The intent is that that local person that parks in that spot every weekend to go fishing should not have to endure any charges because they are local, but someone who is not and is local coming from, as you said, the eastern side of Melbourne on one weekend or one Saturday may incur a charge.
Mr DAVIS: That would apply to bushwalkers and others who would be using other parts of the park as well—tourists of various types from wherever.
Mr LEANE: Mr Davis, we can go through examples of people’s leisure activities all night. I think that everything is in line with what you are suggesting as far as the intent of the government goes.
Mrs McARTHUR: Minister, well then, who is going to police the local angler or the local surfer or the local bushwalker to ensure they are local?
Mr LEANE: I think the example we have been consistently talking about is parking fees. There are already many parts of Victoria, and even Melbourne, where people that are deemed local have actually a parking permit which affords them a chance to park without a fee. I would imagine that if you do not have a parking permit in those areas, similar to parts of St Kilda, and there are parts of Fitzroy, and fair enough too if you live in one of those built-up areas that have constant—
Mr Davis interjected.
Mr LEANE: It is not ‘have to’ as far as the regulations are concerned. I mean, that is an example of what is existing now. There will be a regulatory process, as I said. There will be a RIS, which has to have a lot of consultation in the local area. There will be draft regulations in the RIS, and then there are also regulations through the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee and so forth. So, yes, I do not think it is for us to continually go through every scenario, but the intent of the bill is to put in place the recommendations from the task force, which was co-chaired by Mr Mulder, who is the previous member for Polwarth, who I imagine would know a bit about the area. But the intent is to apply all those recommendations that were accepted by the government at the time.
Mrs McARTHUR: Minister, then can you confirm that anybody using this area will require a local permit? Is that what you are saying? Are you going to confirm that—or they will pay?
Mr LEANE: Just to give you an example, if it is about parking, the intent of the government is for those locals who continue to use certain parts of this particular land, this Crown land, not to endure those future fees—if there are any future fees at all. There is a long process to go through, and I can only put on the record the intent.
Mr DAVIS: I will just record that the Liberals and Nationals are worried about how this will apply. We accept you are doing your best here; it is not your bill, as it were, but some of those concerns remain. I have a couple of questions on behalf of my colleague in South-West Coast. When this bill was second read in the other place, Warrnambool City Council had not been contacted. They thought they were not included in it. The question: how has this happened? What was their reaction to the bill, and what are their concerns? Well, there are a number of issues here. The first I might start with, though, is: why was Warrnambool not brought into this discussion?
Mr LEANE: I will refer to the box. The answer to Mr Davis’s question is that there is no land which encompasses Warrnambool City Council that is included in the schedule, of the land that is going to be encompassed that will be the ultimate responsibility of the authority.
Mr DAVIS: Certainly people in Warrnambool have concerns. The council is worried about revenue from markets on the foreshore. So are you providing an assurance that that is absolutely secure and there will be no change on any of that?
Mr LEANE: I can only reiterate that if you are talking about events on the Warrnambool council land, as far as the foreshore goes, that will not be part of this particular authority so they will be excluded.
Mr DAVIS: Some may be reassured by that. Now, I noticed that—looking at the different maps and a different sort of geography of the proposals—at the bill briefing it was indicated the authority would be responsible from the road out to the sea and 150 metres inland of the road. When the maps were released people have pointed out that there was a much larger area incorporated, including private land. Are these maps definitive? Can people rely on those maps that were released at that time or are there other plans that are not seen there?
Mr LEANE: The intent of the authority’s responsibility is only public land identified in the particular schedule. If there is any private land, it may be land that has been leased to a different land manager, and those agreements will stay in place by agreement. I will check if there are any anomalies, but the intent is only public land, not private land unless the private land is by agreement. So I will just double-check for you, Mr Davis.
I reiterate that it is only the public land within that area that is to be encompassed by the authority. Private land, unless by agreement, is excluded.
Mr DAVIS: Thank you, Minister. People have pointed out to me too that some industrial land seems to have been included in these maps. Is it the intent of the bill for the authority to manage any industrial land?
Mr LEANE: No.
Mr DAVIS: Another quite separate issue again, but coming off the maps, is: what will it mean for people in those communities? Particularly, people look at the protection of wildlife and the environment. What does that mean about domestic animals? Is there any impact on domestic animals, for example cats, dogs and so forth?
Mr LEANE: Yes, the associated acts do include the Domestic Animals Act 1994. At the moment there is a responsibility on Parks Victoria or even other land managers around certain domestic animals and how they are controlled or not. So there is a reference to another act around domestic animals.
Mr DAVIS: Say that again?
Mr LEANE: I will check with the box, but there is a reference to a domestic animals act. I will just double-check.
Mr Davis, in line with what I was saying before, I probably can articulate it a bit better this time. The authority needs a power under the Domestic Animals Act 1994. The issue of dog management and dog access to beach areas is leading to a management challenge for coastal parklands and is a significant source of public complaint. The ability for the authority to enforce dog rules on beaches or elsewhere within the land that they manage is an important one. Particularly, councils establish and enforce regulations of dog control, yet they have no management responsibility of the coastal reserves and beaches.
Community feedback to the coast committees is that current regulations are not effective and are not providing a safe and equitable beach experience for all. The authority needs the power to create dog control rules in areas that it manages, in consultation with local communities, and then to be able to enforce those rules with infringement notices. These infringement notices should be consistent with the penalties applied by councils on public land.
Mr DAVIS: I am just going to record my concern here that the whole regulation of dogs and cats and so forth in these areas may well be up in the air with a new authority taking over. But leaving that aside, people who are watching the committee are assuring me that Warrnambool is included in some of the lands and map areas. But you are adamant that it is not, Minister. Is that right?
Mr LEANE: Mr Davis, I am not going to question people concerned who are watching the committee and communicating with you, so let me double-check that answer.
Mr Davis, the act actually prescribes that the Crown land reserved within the Great Ocean Road coast and parks—as in the land we have been discussing during the committee stage—excludes land within the municipal district of Warrnambool council.
Mr DAVIS: But does that mean the other land that is not under control of Warrnambool council but in that area? I am just trying to be clear.
Mr LEANE: I think, Mr Davis, I am being clear. The actual map shows that the western end of the land that the new authority will take management of abuts the boundary of Warrnambool City Council land, but it does not encroach on it. That is my understanding, And that is why it has been excluded.
Mr DAVIS: Thank you, Minister. I will just be very brief here. Just to understand, with private land, does the authority have any capacity to put approval requirements or processes over that? So there might be a business within some of these zones. Even though the land might not be strictly run, do they have some capacity to require approval processes?
Mr LEANE: The authority will only have any authority of land use over the public land which has been prescribed by and that is encompassed in the schedule in the act.
Mrs McARTHUR: Can you just clarify: parking permits are not necessarily free everywhere, so will locals—however we are going to define ‘locals’; I would have thought ‘ratepayers’ would have been probably a good idea, but anyway—have to pay council an annual fee to get a permit, or will workers that come to work in this Great Ocean Road area on a seasonal basis have to pay for a permit, as you do in many metropolitan areas?
Mr LEANE: As I stated before, there is no intent for locals who are parking free of charge in their favourite spots along that part of the coast to endure any fees. As I said, there is work to be done via the regulations on there being no adverse impact on locals from any of these provisions. And there is a process to go through; as I said, there is a RIS process to go through, which complies with the need for consultation with locals, and in the RIS there have to be draft regulations. So it will be a transparent process, and I can only put on the record another time that the intention is for locals not to endure any fees they are not enduring now.
Mrs McARTHUR: Minister, well, you have been involved in this process, or the government has, for some years now. I would have thought the most important thing you could define was ‘local’. But we are going to have to take you on trust and wait till we go through the RIS process and everything else, and you will produce these regulations which will define ‘local’. Why was it not possible to have ‘local’ defined now?
Mr LEANE: I suppose, in response, there has been a lot of consultation with a lot of local groups, a lot of local individuals, all the way back to 2017, when the task force was formed with a bipartisan chair. The co-chairs delivered a report with, I think, 26 recommendations, which the government accepted, and we are just going through a process now of taking into account all of the comments that they collated from their discussions. There were, I think, over 500-odd submissions and nearly 800 conversations with individuals around the community who thought it would actually be a good thing if there were not 11 land managers—there are now 10, I accept—and that if there was any revenue from visitors around the globe that visit this great area that revenue should basically stay in the area to improve the amenity. They were very passionate—including you, Mrs McArthur, on their behalf—that they should not endure any fees as locals and that if there are any other streams of revenue, which they have actually advocated for, there be more streams of revenue so that this particular beautiful part of Victoria can be maintained a lot better. I take into account Mr Davis’s comment that some of the assets could be a lot better maintained, and I suppose this is the goal of all the locals.
Mrs McARTHUR: Well, thank you, Minister, for that. We hope that locals are going to benefit greatly from increased commercial activity in this area and that the visitor experience is enhanced. I am not confident if we have got a bureaucracy running the thing on top of all the other bureaucracies. But let us go to a specific example. If you live in one LGA which is in the environ of the Great Ocean Road authority but you drive 15 kilometres to another local government authority, would that still be considered local?
Mr LEANE: I think this is part of what is going to be worked out through the regulation process, and I can only reiterate it is going to be a transparent process. There needs to be a RIS produced. It is compulsory for there to be consultation with the community, as there should be, and with the RIS there has to be made public a draft set of regulations, which I think is a good thing. I think, Mrs McArthur, you can give me examples all night, but I can only reiterate the intention that the government is happy to flag that local people should not have to endure fees that other people will pay, that visitors will pay, to improve the amenity of the whole coastline and land around that area.
Mrs McARTHUR: Thank you, Minister, and just place on record that you will confirm who will be the police—that is, the authorised officers or the people that are going to enforce who is local and who is not local—and that that will not be left up to local councils or anybody else; the authority will be doing that.
Mr LEANE: I am sure that as a process we will make it easy for any authority or any organisation and that it will be clear that if someone has a permit on their car, they are locals and have rights to park there, if we continue to talk about the parking example.
Mrs McARTHUR: Thank you, Minister. We will take it that there will be parking inspectors involved in this authorised by the authority. You mentioned before the authority is now going to have the power to police cats’ and dogs’ misbehaviour. Will the authority have its own pound?
Mr LEANE: I am sure that is something for the authority to work out, and as I said, there are 10 packages of land that are to be encompassed in the next four years by this particular authority, so I am sure any nuts and bolts will be worked out during the process. Getting back to the act that Mr Davis asked me about, as far as domestic animals go, I think from the comments of the task force and other consultation with locals that locals would like to feel safe on the beach and in certain instances where there may be domestic dogs that are causing problems to them.
Mrs McARTHUR: Thank you, Minister. I can see why in a briefing we were told you would need to increase the workforce, because we are going to need people to check permits, we are going to need people to check dogs and cats—they will be busy. Now, you mentioned there were 2500 assets. Is that list available now?
Mr LEANE: I will just confirm with the box, Mrs McArthur. There are 10 land managers at the moment that have an asset register, but I will check if their current asset register is public or not for you.
As I outlined, Mrs McArthur, none of the 10 packages of land have actually transferred over to the authority as yet. That will happen over a four-year period. Those particular land managers will have an asset register, but none of those I believe have made their register public. That is my understanding.
Mrs McARTHUR: Thank you, Minister. Well, that is of great concern, isn’t it, that the general community and the taxpayers of Victoria also would need to know about these 2500 assets. But also in the bill briefing those doing the briefing—and they may well be in the box—said they did not have the asset register available, and we still do not have it. Is that the case, Minister?
Mr LEANE: Yes. As I stated, none of these land managers have handed over their land for the responsibility of the authority at this point, so the authority will not have those particular registers as the current land managers do.
Mrs McARTHUR: Minister, when they do hand over this list of assets, how will the general public get access to it?
Mr LEANE: Mrs McArthur, this bill actually requires the authority to publish the asset register, when it transfers over from other land managers, on their website. So it will be publicly available.
Mrs McARTHUR: Minister, can you just then also confirm that each authority has these lists and that they are up to date before they hand them over to the authority? Do we know that?
Mr LEANE: I am sure, Mrs McArthur, that will be part of the process of the land being transferred to the new authority. So yes, I think I can probably give you comfort, and I am sure that there will be quite a professional process during that time.
Mrs McARTHUR: Thank you, Minister. Can you just explain on behalf of the minister why there was the need to keep every—I think all except one—quango in place but apply a new authority, a sweeping authority, over the top? Why was that necessary? Why did you have to keep all those semi-government authorities in place?
Mr LEANE: Mrs McArthur, it is not completely correct that all the quangos will stay in place. It is actually four that will go, but the remaining ones are quite important, as far as the five councils, DELWP and Parks Victoria are concerned.
Mrs McARTHUR: Thank you, Minister, for that. So can you confirm that if somebody wants to do a project in this area they will go to the authority plus all these other authorities that they would normally have to go to as well, or is the Great Ocean Road authority going to be a one-stop shop for development and project enhancement in this area?
Mr LEANE: The answer to your very good question, Mrs McArthur, is the bill makes the authority the park manager. Councils are the responsible authority for the planning system under the Planning and Environment Act 1987. The bill does not change councils’ responsibility for land use planning. The authority only manages public land, which must be managed in accordance with the purpose for which it is reserved. It has nothing to do with land use planning systems.
Mrs McARTHUR: Thank you, Minister, for confirming that. Minister, leading up to this, a number of leases on Crown land were made virtually redundant by the fact that they were not able to secure a viable long-term lease. Why was this the case? Why wouldn’t you have wanted the private operators of these leases—for instance, the Apollo Bay lighthouse is a case in point—to continue to operate in the long term? It seems there was a determination to make sure that these leases all ended.
Mr LEANE: I am not too sure if there is any intention about all leases being ended. My understanding of the example Mrs McArthur made is it is a lease that is currently between Parks Victoria and that entity, and I can assure Mrs McArthur any current leases will be respected and adhered to by the new authority if they do take over land that has those sorts of lease arrangements in place at the time.
Mrs McARTHUR: Minister, for the record, the lease negotiations were made basically unviable, so proprietors were not going to continue.
Minister, can I just ask: on an area of land that is privately owned that does lease land currently to Parks Victoria—for instance, the Twelve Apostles area; that is all privately owned—if the owner of that land is not able to negotiate a good outcome with the new authority, will that land be compulsorily acquired?
Mr LEANE: The short answer is no. Leased land is only by agreement by both parties. As for your example of that car park, I think they are happy to lease that particular land, and any further discussions around the future of it or future leases have to be by agreement.
Mrs McARTHUR: Thank you, Minister. Then would the government, through the minister, expect that the authority would want to encourage private sector development in that particular area, or do you think it is better that Parks Victoria or the authority run a car park and a lavatory block?
Mr LEANE: I think as far as running a car park or a lavatory block goes, the authority will have that responsibility when the packages of land are transferred from the current land managers to the authority, so I do not think there should be anything unique about including the land that is leased. It is only the land that is leased. They are not leasing, I do not believe, the actual asphalt or the toilet block. I think it is used for that amenity by Parks Vic. I think there is nothing we would be concerned about with any transfer of business particularly. The responsibility for the authority will be the same responsibility as Parks Victoria has under the Parks Victoria Act 2018 as far as conservation and maintaining this particular beautiful space are concerned.
Mrs McARTHUR: Minister, if the owner of that land no longer wants to lease it to the authority, that would be acceptable?
Mr LEANE: Leases are currently by agreement on private land, and leases will continue by agreement.
Mrs McARTHUR: Thank you, Minister. One of the great concerns of locals and others, which I referred to in my speech, is the very limitation on the right to participate in this authority, and you have excluded any local councillors or council officers from participating on the authority. You have got ex-councillors on it, yet those councillors and council officers can participate in other government boards and semi-government authorities. Why have you limited access for local people who do actually have a real understanding of what is going on in the area so discriminately?
Mr LEANE: Look, I do not think it is a case of discrimination. I think it is the case that there are five different local government areas abutting this particular section of land along the Great Ocean Road. I am sure there would not be any councillors or council directors that would bring any bias towards their fifth of this particular part of the land, but I think it could be conceived. So I think to protect the transparency and so no-one can actually complain that there may be a bias towards one particular LGA, it makes sense to protect the councillors and the council officers in that way.
Mrs McARTHUR: But, Minister, you do not exclude them from, say, state government boards or regional waste management groups or regional partnerships. Why was it so necessary? Is it just bias that you do not want them on this authority? It is of great concern to many people.
Mr LEANE: No. Once again I state that it is not bias. I think it is just for it to be seen that there is not any actual bias from one council on this particular group.
Clause agreed to; clauses 2 to 18 agreed to.
New Clause (19:19)
Mr GRIMLEY: I move:
1. Insert the following New Clause to follow clause 18—
‘18A Further amendment of section 66
After subsection 66(1) of the Principal Act insert—
“(1A) Before regulations are made for the purposes of subsection (1)(b) or (1)(c), the Minister must consider any advice of the Authority in respect of any financial impacts or burdens on local communities of the tolls, fees and charges.”.’.
I will just speak briefly on this one. The reason for this amendment is that there is concern amongst locals and community groups that the authority will need to implement a number of revenue streams to remain self-sustainable that will impact on them. This assumption is also supported by several sections in the act and the bill that allow the Governor in Council, on recommendation of the minister, to prescribe tolls, fees and charges, including for car parking and entry, for persons, vehicles and animals on their assets. This has left some people feeling as though they will be significantly financially impacted by the authority’s decisions.
The amendment that we are proposing will fix the problem by requiring the minister to have regard to any financial impacts that regulations would have on local communities on advice from the authority. The authority does not have to consider the financial burden such charges may place on locals. There is no mandate currently, so this existing section in the act would support this amendment by the authority taking into account any financial impact on local communities. We have canvassed widely on this particular amendment, which is supported by many local individual communities. The Corangamite Shire Council are supportive of this amendment as well. The amendment aligns also with the Greater Torquay Alliance’s views on tolls, fees and charges. The Surf Coast Shire Council also stated that they are supportive of the changes to this bill that consider the impacts of future decisions on fees, charges and tolls on their community. The latest draft of this amendment contains some extra words which make it explicit, rather than implicit, that the minister provide advice to the Governor in Council. On this I would just like to say thanks to the Office of the Chief Parliamentary Counsel for ensuring that this amendment is legally acceptable and meets the concerns that we originally had about this bill.
Mr LEANE: I would just make a comment, and it is probably in line with the conversations I had with Mrs McArthur about her concerns. Mr Grimley is probably reiterating that as well, about the impact on locals being a critical consideration, and I completely understand that. Sorry to be boring, but I might reiterate the process that has been proposed—that under the Subordinate Legislation Act 1994 the development of fee-setting regulations will require preparation of a regulatory impact statement, public consultation and examination by the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee. The commissioner for better regulation also independently reviews the regulatory impact statements to determine whether they are adequate. The existing regulatory impact statement process and the associated public consultation will provide for much wider community and stakeholder input into development of regulations than may be proposed by Mr Grimley. But I do accept Mr Grimley’s intent and also just want to put on the record—and I know I have said it a number of times—that the draft regulations need to be in place inside the RIS as well. That is just a comment.
Mr DAVIS: I have listened closely to what the minister has had to say, and I have listened to the committee stage, and the Liberal-Nationals will support Mr Grimley’s amendment. I want to be quite clear, though, that I do not think this solves the problems with the bill. It just simply does not. It is a small chip in a useful direction. It is not going to resolve the issues about excessive taxation and new burdens placed on local people. To the extent that the authority may be able to have something to say, that is welcome, I think is a fair description, and in that sense we will support it. But we just do not think it resolves the deep and intrinsic problems in the way the government is going around this. It is a 1 per cent solution to a 100 per cent problem.
New clause agreed to; clauses 19 to 151 agreed to.
Reported to house with amendment.
Mr LEANE (Eastern Metropolitan—Minister for Local Government, Minister for Suburban Development, Minister for Veterans) (19:25): Deputy President, thank you for your good work during the committee stage. I move:
That the report be now adopted.
Motion agreed to.
Report adopted.
Third reading
Mr LEANE (Eastern Metropolitan—Minister for Local Government, Minister for Suburban Development, Minister for Veterans) (19:25): I move:
That the bill be now read a third time.
In saying that, can I thank all members for their contributions on this bill. Everyone is very passionate about this area. Can I acknowledge Mrs McArthur and Mr Davis for their questions and their concerns in the committee stage, and I also acknowledge Mr Grimley, who made quite a spectacular cameo at the end there. So thank you, everyone.
The PRESIDENT: The question is:
That the bill be now read a third time and do pass.
House divided on question:
| Ayes, 20 | ||
| Barton, Mr | Maxwell, Ms | Symes, Ms |
| Cumming, Dr | Meddick, Mr | Taylor, Ms |
| Elasmar, Mr | Melhem, Mr | Terpstra, Ms |
| Erdogan, Mr | Patten, Ms | Tierney, Ms |
| Grimley, Mr | Pulford, Ms | Vaghela, Ms |
| Kieu, Dr | Shing, Ms | Watt, Ms |
| Leane, Mr | Stitt, Ms | |
| Noes, 13 | ||
| Atkinson, Mr | Davis, Mr | Lovell, Ms |
| Bach, Dr | Finn, Mr | McArthur, Mrs |
| Bath, Ms | Hayes, Mr | Quilty, Mr |
| Bourman, Mr | Limbrick, Mr | Ratnam, Dr |
| Crozier, Ms | ||
Question agreed to.
Read third time.
The PRESIDENT: Pursuant to standing order 14.27, the bill will be returned to the Assembly with a message informing them that the Council have agreed to the same with amendment.
Essential Services Commission (Compliance and Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill 2021
Second reading
Debate resumed on motion of Ms SYMES:
That the bill be now read a second time.
Mr ONDARCHIE (Northern Metropolitan) (19:33): Tonight I rise to speak on the Essential Services Commission (Compliance and Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill 2021. ‘Compliance and enforcement powers’—how can we expect anything less from this government? The key purpose of the bill is to amend the Essential Services Commission Act 2001 and other acts to provide the Essential Services Commission (ESC) with additional information-gathering and inspection powers. Secondly, this bill will expand the scope of the civil penalty regime by increasing penalties, broadening the circumstances in which the commission can seek injunctions from a court, introducing a range of court orders to protect energy retail customers and holding officers of corporations liable if they contribute to a contravention. The bill also revises funding arrangements for the commission by redirecting penalty revenue to a dedicated fund for the commission for enforcement and by transferring energy and water industry fee setting to the relevant portfolio ministers, which I will touch on a little later in my contribution.
Just before the last election the government announced a commitment to an energy fairness plan, and they said, in the title of their media release, ‘Time is up for energy retailers ripping off Victorians’. What a bold statement: ‘Time is up for energy retailers ripping off Victorians’. They promised to ‘deliver the biggest regulatory shake-up of the energy sector in Victoria’s history’. They are full of big words, this government. During this term of government they have legislated the consumer elements of their energy fairness commitment. You will recall that the Energy Legislation Amendment (Energy Fairness) Act 2021, which passed through here not that long ago, banned unsolicited sales practices such as door-to-door sales and cold-calling and strengthened penalties for energy companies that wrongfully disconnect customers. You would say on the surface that is fair enough, but the point that the opposition made at that time was this cost jobs in Victoria by this wideranging view under the energy fairness component of the legislation amendment act. This bill proposes to extend that to enforce that bold claim they made about energy retailers ripping off Victorians.
Now, we would say as an opposition that looking after consumers is a reasonable thing to do, but it is not the only thing the government should be doing at this time. It is time to reopen, it is time to rebuild and it is time to recover Victoria. Victoria has been doing it tough—very, very tough—over the last 18 months. It is interesting that somebody made a comment to me earlier in the day that kids who were in prep last year, the first year of schooling, will be in grade 2 next year, and they have hardly seen any schooling at all. While this focus is important in making sure consumers are well looked after, it is time to reopen, to rebuild and to recover Victoria.
A summary of the main provisions contained in this very weighty bill: they provide the commission with expanded information-gathering and inspection powers, as I have outlined, and enable the commission to share information relating to contraventions or suspected contraventions with other regulators. It goes on to expand the scope of the civil penalty regime and to increase the penalty for certain contraventions. It is designed to simplify the existing penalty notice regime. Should it pass, it will broaden the circumstances in which the commission can seek injunctions from a court, and it will introduce a range of other orders available to the commission, including adverse publicity notices and compensation orders. It seeks to hold officers of corporations liable if they knowingly contribute to a contravention, and it also clarifies the role of the commissioners and the chief executive officer of the ESC.
It will redirect penalty revenue to a dedicated fund for commission enforcement—that is interesting in itself—and establish a separate operating fund for the commission. What is interesting about this is it will transfer energy and water industry fee setting to a relevant portfolio minister. It will transfer the energy and water industry fee setting to a relevant portfolio minister. Isn’t this the week to be talking about ministers and money. Isn’t this the week—the week that we are talking about ministers and money, money that is used for a variety of purposes, as we are learning through the IBAC inquiry that is before the state at the moment. So this bill looks to transfer the fee setting for energy and the fee setting for water industry fees to the relevant minister. This might not be the week to prosecute that case.
It provides regular reviews under the Victorian Energy Efficiency Target Act 2007 and the Victorian Renewable Energy Act 2006 in relation to payment of those penalties. It will amend the Electricity Industry Act 2000, Gas Industry Act 2001, the Victorian Energy Efficiency Target Act 2007 and the Water Industry Act 1994 to reflect new industry-specific reporting requirements and fee determination requirements.
There are some things that worry me and the opposition about the bill that is before us. There is a sense that this bill lacks justification. The government claims the real justification for this is to grow the original consumer protection framework that it says is no longer effectively protecting Victorians, yet there has been no measurable justification to back up this statement. The government have stated, and I will quote:
Existing penalty levels are low and do not appear to be providing a sufficient deterrent.
However, I will say to you that the data suggests otherwise. The recently released Energy and Water Ombudsman Victoria 2021 annual report, which was released late in September, shows there has been a 17 per cent decrease in electricity related complaints, yet the government says we need to do more because it is not protecting Victorians. Well, the EWOV has said differently. The government have justified the argument by referring to a few examples of corporate breach. They talk about penalties against AGL, against Alinta Energy, against Powershop, against Click Energy, against Simply Energy, against Origin Energy and against a range of things. But in saying that, I go back to the point that the EWOV reports a 17 per cent decrease in complaints in the electricity industry.
The Australian Energy Council has said, and I quote:
The AEC is extremely concerned that the Government would seek to progress a Bill of this magnitude without undertaking any assessment of its merits …
And that is my point. There is no justification for bringing this very, very weighty bill—this huge bill—to the house in a time when there should be some other priorities for Victoria, including helping us to rebuild and recover from this COVID pandemic.
Another area that concerns the opposition around this bill is, again—and it has been a bit consistent in some of the bills we have been seeing coming through this place over recent time—there has been a lack of consultation
Mr Finn: Go on. I wouldn’t believe it.
Mr ONDARCHIE: Well, Mr Finn, I know it comes as a surprise to you and others in this place, but the government have just whacked this through without talking to the industry about this at all.
Mr Finn: Was Jacinta Allan involved at all?
Mr ONDARCHIE: Well, I am not sure. I think the minister in relation to this is Lily D’Ambrosio, so one can make their own judgement about whether there has been any serious work done around this. But there has been some consistent feedback from industry that says there has been no meaningful engagement on this bill, and I am going to demonstrate how that has occurred. There was a schedule for them all to get together, but that was cancelled because of lockdown. They said, ‘Okay then, let’s have an online session with the government via Zoom or via Teams or FaceTime’, or whatever the thing is they are doing at the moment. Well, that was scheduled, but that was prevented from going ahead.
Mr Finn: Why?
Mr ONDARCHIE: Well, I will pick up your interjection, Mr Finn. Why? Well, the government contends the industry were given the general policy overview of the energy fairness plan some time ago. So that should be enough, shouldn’t it? That should be enough. They do not need the detail. They do not need to know how it is all going to work. They said, ‘We gave you a sort of rough view of what we are thinking, so we can’t have a face-to-face meeting, and we’re not going to have an online meeting’, and the industry are quite justified in saying, ‘You’re not talking to us about this’.
The government has stated in response to concerns raised by industry that several changes were made to the drafting of the bill, and the Australian Energy Council has stated that, and I quote:
… the AEC does not consider that the Government has undertaken adequate consultation prior to introducing this Bill …
Well, I have to say to the Australian Energy Council, you could just about apply that quote to every bill that comes through this house. Let me say that again for you:
… the AEC does not consider that the Government has undertaken adequate consultation prior to introducing this Bill …
It seems that every speaker who speaks to bills on this side of the house that come through this place always has to say exactly the same thing. This is a government who is prepared to do it to Victorians and not with Victorians. That is the challenge.
The other thing that concerns the opposition, as it should others, is the penalty revenue fund. Look, that is not a unique model. There are penalty funds associated with other dedicated funds. But in short, the industry is concerned the commission could theoretically issue penalty notices in a manner that funds enforcement activity, with the fund effectively becoming a fighting fund for the commission. It could be a revenue driver. And the reason we do not know enough about this is the government have not consulted with us at all on this.
We have talked to a number of people about this. We have talked to the Australian Energy Council of course, and the AEC has been sort of the front page for advocating on behalf of this bill. The council submitted a three-page consultation paper to the Department of Treasury and Finance (DTF) setting out what the industry is worried about. I and others have talked to several people interested in this issue. This bill is designed to provide consumers with increased protection by strengthening compliance and enforcement in the energy sector.
I have some things that I would like to put to the minister who is doing this that I will ask now if the minister is listening and is prepared to deal with this in her summing up. There are a couple of things that I think we need to know. Why was there a material need for this bill when the EWOV had demonstrated there had been a decrease in complaints against the electricity industry? So why was there a need to bring this on as a priority ahead of other things that the government should be doing right now? That is question 1 I have for the minister for her to take up in the summing up today, or we will deal with it in the committee stage.
Typically, setting industry fees was done by the Treasurer’s office, and this bill now moves that from the Treasurer’s office to the relevant portfolio ministers for water or energy to decide the fee setting. What was broken in the system that existed where the Treasurer was able to set that that you now have to move it to the portfolio ministers? And do not tell me it is about efficiency. Do not tell me it is about that, because the process will be—we know the process will be—that it will have to go back to DTF for sign-off. So why did you take it out of the Treasurer’s hands in the first place to give it to the portfolio ministers when it is going to have to go back there anyway? And that is what I will be seeking to find out as well. If that was inefficient, doing it that way, I would like to know why it was inefficient.
The third thing I am worried about that I will seek a response from the minister about either in the summing up or in the committee stage is around that fee setting. Is the fee setting there just to support the operation of the Essential Services Commission? I do not know. Is it going to lead to a detrimental change in the feed-in tariffs that exist via the solar panel industry? And will there be other penalties applied in the fee setting that are not clear that will be done by regulation at some further time? I am looking for support to have those questions answered. The opposition in its totality will not oppose this bill going through the house at this time, but we will be seeking answers either in the summing up or in a committee stage that may be required later this day.
Mr ERDOGAN (Southern Metropolitan) (19:48): I am pleased to rise to speak in support of the Essential Services Commission (Compliance and Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill 2021. It delivers on a commitment that this government made to make the energy market fairer for all Victorians. It is a regulatory reform that is aimed at protecting consumers, which is always a priority of this government. The bill complements its sister legislation, the Energy Legislation Amendment (Energy Fairness) Bill 2021, which received royal assent a couple of months ago. Both bills are pillars of the government’s energy fairness plan, a promise made by the government ahead of the 2018 election.
This bill amends the Essential Services Commission Act 2001 and other acts to include a suite of enforcement-related measures to ensure the implementation of the energy fairness plan and put the power back into the hands of Victorians—pun intended. Specifically it will give the Essential Services Commission clearer information-gathering and inspection powers, overhaul and simplify the penalty scheme, enhance powers to monitor the market, introduce several court orders to strengthen consumer protection and make officers of corporations liable if they aid or abet contravention, besides other targeted measures. It also revises funding arrangements for the commission, in turn giving them the ability to support litigation and enforcement actions against dishonest energy retailers through a dedicated enforcement fund.
I think it is important to also understand the context in which these reforms are needed. It was the Kennett Liberal government over 25 years ago that privatised this network. They gave a flawed promise to Victorians that competition would result in cheaper electricity prices. Obviously, like too many Liberal Party policies, this promise was broken, and they failed to deliver yet again.
The only winners from privatisation in this state have been the giant energy companies, which have generated record profits, while Victorian families are worse off. This is not just because of higher prices but also because of the numerous pressure tactics electricity companies engage in against hardworking Victoria families, putting pressure on them to make decisions that would not be beneficial. Thankfully the energy fairness plan put a stop to many of these practices, some of which Mr Ondarchie reflected on. However, our work as an Andrews Labor government is not done yet. The regulatory framework introduced during the Liberal government’s privatisation was modelled closely on a light-touch approach established by the Thatcherites in the United Kingdom, where similar privatisation took place.
Over time minor reforms have been made to strengthen the framework, like including the ability for the commission to impose civil penalties and issue penalty notices against energy companies. Notwithstanding these reforms, the enforcement network remains largely the same. Over the past few years it has become evident that the original framework does not go fully to protecting Victorian energy consumers. This bill delivers on the government’s election commitment to significantly reform the enforcement framework and give the commission improved information-gathering and enforcement powers.
It is important to reflect on those information-gathering powers that I discussed. The principal measure is these powers, because these powers will change the way that information is gathered, in particular beyond just the current remit of the commission in relation to pricing and other inquiry functions. This includes the inability to obtain evidence under oath at the moment, restrictions on disclosure of confidential information to other regulators and the inability to get information if a regulated entity is non-compliant. Besides, there is a lack of clarity with information-gathering powers in other acts administered by the Essential Services Commission.
This bill will restructure the information gathering into two tiers. The first tier will concentrate on supporting the commission’s pricing determination and inquiries functions by giving it the power to request information, produce documents and require people to appear before the commission to give information, similar to existing powers. This power will be available to the commission to perform their duties unless they suspect the contravention of an essential services requirement. There will also be broad protection against self-incrimination. This will be through ensuring that information will only be used in proceedings relating to giving false or misleading information, proceedings for monetary benefits orders arising from the giving of false or misleading information and reviews by VCAT.
The second tier of these reforms is the commission’s ability to investigate suspected contraventions of essential services requirements, which include violations of the Essential Services Commission Act 2001, relevant legislation, codes of practice and licence conditions. The new powers include giving information and producing documents besides obtaining evidence on oath. The protection against self-incrimination under the second tier will be similar to that found in other regulated schemes. For corporations this means information gathered cannot be used in criminal proceedings except those relating to giving false or misleading information or under any other legislation. For individuals this means information gathered can only be used in proceedings relating to false or misleading information. The commission’s new powers will be supported by the ability to enter premises, including the power to appoint inspectors, to obtain search warrants from the Magistrates Court and to obtain and access records. The bill also gives the commission the power to enter into information-sharing arrangements with other agencies, removing the current restrictions. This will empower the commission to undertake joint investigations of suspected contraventions with other regulators, such as the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission—the ACCC—and Consumer Affairs Victoria.
I guess a pillar of this bill is the penalties needed and the need for those to be beefed up, so to speak. This will give the commission real teeth, and it introduces a comprehensive overhaul of the enforcement framework. The current framework has three cornerstone elements. First, there is a one-size-fits-all enforcement order process, which does not target risk with appropriate sanctions and imposes a high evidentiary standard. It also requires the commission to be satisfied that a breach is major, which means minor breaches that should be subject to sanctions are not punished accordingly. Second, the commission can impose civil penalties, but the process lacks clarity. Finally, penalty notices have low penalty amounts, which reflect that they are administrative sanctions and are limited to the energy industry.
The bill proposes a new civil framework similar to Victoria’s Environment Protection Act and the National Energy Retail Law. It will introduce a lower civil standard of proof, with matters decided on the balance of probabilities. Penalty levels will also be significantly increased, with maximum penalties for energy licensees to be up to 60 000 penalty units, which equates to over $10 million for corporations, unless set lower, or three times the benefit obtained from the contravention or 10 per cent of the turnover. For individuals penalties of around $550 000 will apply. The maximum penalty for other regulated entities will also increase to $220 000 for corporations and $45 000 for others. The bill ensures that those people who facilitate the wrongdoings of regulated entities can be punished. Individual corporate officers who knowingly authorise or permit contraventions under the act will face some liability for their actions.
There are a range of other measures in this bill, some of which have already been reflected upon, such as clarifying the role of the Essential Services Commission and its CEO, transfer of energy and water industry fee setting to the relevant portfolio ministers and a number of other changes.
There are a number of other measures that are introduced as part of this bill that will assist in the operational and financial arrangements of the commission and its regulatory framework. The bill makes reforms on how codes like the energy retailer code are made. Powers to make the code of practice will be strengthened, with new powers providing greater flexibility for the commission. Codes of practice will sunset every 10 years and be subject to standard regulatory impact statement processes. This will make sure that regulatory and contemporary best practice will apply to making codes of practice in the future.
It will also establish a commission enforcement fund as promised in 2018. This litigation-fighting fund will allow the commission to retain the revenue from fines and penalties it wins to fund litigation and enforcement action against other deceitful energy companies. I might add that some in the industry have raised concerns about this element—that the commission would benefit from revenue and fines that it targets and enforces, and a potential of conflict of interest may arise. However, it is quite commonplace for statutory funds into which penalties are paid to be used to fund the regulatory activities of the regulator. Other examples in our state include the Victorian Property Fund and the Victorian Building Authority Fund.
But I guess much has been made about our plan for fairness, and I do want to reflect upon some of the fairness measures that this government has taken. Since coming to power we have implemented key programs that have worked to empower energy users. The Victorian default offer, that members may be familiar with, provides a simple to understand, reliable energy offer that consumers can trust. We have implemented a payment difficulty framework to ensure that energy companies offer assistance to customers who are struggling to pay their bills.
I did notice that Mr Ondarchie reflected on the need for or the priority of this legislation. As I have stated, I believe that consumer protections are always a priority for our government, but I will note that there has been a fall in complaints to the energy and water ombudsman, and this could be for a number of factors. It could be because of our payment difficulty framework that we have already introduced. It could be because during the COVID time of last year and this year energy companies to a large extent have not disconnected users from their network. So there could be a variety of reasons for that reduction. Nonetheless the fight for fairness continues.
We developed the Victorian Energy Compare website, which offers a truly independent comparison of energy offers. It is worth noting that this offering was quite popular and over 3 million Victorians have accessed the site. We encouraged people to visit Energy Compare and find a better energy deal with the $50 power saving bonus. We extended the power saving bonus further by providing a one-off $250 payment to vulnerable Victorians.
I also want to add that we understand that it has been difficult with the global pandemic, and we have offered a range of supports to people. We have provided $3.5 million to people in hardship, especially energy hardship, through the COVID-19 pandemic. These investments and other legislative reforms I guess reflect our commitment to fairness but also add up to a comprehensive package of support for energy users that clearly demonstrates this government’s commitment to energy fairness.
To conclude, it is clear that Victoria’s original framework was no longer fit for purpose and action had to be taken. That is why our government has committed to these overhauls, committed to increasing the penalties and committed to a stronger enforcement framework. The bill delivers on this promise, and we are cracking down on bad behaviour.
When this government originally came to power in 2014, we committed to fixing retail energy markets by shifting the balance of power in favour of households and away from large energy companies. I am proud that we have delivered and we continue to deliver on that promise.
I think there are many other opportunities for me to reflect. There were a number of questions raised by Mr Ondarchie. My understanding is that the acting minister will respond to those questions about the consultation process and a number of other aspects Mr Ondarchie raised concerns about, and I will leave those to the acting minister.
Mr Ondarchie: Acting minister?
Mr ERDOGAN: Sorry, the minister. My apologies, I will leave those to the minister. I do realise that there are a number of anticipated criticisms of this bill. Mr Ondarchie raised the aspect of the consultation process, which I will leave to the minister, but there are a number of other issues about the way the commission may operate. Unlike most regulators the commission is not generally subject to ministerial direction or control. I guess that is what gives the Essential Services Commission—a commission that I might add was set up in 2001 by the Bracks Labor government—the independence it needs to carry on its work, so I think that is important.
I guess some would ask why we are not adopting the national energy customer framework, a framework which has been adopted in most states and territories in the nation, except for WA, the Northern Territory and Victoria. But I think a lot of the central goals of the National Energy Retail Law are central components of this bill and the fairness plan. So in our election commitments we never committed to implementing that process, but we have taken the best parts and implemented them.
So there are a number of other concerns that may be raised by stakeholders, but at this stage I think I have reflected upon the bill to a sufficient level that I hope most people have a better understanding of where we are headed. On that note I want to thank you all, and I commend the bill to the house.
Mr LIMBRICK (South Eastern Metropolitan) (20:04): I rise to speak on the Essential Services Commission (Compliance and Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill 2021. As many other speakers have already spoken about, this bill increases the penalty regime and sets up a trust fund to handle compliance issues and litigation.
We have several concerns with this bill—primarily that the implementation that this bill represents goes far beyond many of the election commitments that the government put forward before the last election. We have concerns about the penalty regime and whether it is too onerous to comply with. Also it only affects a subset of the economy, and we are worried that that will further risk energy businesses within Victoria.
Now, we had concerns with the last bill that went through on this, which limited competition in the market, and we have concerns that this bill will further impose too many onerous conditions on many of these businesses. For the simple reason that it will be expanding these penalty regimes and we think it might be an unfair way of doing it and goes further than what is necessary, we will be opposing this bill.
Ms VAGHELA (Western Metropolitan)
Incorporated pursuant to order of Council of 7 September:
1. I am pleased to rise to make a contribution on the Essential Services Commission (Compliance and Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill 2021.
2. Every day energy has become a more and more integral part of our modern society.
3. We are seeing an energy crisis unfold around Europe. It goes to show how important these utilities are.
4. Given that these utilities play a vital part in the functioning of the society, we have to ensure that fairness is maintained, and Victorians are not ripped off and tricked.
5. When we came to the government in 2014, we knew that we had to bring the out-of-control energy prices under control.
6. Dodgy retailers were taking advantage of Victorians. So, we had to fix retail energy markets.
7. The power balance was held by the large energy companies, and as they are known to do, they maximised their profits, at the expense of Victorian households.
8. We had committed to fix retail energy markets, and we have and continue to deliver on that commitment.
WHAT WE HAVE DONE SO FAR—ENERGY FAIRNESS PLAN
9. The energy fairness plan is delivering the biggest regulatory change in Victorian history.
10. This plan puts the power back in the hands of Victorians.
11. Since 2018, we have implemented several key programs and reforms.
12. These changes have empowered energy users, increased competition, and cracked down on dodgy practices from energy retailers.
13. We have already:
a. Introduced the Victorian default offer as the centrepiece of the energy fairness plan.
i. The Victorian default offer provides a simple-to-understand, reliable energy offer that consumers can trust.
b. Implemented the payment difficulty framework to ensure that energy companies offer assistance to customers who are struggling to pay their bills.
c. Developed the Victorian Energy Compare website, which offers a truly independent comparison of energy offers.
i. It is worth noting that over 3 million Victorians have accessed the site, and of those, seven out of 10 people save money. Typical annual household savings on energy bills in the first year alone are about $330.
ii. I encourage people to visit Energy Compare and find a better energy deal with the $50 power saving bonus.
d. We further extended the power saving bonus by providing a one-off $250 payment to vulnerable Victorians. This bonus provided immediate energy bill relief to eligible concession card holders and those receiving JobKeeper or JobSeeker.
i. We have already received 200 000 applications and paid $40 million to those who need it most.
ii. And, we are now reaching even more people, partnering with six community organisations who can help people with limited internet access to process applications either over the phone or in person.
iii. Over the 12-month life of the power saving bonus, we expect to reach about 900 000 households.
iv. The $250 power saving bonus was announced as part of the unprecedented $1.6 billion energy package included in the 2020–21 state budget in November.
e. The package included record investments in clean energy and additional measures to make energy more affordable as we emerged from the COVID-19 crisis.
f. In addition to $128 million for the expanded power saving bonus, the household energy savings package included:
i. $335 million to deliver new energy efficient heating and cooling for low-income households and,
ii. $112 million for energy efficiency upgrades for 35 000 social housing homes.
14. We had provided further support of $3.7 million in response to COVID-19 for initiatives to connect Victorians with energy bill hardship support during the pandemic.
15. This included tailored energy brokerage services to help Victorians doing it tough to navigate the energy market and ensure that their rights were protected.
16. And earlier this year, we further gave power to Victorians by legislating the important energy fairness bill.
17. This bill banned the toxic ‘win back’ and ‘save’ offers to customers.
18. This tactic was used by big retailers to stifle competition.
19. Through this tactic, larger retailers prevented small retailers from gaining a foothold in the market.
20. These sneaky and anti-competitive behaviours impacted customers.
21. The energy fairness plan bill also banned retailers from cold-calling and selling energy retail plans door to door.
22. Big energy retailers used coercive and misleading tactics through unsolicited door-to-door salespeople and telemarketers to make households sign up for electricity offers which turned out to be more expensive.
23. Vulnerable households tend to be particularly susceptible to these high-pressure sales tactics.
24. It was our duty to stamp these sorts of behaviours out, so we did.
25. The energy fairness bill also increased protections against wrongful disconnections by introducing higher civil penalties as well as criminal offences with maximum penalties of $1 million for the worst kinds of wrongful disconnections.
26. These legislative changes and government’s investments all add up to a comprehensive package of support for energy users.
27. This clearly shows that this government is committed to energy fairness.
28. And we are continuing to deliver on this commitment through this bill we are debating today.
WHY DO WE NEED THIS BILL?
29. There is a lot of work to do to address imbalances created by privatisation and a lack of oversight by previous Liberal governments.
30. Currently, the Essential Services Commission (ESC) does not have regulatory tools to enforce the operation of a fair energy market for consumers.
31. Further, ESC does not have the powers to fully ensure that responsible parties are held accountable properly.
32. Through this bill, the monitoring and enforcement powers of the ESC will stamp out bad behaviours by dodgy retailers and make those who are responsible for wilfully taking advantage of Victorians pay their fair dues.
33. This bill is a sister bill of the energy fairness bill, and it will help us complete our promise to deliver a fairer energy market for all Victorians.
COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT POWERS BILL—WHAT WILL IT DO?
34. This bill has three main components and now I will go through each point one by one.
35. INFORMATION GATHERING AND SHARING POWERS
a. Firstly, the goal of this bill is to overhaul existing information gathering and sharing. This will aid the ESC in getting all the relevant information it requires.
b. This will make sure that the energy companies cannot hide their dodgy behaviour.
c. This reform brings a new tier of information gathering. This will assist when companies and individuals break the rules.
d. The new power can require companies to hand over information. It will also require them to produce documents and obtain evidence under oath.
e. This will be supported by a new ability for the ESC to obtain search warrants from the Magistrates Court to obtain documents to help with investigations.
f. This bill also lets the ESC enter into information-sharing agreements with other regulators such as the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC), Consumer Affairs Victoria (CAV) and the Australian Energy Regulator (AER).
g. This way, the ESC can jointly investigate bad energy companies whose behaviour crosses Victorian state lines.
36. ENFORCEMENT FRAMEWORK
a. Secondly, this bill will systematically fix the enforcement framework under which the ESC operates, with a new civil penalty framework and higher penalties, modelled after other important laws—such as Victoria’s new Environment Protection Act, and the National Energy Retail Law.
b. It will allow the ESC to pursue dodgy retailers in court. If the court agrees that there was bad behaviour, they will be able to hit the dodgy retailers with a range of remedies.
c. Penalty levels will increase to bring them in line with the Australian Consumer Law and National Energy Retail Law.
d. This bill also introduces a lower civil standard of proof, with matters decided on the balance of probabilities.
e. Further, this bill also ensures that people who facilitate the wrongdoings can be punished accordingly. This means that those individuals who knowingly authorised or facilitated contraventions under the act will face some liability for their actions.
i. The bill proposes that an increased emphasis on liability of corporate officers be placed.
ii. This ensures that people who aid or abet contraventions by companies or individuals can be held liable themselves.
37. OTHER MEASURES
a. Thirdly, this bill also has a range of other measures that improve operational and financial arrangements of the ESC and its regulatory framework.
b. This is so that the ESC has the proper governance and protocols to protect Victorian consumers.
c. The ESC has the responsibility for both making codes and enforcing them.
d. This bill will make reforms to how codes like the energy retail code are made.
e. This bill proposes that the codes of practice can incorporate a wider range of regulatory measures.
f. Codes of practice will sunset every 10 years and be subject to standard regulatory impact statement processes.
g. This bill will also strengthen the powers to make codes of practice with new powers providing greater flexibility for the ESC.
h. It will also establish an ESC enforcement fund, which we promised to do in 2018.
i. This ‘litigation fighting fund’ will allow the ESC to retain the revenue from fines and penalties it wins to fund litigation and enforcement actions against other dodgy energy companies.
CONCLUSION
38. It is very clear to all Victorians that the original regulatory framework is no longer fit for purpose to protect energy customers.
39. As we rely more and more on energy, we have to make sure the customers remain protected.
40. Our government is committed to overhauling the current fines and penalties against energy retailers breaking the laws.
41. We are also making sure that the ESC has enough powers to gather information, monitor, and crack down on bad behaviours by energy retailers.
42. This bill will deliver for Victorian households.
43. Let’s protect the most vulnerable of our community and not the executives at the top end of town, as the Liberals did when they voted against the last energy fairness bill.
44. Let’s make a fair and equitable energy market. Let’s protect energy users into the future.
45. An effectively regulated energy sector will help alleviate household cost pressures.
46. The bill ensures that regulatory measures for the benefit of consumers can be effectively enforced against energy retailers.
47. I commend this bill to the house.
Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Attorney-General, Minister for Emergency Services) (20:06): I do appreciate Mr Ondarchie placing some issues on the record for me to respond to in summing up, and my multitasking during the last half-hour has meant that I am up to speed, I believe, on the issues that he raised, although I was not in the house.
Mr Ondarchie, I understand that you queried some of the reasons the government have brought about this legislation and why we made some commitments before the election. I would like to reiterate some of those commitments—those important commitments—that we made to the Victorian public and those that are squarely set out in the energy fairness plan. Among some of those issues, the government said that it would overhaul the current fines and penalties against energy retailers who break the law; strengthen the penalties against retailers who provide false or misleading information to the regulator; double the maximum amount of civil penalty notices to $250 000, making them the highest in the country; provide the Essential Services Commission with improved information-gathering and monitoring powers so it is able to crack down on bad behaviour by energy companies, including wideranging powers to monitor and report on the competitiveness and efficiency of the Victorian retail market, including the power to order that documents be handed over to the regulator, such as information on retailer costs and profit margins, and clearer investigative powers, including the power to order witnesses to verbally answer questions from the regulator; and establish a litigation fighting fund, empowering the ESC to retain a significant proportion of revenue from fines and penalties to fund litigation and enforcement action against dodgy energy companies.
These are commitments that were made in response to what we heard from Victorians—their poor experiences with dodgy companies. We wanted to make sure that our laws were updated and fit for purpose and that they protected Victorians, particularly vulnerable Victorians. It was identified that the current system is inadequate, particularly in relation to the level of protection for the most vulnerable consumers. Since the passage of new, higher penalties in the National Energy Retail Law in 2020, Victorian penalty levels in the energy sector have lagged significantly behind those available against energy retailers in other states. Under the existing structure of penalties, certain contraventions of the National Energy Retail Law can attract penalties of up to $10 million, while in Victoria the most that can be sought for a breach of an enforcement order is 5000 penalty units, which is $908 700, plus 500 penalty units for each day a contravention continues. There is a significant risk that if penalties are not maintained at levels equivalent to those for the National Energy Retail Law, energy retailers will have fewer incentives to devote attention to ensuring compliance with Victorian laws, and obviously we are concerned that this would flow on to the detriment of Victorian consumers.
Further, the Victorian enforcement order system does not allow for protection of the actual contravention of energy laws but rather the breach of the enforcement order, which can only occur after energy retailers have had a chance to correct their wrongdoing, meaning that energy retailers cannot be held to account directly for their wrongdoing. These are really important reforms to fix some of those loopholes, again, in response to concerns we have for Victorian consumers.
Mr Ondarchie, I understand that you sought some further information about the complaints and the information I can provide to you in relation to why complaints to the energy and water ombudsman have been failing. While no detailed analysis of recent Energy and Water Ombudsman Victoria complaints has occurred, one possible reason for the complaints falling recently is that disconnections have been limited during the COVID pandemic. Disconnections are one of the main causes of complaints, and therefore that would flow on to why you would see some reductions in some of those complaints. However, we know that retailers and distributors were not disconnecting residential and small business consumers during the large part of 2020–21 when movements in restrictions in place were underway.
Mr Ondarchie, I understand that you sought further information in relation to the consultation that occurred before the bill was introduced. The Assistant Treasurer met with the Australian Energy Council before the bill was introduced. The Department of Treasury and Finance undertook two main consultation processes leading up to the bill’s introduction. First there was a general presentation to interested stakeholders across all sectors. This included stakeholders from the energy industry and consumer groups along with representatives from other sectors regulated by the ESC, such as the water sector. In addition, officers from DTF also met with a range of energy industry stakeholders on an individual basis. This included representatives from the Australian Energy Council as well as several energy retailers and distributors.
How am I going, Mr Ondarchie? Am I covering off?
Mr Ondarchie: Still a bit to go.
Ms SYMES: Still a bit to go. I understand you also sought some information on the fee setting—I should just hand over my questions and answers, really—and I can provide you with some information in relation to that. The two main changes that have been proposed to the fee-setting arrangements for the ESC include: one, fees can be set for up to 10 years rather than being set annually; and, two, it is proposed to enable portfolio ministers to determine fees in consultation with the ESC minister. These arrangements will replace the current system, where fees are set annually by the ESC minister in consultation with portfolio ministers. The key aim of enabling the ESC fee setting to apply for up to 10 years is to promote stability in the regulatory fees charged to industry participants. Under current legislative arrangements fee setting occurs annually. This can create significant variations in the amount of fees being charged each year. Transferring responsibility for fee setting to relevant portfolio ministers will enable those ministers to ensure that they are able to set fees at a level that enables resourcing at a level that they consider appropriate.
In relation to the fighting fund, Mr Ondarchie, the fighting fund helps to fund further litigation. However, the litigation will of course go to the courts, who ultimately decide whether the penalties should be applied. I am advised, I believe, that I have acquitted the questions that you have raised.
Mr Ondarchie: I also asked about why it was transferred from the ESC minister to the individual portfolio ministers. What was broken? Why was it deemed to be more efficient doing it this way?
Ms SYMES: Didn’t I just answer that?
Mr Ondarchie: No, you just told me it is happening. But we will get there. It is sort of an ad hoc committee stage.
Ms SYMES: Mr Ondarchie, to continue my summing up, the advice I have received in relation to some of the issues that you raised in your contribution is it is to enable individual ministers to allocate appropriate resources to determine who—and when and why—should respond to issues that would ordinarily go to the ESC, so it is about efficiency, responsible ministerial oversight and allocation of resources. I believe I am done. I commend the bill to the house.
Motion agreed to.
Read second time.
Third reading
Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Attorney-General, Minister for Emergency Services) (20:16): I move, by leave:
That the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to.
Read third time.
The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Melhem): Pursuant to standing order 14.27, the bill will be returned to the Assembly with a message informing them that the Council have agreed to the bill without amendment.
Firearms and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2021
Second reading
Debate resumed on motion of Ms SYMES:
That the bill be now read a second time.
Mr RICH-PHILLIPS (South Eastern Metropolitan) (20:17): I am pleased to rise this evening to make some remarks on the Firearms and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2021. This is an omnibus bill which covers a number of areas in the police and emergency services portfolios. It covers amendments to the Control of Weapons Act 1990 with respect to protective services officers. It covers amendments to the Criminal Procedure Act 2009, the Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1958, the Firearms Act 1996, the Sex Offenders Registration Act 2004 and the Victoria Police Act 2013.
In respect of those acts, in the Control of Weapons Act amendments are made in relation to protective services officers to recognise the fact that they have since 1995 been using or been entitled to use in various ways OC spray—capsicum spray. The bill seeks to correct a defect in the Control of Weapons Act which called into question the legality of the use of that tool in the period between 1995 and September 2020, so it seeks to ensure that there is no deficit, no defect, in the use of OC spray by protective services officers in that period.
In respect of the Criminal Procedure Act, the bill makes two amendments, one with respect to expanding the phased trial and evaluation of the digitally recorded evidence-in-chief trial beyond its current sunset in October 2022. It makes amendments to the Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1958 in respect to the appearance of certain accused by audiovisual link in the Magistrates Court in relation to remand hearings. The bulk of the bill make amendments to the Firearms Act, which I will focus on shortly. In respect of the Sex Offenders Registration Act, the bill makes amendments in respect of the reporting time frames for offenders who are required to report their return to Victoria from interstate. In relation to the Victoria Police Act 2013, the bill makes amendments to certain provisions with respect to protective services officers and their promotion within the ranks.
The area I would like to focus on today is the substantive part of the bill, which relates to amendments to the Firearms Act. There are around 230 000 firearms licence holders in Victoria, so a substantial number of people in Victoria hold firearms licences. They hold them for the purposes of work in agriculture and primary production, they hold them for the purposes of professional hunting and pest control activities and they also hold them—the vast majority hold them—for recreational shooting and hunting activities.
Recreational shooting and hunting in Victoria are great outdoor activities. They are enjoyed, as I said, by hundreds of thousands of Victorians, whether it is clay target shooting, which is more art than science; whether it is target shooting on a rifle range, which is more science than art; or whether it is hunting. They are great outdoor activities. They are activities which are enjoyed often in a social setting. They bring people together, and they are a great leveller. In terms of hunting and in terms of recreational shooting, anyone can participate. Whether they are men or women, whether they are young or old, disabled or able bodied, they can all participate. And in terms of competition—clay target shooting, rifle shooting—competition is a great leveller as well, because you can have a young, lightly built teenager competing against an older, very experienced person, a big, solid person, and they can compete and they can win. Male and female can compete against each other in a competitive way, and either can win. So it is a great leveller in terms of competition.
It is also a great leveller in bringing people together. The people who participate in recreational shooting come from all walks of life. I have had the pleasure of shooting with people who work as tradesmen, who work as labourers, people who are in primary production, farmers—
Ms Symes: Me!
Mr RICH-PHILLIPS: the Attorney-General—people who work in the legal profession, people who work in business. I have even been shooting with a Supreme Court judge. So people from all walks of life participate in recreational shooting in its various forms, and they are overwhelmingly law-abiding people. Overwhelmingly in their use of firearms they are law-abiding people, and overwhelmingly in their general lives they are law-abiding people.
It is very interesting to reflect on the level of criminal activity reported in Victoria. In 2019–20 the Crime Statistics Agency reported that there were some 408 000 offences reported across the full spectrum in this state in that year, yet according to the Victoria Police annual report, in relation to the Firearms Act there were all of 80 offences recorded in that same year. So out of 408 000 offences, only 80 of them related to the Firearms Act—less than two-hundredths of 1 per cent—which reflects, as I said, that overwhelmingly people who hold firearms licences in this state are law-abiding people, are good people. And all of them are actively involved with peak bodies. By virtue of the genuine reason requirements in the Firearms Act, everyone who holds a firearms licence in a recreational context is also a member of one of the membership bodies, one of the peak bodies, whether it is Field and Game Australia, the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia or the Australian Deer Association, all of which I have had the pleasure of being associated with and all of which are very professional in their outlook and are very committed to the responsible use of firearms in this state. Likewise, the Shooting Industry Foundation of Australia supports and works with the professional side of the industry in terms of firearm wholesalers and dealers.
Now I would like to turn to part 5 of the bill, which is the amendments to the Firearms Act. There are a number of amendments which are made to the act, which I will go through in passing now. We have a number of matters that we will raise in committee when the bill reaches committee. The first amendment that the bill makes is in clause 9 of part 5, which seeks to insert new section 3C into the Firearms Act.
The purpose of new section 3C is to provide a basis to allow the Chief Commissioner of Police, where a decision has been made, to reclassify a firearm—under the Firearms Act firearms are categorised based on their type, in some cases based on their appearance—into one of a number of different categories. A and B are the lowest; C, D and E are higher categories; and H for handguns is a separate category again. From time to time the chief commissioner may elect to reclassify a firearm—raise its classification from a lower level to a higher level—and the purpose of inserting proposed section 3C into the act will be to allow the chief commissioner, where he determines to reclassify a firearm, to allow a person who held a firearm under an existing licence to continue to hold that firearm under that licence, notwithstanding the fact that the firearm has been classified to a higher level. That grandfathered capacity to hold the firearm under the existing licence will exist until the firearm is disposed of or the person’s licence expires et cetera. We think that is a reasonable provision that recognises that people who have held particular firearms under particular licences reasonably should be able to have the capacity to retain those under the existing licence, notwithstanding reclassification for new licence-holders.
Clauses 10 to 16 of the bill make an interesting change with respect to proof of identity. Someone applying for a firearms licence or becoming a firearms dealer or doing a number of other things—seeking a number of other permissions or recognitions under the Firearms Act—is required to provide evidence of identity to the chief commissioner. Interestingly, the current act requires that identity documentation be provided consistent with that required by the commonwealth Financial Transaction Reports Act 1988. This is the act which under commonwealth law requires people to have 100 points of identification when opening a bank account. It is something that is well known to all members of the community, that requirement for 100 points of identification, and the Firearms Act currently requires that same standard of identification. Interestingly, the bill before us tonight in a number of clauses of the act seeks to replace that standard with one which states ‘identity of the person in a form approved by the chief commissioner’. That is one of the issues we will seek to explore in committee, the reason for the shift from the current well-recognised requirement of the Financial Transaction Reports Act of 100 points to a new requirement—to the satisfaction of or in the form approved by the chief commissioner.
Clause 17 of the bill makes a change with respect to the disposal of firearms by a licensed firearm dealer. The current requirement in section 94 of the Firearms Act is that a dealer cannot dispose of a firearm to a person unless they are reasonably satisfied that the person holds a firearms licence—in short, that they are reasonably satisfied. There are certain exemptions around that, but the basic requirement is the dealer needs to be satisfied before they sell a firearm that the person they are selling it to holds a firearms licence. Interestingly, this bill will change that requirement from the dealer being reasonably satisfied—having a reasonable belief that they hold a licence—to a requirement that they must sight the licence. Now, in practice this is not likely to be a significant change. I would think there would be few circumstances in which a firearms dealer would sell a firearm without requiring the purchaser to produce a licence or evidence of the exemption. But the way the provision is structured does raise some questions around how it interacts with the current provisions of the act, so we will seek to get some clarification on that when the bill goes into committee.
Clauses 18 and 19 of the bill are interesting. They seek to impose new requirements with respect to the hiring and lending of firearms. Now, it is a longstanding practice for and the current Firearms Act provides for licensed firearm dealers to lend and hire firearms to firearm licence holders, and this is something which occurs from time to time. A primary producer may have a need, because of a fire or something, to destroy stock and may need to borrow a firearm for the purpose of doing that.
Someone may be seeking to purchase a new firearm and wanting to trial it at a range or at a ground before they purchase it. It is quite common for firearm dealers to lend or hire firearms to licence-holders. The bill seeks to insert new provisions with respect to restricting the way in which firearms can be loaned or hired by seeking to insert a new provision that the loan of a firearm must not exceed 30 days, and that can then be extended for a further 30 days provided an application is made in writing. Now, the government has not provided justification for this change in requirement. In fact the government, in the briefing with the department, clarified that there is nothing in this provision that would prevent a person having loaned a firearm or borrowed a firearm for 30 days, having had a 30-day extension and then returning the firearm and borrowing it again. So this is really a paper exercise. It adds to the administrative burden for firearms dealers, most of whom are small businesses, and it does not add any value to the firearms framework. So when the bill reaches committee we will be seeking to omit clauses 18 and 19, which are the clauses that impose this new paperwork without providing any tangible reason to do so.
Clause 20 of the bill is also an interesting one, and it relates to a new requirement with respect to firearms dealers sending firearms or parts to other firearms dealers. Basically the bill seeks to create a new requirement that where a firearm is sent by post within Victoria or outside Victoria by a Victorian dealer interstate or by an interstate dealer into Victoria the firearm must not be labelled in a way that identifies it as a firearm and that it must be transmitted in a way that is tracked electronically and also received by the licensed firearm dealer to whom the package is sent. That raises a number of issues as to the practicality of how that is going to work, as to who is going to be responsible for actually receiving a package and what in fact it means for a package not to be labelled in a way that identifies the contents of the package, given that firearms being transmitted, being sent by post or courier service, are going to be long, thin packages, typically from firearms dealer A and addressed to firearms dealer B. So whether that gives rise to the fact that it is identified as a firearm is something that needs to be clarified in the committee stage.
I might add, the issue of the transport of firearms is one that has been quite problematic for the firearms industry in Australia recently, with FedEx-TNT making the decision to withdraw from the carriage of firearms in Australia. This has had a major negative impact on firearms dealers in Australia—dealers seeking to transfer firearms to customers, to transfer firearms to other dealers and to transact with wholesalers. And I have to say, frankly, that decision by FedEx-TNT is something they would not do in their home country, the United States. There is no way known FedEx would withdraw from the transport of firearms in the United States, and it is outrageous that they have taken the decision to do that here in Australia, thereby undermining the operation of, particularly, regional firearms dealers in this country and indeed in this state.
The next section of the bill comes to the issue of firearm prohibition orders (FPOs). Firearm prohibition orders were first put in place by this Parliament in 2018, and despite the name ‘firearm prohibition order’ these orders are in fact something that can be applied to any person, whether they are a firearms licence holder or whether they have never had anything to do with firearms. They are orders which can be imposed by senior police which prohibit a person from having any contact or involvement with firearms. They prohibit a person from going to any premises where firearms may be stored; they also invoke prohibitions on coming into contact with certain people; and they provide Victoria Police with the right to stop and search without cause any person who is the subject of a firearm prohibition order and any people who may be with the person who is the subject of a firearm prohibition order, including the vehicle, vessel or aircraft that such a person may be in.
These are very powerful orders. The intention when they were created in 2018 was that they would be used only on the worst of the worst, and as I said, notwithstanding the name, they do not necessarily have anything to do with firearms. They can be imposed on people who are believed to be involved in organised crime or outlaw motorcycle gangs, whether they have had any involvement with firearms or whether they have ever had a firearms licence or not. They are very powerful orders, and when that legislation was created in 2018 it was with the understanding that they would be applied very carefully and that they would be applied by police officers at a senior level. At that point the coalition parties sought to restrict the application of FPOs to officers of the rank of assistant commissioner and above. The bill, now act, provided for them to be issued by superintendents and above. Because of the gravity of them and the severity of them, it was our view they should be applied only at the rank of assistant commissioner and above.
We know from the Victoria Police annual report last year that in 2019–20 some 231 firearm prohibition orders were issued, and at 30 June last year 381 were in place. In that same financial year some 286 searches were carried out pursuant to firearm prohibition orders on people and associates of people to whom those orders had been issued. In the briefing that was provided for this bill on 21 September, an update was provided indicating there are now some 1111 firearm prohibition orders in place—so there has been a substantial increase between 30 June last year and September of this year in the issuing of those orders.
Now, notwithstanding some commentary around the way in which those orders apply and the criteria for those orders applying, this bill does not seek to change those criteria. What it does do is seek to impose a new requirement that arises from a recommendation of the Legal and Social Issues Committee of the Legislative Council with respect to obliging someone who is subject to a firearm prohibition order to notify a change of address—curiously—within 24 hours of making that change of address. I have looked at other legislation, and I have yet to find another piece of legislation which requires a change of address to be notified within 24 hours. And that gives rise to a number of questions around when exactly you have changed your address in order to determine whether 24 hours had elapsed before giving notification. That is something I will seek to get some clarification on from the minister when this bill goes into committee.
The other provision with respect to FPOs that is changed is the level of delegation required to issue them. As I indicated, when the provision was first put in place it provided for superintendents and above to issue FPOs. The bill now seeks to extend that delegation to some officers of the rank of inspector and above working in certain areas of Victoria Police, and the impact of that is something that we will also seek to explore with the minister in committee.
The other changes the bill makes are, in clause 23, to the disclosure of handgun target shooting activity. People who hold handguns are required to participate in organised club shoots on a certain number of occasions in a year, and those clubs are required to advise Victoria Police—the chief commissioner—of who has participated in those shoots. The bill makes a curious change to the requirement to notify the chief commissioner, and the reason for that is something else that we will seek clarification of in the committee stage.
The final change the bill makes with respect to firearms is in relation to the storage of firearms. Schedule 4 of the Firearms Act 1996 sets out the requirements for storage of firearms based on their category. Categories A and B, the lowest level of firearm, basically currently require that the firearm be stored in a steel or hardwood container. It is an intention of the bill to change that requirement from a steel or hardwood container which is ‘not easily penetrable’—the wording in the current act—to one which specifies that it must be steel storage of a thickness of at least 1.6 millimetres that complies with Australian standard 1594, which is a standard for steel, and then replicates largely the existing provisions of the act. My understanding is that is something which was considered by the firearms consultative committee, which is made up of the peak bodies in the shooting sector, and no opposition to it was raised. But the detail of why the government has elected to go with a 1.6 millimetre thickness rather than 1.5, for example, or 1.8, and how that sits with existing storage safes which are commercially available is also something that we will seek to explore in committee.
The coalition does not oppose this bill. The changes it makes to the Firearms Act are largely administrative. We do note, though, that there are a number which will increase regulatory burden without any obvious discernible benefit—the example of the provisions with loaning and hiring firearms—which we will not support. Also the provisions with respect to the sending of firearms add regulatory burden and add red tape but do not add a lot of value to firearm licensing. With those words, the coalition will not oppose this bill, but we look forward to exploring a number of these issues with the minister in committee.
Mr BOURMAN (Eastern Victoria) (20:43): They say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, so I am feeling very flattered by the Liberal Party at the moment. Last Wednesday I put out my amendments, which cover their amendments, which we have still not seen. It was my understanding that they were not going to have amendments—they were going to do something else—but something has changed. But that also brought me back to reflecting on my journey to this place. I actually have to thank Mr Rich-Phillips, because I did the sums, and back when he was in government they made a minor regulatory change to a WorkSafe act, I believe, that got me interested in this, and lo and behold, here I am all these years later.
But I kept on looking, and I have actually got to say that with a little bit of digging one of my most valued preconceptions got torched. My valued preconception was that I had to blame John Howard in 1996 for what they did to all the law-abiding shooters that did nothing. But I was busily looking around, and I found something on a website called the Mandarin. Originally I thought it was a spurious website, and basically I got told, ‘No, it’s not. It’s not the Onion, or anything like that’. I was reading an interview with Pat McNamara, which was only done in June this year apparently. I was reading through—very interesting, yadda yadda yadda—and I got to a really interesting part where he reflected on the Port Arthur massacre and what happened afterwards. This is a quote from the article, which is not necessarily from Mr McNamara of The Nationals:
I took a proposal for gun reform to the ministerial council meeting two years before Port Arthur. It was picked up by Howard’s office and we ran with it, but were blocked by Queensland. What Howard brought in was exactly what I had proposed two years before.
Now, listening to what went on in the Assembly regarding this bill the other day, I heard something to the effect that ‘The Nationals will always be there for shooters’. What can I say? I find it disappointing, and it has also crushed one of my preconceptions, which really annoys me.
But on to the bill at hand, here we are with a bill that is basically three parts. Basically it is to do with control of weapons, criminal procedure and evidence, which is one part; firearms, which is another; the Sex Offenders Registration Act 2004; and an amendment to the Victoria Police Act 2013. Other than the Firearms Act 1996, I think this is all good stuff. The changes to the Firearms Act are really needed. PSOs need the changes that they get. Anything that we can do that negatively affects perverts is always a good thing, and so on. So I will not go through too much, going through everything; Mr Rich-Phillips has done that very well already. I do have some amendments, which I will get circulated.
Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party amendments circulated by Mr BOURMAN pursuant to standing orders.
Mr BOURMAN: This is an omnibus bill, and my changes really only affect the Firearms Act parts. I will just go through them quickly, because I will go through them in more detail during the committee stage, bearing in mind that the way precedence goes I understand the Liberals amendments, should we ever see them, will knock out a couple of mine.
On clause 8, I have new amendments to add the following definitions to firearms that would make these not firearms. T-shirt cannons—unbelievably, a T-shirt cannon is a firearm in this state—airsoft and gel blasters. Now, they are toys which look like real guns, but they are toys. Even in places like communist China they are not banned, yet here we are in Australia—pretty well all of Australia now; I have noticed the rest of the country is following suit—and they are banned. This is silly. On clauses 18 and 19, I propose to omit these clauses. These are kind of silly. It is putting the burden from the licensing and regulation division onto the dealer.
On clause 20, the label on firearms packaging, this has some fairly serious practicality problems. Again, I will go through this in the committee stage. On clause 22, I propose to omit this clause. It downgrades the delegation for firearm prohibition orders (FPOs) from assistant commissioner to inspector. Now, whilst the inspector is the more junior of the commissioned officers, they still are a commissioned officer, but we were assured at the time that it was kept at a higher level just for the ability to hold people accountable. And we have the storages. Category A and B safes will now be the same as category C. As I said, I will go into these in far more detail.
The grandfathering clause is a good thing. I find it very, very—I will not say surprising—gratifying to see, because grandfathering has been a vexed sort of issue. Grandfathering has left people in some sort of weird limbo from time to time. This will fix it. So I am not particularly perturbed about that one. The changes to the identification requirements I will go through in committee. My understanding is that this will allow for a proper online system. I am not proposing to amend any of them. But there is also some strange stuff about who a dealer can dispose of firearms to, because from the way I understand it, it is already like that.
The hiring and loaning of firearms is one of the stranger ones. I believe I understand the reasoning behind that, but once we get into committee I will do what I can to find out, and that is obviously something that the Liberals and I have a shared issue with. The posting-of-firearms issue I have raised a little bit in various places. I do not get how this can possibly work. If I was, say, Melbourne Gun Dealer Co. sending it to Sydney Gun Dealer Co., what am I going to do when I want to label where it is from and where it is going to? It will clearly be a firearm. It will be about that long, about that wide, about that thick, and heavy. I do not think it was very well thought out, and I will just seek to remove that. I do not think it is workable.
The firearm prohibition orders, I accept, are for organised crime, outlaw motorcycle gangs and that sort of thing. It is certainly not for minor offences. But this is where the two sides of me come into a bit of a clash. Obviously as an ex police officer, I like anything that makes life harder for organised criminals and the serious end of town, but this steamrolls over human rights. It pulverises them. I guess luckily or fortuitously or by the virtue of the fact we do have a very good police department, we have not had any issues with these yet, but that is now and who knows what the future brings. I think there are a lot of problems with the FPO stuff, but I will just try to get rid of the inspector element; there is no need for it. I think with the current system, from what I am gathering, if you divide the number of FPOs issued by the number of police that are allowed to issue them, it is not exactly a burdensome workload, particularly given, as we know, all the paperwork will be delegated to someone below them anyway, but they at least have to sign off on it. I personally think it should just stay the way it is. It is there. I am not proposing to get rid of FPOs, but I do think it is one of those things where we could just let sleeping dogs lie.
The storage requirements are a bit of victim blaming. Now, it has been said to me that this will provide clarity to a lot of the people that have a hardwood locker or a Brownbuilt locker or something like that and that there is a fair bit of leeway in how you interpret that, where one regional firearms officer might see it one way and another will see it another way. I suppose, in one way, doing this certainly takes the guesswork out of it. There is a minimum standard, and Mr Rich-Phillips mentioned he would be trying to find out where 1.6 millimetres came from. I will be interested myself. But what we have had has been okay since the 1980s. I am trying to remember—I got my shooters licence back in 85, I think—
Mr Barton interjected.
Mr BOURMAN: 1985 not 1885, Mr Barton. And back then there was the requirement, as I recall, to have your firearms locked up. I know stolen firearms—or firearms in the hands of criminals, whether they are stolen or otherwise—are a problem we have, but I am not convinced that just doing this is warranted. I think the government need to also be ready to answer some questions about clearance rates on burglaries, particularly firearm-related burglaries, and the recovery rate of stolen firearms and also, if they are willing—because I am assuming with the opposition supporting this it is going to get through—to help out with a grant system for those who have to change because of the result of this.
Those are really the vast majority of my issues. As I said, there is a whole lot of stuff in there I do like. But one of the things in the bill—not regarding the Firearms Act, Mr Melhem, but regarding the Control of Weapons Act 1990 and the Criminal Procedure Act 2009 and these other things—is I know with the PSOs there was an oversight that got them effectively left out of the dispensation to carry OC spray. That needs to be fixed. Their ability to be promoted in place needs to be fixed and so on, and as I said, anything to do with the Sex Offenders Registration Act and making it harder on the pervs I really do not have a problem with. But I did not choose to put the firearms bit in this bill; if the government had not, I would vote for those other parts. But because the firearms amendments are in this omnibus bill I sadly cannot support a whole lot of stuff I like for something that sent me to this place, and that is the changes to the Firearms Act.
Mr MELHEM (Western Metropolitan) (20:56): I also rise to speak on the Firearms and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2021. I just want to state that since we were elected in 2014 the Andrews Labor government have taken significant steps to make sure we keep our communities safe. We have invested record funding in our police force, ensuring that they are well resourced and equipped with mobile devices and body-worn cameras. These are very critical in assisting family violence victims and improving accountability for the interactions between the police and the public. This bill is no exception. It is all about making some changes, which previous speakers have talked about, in relation to the PSOs, for example. A lot of administrative changes have been made to validate some of the actions or some of the things that were put in place in the last few years and to make sure everything was covered.
But a large section, which took up a fair bit of the time of Mr Bourman and Mr Rich-Phillips, is in relation to the firearms changes. There are a number of changes involved in that: the storage of firearms, the transport of firearms and basically putting some responsibility on those doing that. And then the other one is about disposing firearms. But if I may just talk about the category A and B firearms, they are the most reported stolen firearms and could previously be stored in a hardwood box. We are making sure that practice is prohibited.
Let me talk a bit about this from my personal experience. I do have a licence to bear firearms as a primary producer, and we were unlucky once some three or four years ago. We were broken into. Let me tell you, the two gentlemen who actually broke into the house spent a fair bit of time trying to access the firearms and trying to break into the safe. Thankfully we had a good safe, a steel safe, which is prescribed in this bill. They tried for hours and hours, because no-one was home, with crowbars and so forth, and they could not access it. But they were silly enough to leave their fingerprints on the safe, so they got caught.
It is very important I think to make sure that firearms are stored in a safe manner. 99.99 per cent of firearm holders in Victoria are decent people, are good people and are law-abiding citizens who want to do the right thing. It is true that this might impose some costs in buying a safe to store your firearms, but I would say this: if you want to own a firearm in this state, I think you should be able to buy a proper safe to make sure that firearm is safe, whether it is a pistol, whether it is category A, B or C—any firearm really. You need to make sure it is locked away. You need to make sure the ammunition is locked in a separate box to the actual safe itself. The two have to be separate as well. It is not just about making sure that you do not have thieves or criminals coming in to steal it but protecting your own family as well. I mean, imagine you put it in a box and it is not locked properly. Young kids might get into it, and then we could be looking at tragedy or a disaster.
So in relation to that, it is a no-brainer. I think it is long overdue that firearms should be locked away in a very safe manner, and I think what is being proposed here is to make sure there is a steel safe—and Mr Bourman talked about where the 1.6 millimetres came from. I suppose that is a good question. I am sure the minister will answer that, but I think it needs to have a certain thickness to make sure it is safe and it is bolted to the ground and cannot be accessed by thieves or criminals. The other changes in the bill talk about that currently the PSOs, for example, as part of their official duties use capsicum spray, so we need to make sure that as a result of that they are not committing an offence under the Control of Weapons Act 1990. It was always intended that PSOs would be properly authorised to possess, carry and use the service equipment issued to them.
So they are some of the loopholes, and that is from a previous government in 2010 to 2014 when they introduced the PSOs. Some of the areas were not actually changed or put into legislation to make sure we can protect our PSOs. It is true to say that the PSO role has evolved over the period of time, over the years, and particularly during COVID-19 where they have been asked to perform higher roles and pretty much become part of Victoria Police in many ways. So therefore we are making these amendments to the current act to make sure they are being provided with the proper coverage and they are not putting themselves in a situation where they could be breaking the law. The bill also amends the Criminal Procedure Act 2009 to enable the expanded phase trial of the evaluation of digitally recorded evidence-in-chief to continue for a further two years to 3 October 2024. That was subject to a previous bill before this house. Also, there are further changes to the Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1958.
I did talk about the firearms, and I will not go through that again, but the Sex Offenders Registration Act 2004 is amended as well. The bill talks about amending the Sex Offenders Registration Act 2004 to provide for consistency with commonwealth amendments relating to child abuse material to reduce the time that a registered offender has to notify the police of their return to Victoria and to make amendments consequential to machinery-of-government changes. These are changes to update the SORA to keep it consistent with changes at the commonwealth level.
Also, the bill makes further changes or amends the Victoria Police Act 2013 to retrospectively validate the promotion of PSOs in accordance with the Victoria Police (Police Officers, Protective Services Officers, Police Reservists and Police Recruits) Enterprise Agreement 2019. That is an important component of the recent EA for our hardworking police and PSOs, and it updates the Victoria Police Act accordingly. That is what I was referring to earlier. The role of the PSO obviously has evolved over the years.
Now, there has been a lot of criticism from the last couple of speakers in relation to the process, but the government did not just land this bill overnight. There has been a fair bit of consultation taking place with various groups, and I will list some of the groups. I am not going to list them all; it is a long list, where it is academic: the Australian Security Industry Association, the Australian Deer Association, Field and Game Australia, the Firearm Safety Foundation, the Firearm Traders Association of Victoria, the Law Institute of Victoria, the Police Association Victoria, the Shooting Sports Council of Victoria, the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia, the Shooting Industry Foundation of Australia, Target Rifle Victoria, the Victorian Amateur Pistol Association, the Victorian Clay Target Association, the Victorian Farmers Federation and Victoria Police. So it is a long list of organisations that have been consulted widely on this bill. Their views were taken into account, so it is not something the government has dreamt up and put on the table.
Some reasonable questions were asked by Mr Bourman and Mr Rich-Phillips. I am sure the minister will be more than capable of discharging these questions, and answering these questions hopefully will clarify a lot of the issues that were raised.
In conclusion I say this is a very important bill that will improve firearm safety, make sensible changes to the licensing and regulation of firearms and make pragmatic updates to the already existing firearm prohibition order schemes targeting illegal firearms as well as update various acts as they relate to OC spray, the Sex Offenders Registration Act and the use of audiovisual links and deliver on part of the Victoria Police enterprise agreement. They are changes to give effect to what is happening now to rectify or clarify existing practices.
Most importantly, I notice a lot of time has been taken around the firearm bit of the bill. From previous speakers, everyone is supporting the other changes, which is great. But I say this in relation to firearms: if you are given the right to have firearms or be in the possession of firearms for whatever reason, whether it is as a primary producer or you are doing it for sporting or any other reasons, and you are entitled to have firearms in your possession in the state of Victoria, I think with that comes responsibility. I think it is very important, and if that is going to add an extra burden to making sure you maintain that right to carry firearms or use firearms for various activities, that responsibility I do not believe is that onerous. I think it is important, and as a firearm licence holder I do not have a problem with any of these new regulations being put in place. I am more than happy to comply with them, and I am sure the vast majority—99 per cent—of firearm holders will actually be happy to comply. Yes, some of them might be a pain in the backside, but I think it is important to make sure we have got some rigorous regulations in place to make sure we keep everyone safe and keep Victoria safe. With these comments I commend the bill to the house.
Ms BATH (Eastern Victoria) (21:07): I am really pleased this evening to speak on behalf of The Nationals on the Firearms and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2021. In doing so I would like to say from the outset that The Nationals—and once upon a time we were called the Country Party—have always enjoyed a very positive working relationship with the hunting fraternity and the firearms industry. Indeed many of our early members certainly would have owned a gun—and still do—because they were out on the farm whether it be shooting foxes, shooting dinner in the form of rabbits sometimes or protecting their stock when needed. So I am pleased to continue to be able to support them and speak on this bill tonight.
It is pleasing too that we have had a great relationship with the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia and Field and Game Australia, and I note that the pollie shoot has been postponed on a number of occasions this year due to COVID. But I am really pleased to see that a date of 9 December is back on the calendar, so I am looking forward to attending that.
Also I would like to make a comment in relation to the other stakeholder groups and industry groups that do really play a very important role in creating that positive and responsible shooting environment and are very mindful to skill and to condition their members to be able to be responsible shooters and participate in the sport, in the pursuit, in hunting, in a very moral but also very responsible way. The Australian Deer Association I know came and spoke at a committee hearing recently about the great work that they actually do to remove many of the deer that we have that are up in our national parks and state parks and which can really damage the environment, so it was really good to hear Barry Howlett’s commentary in one of our committees.
Also Field and Game Australia is a tremendous organisation. I have had the real pleasure of being able to meet and speak with them and get to know some of the members there. One of the things again that sometimes people in this place decide to take the high moral ground on is that people who hold a gun cannot be conservationists. There is not actually anything further from the truth. I have been out to Heart Morass in Sale and seen with my own eyes the absolute dust bowl, salt pan, degraded land that it was some almost 20 years ago and now, having been taken over by a trust and by Field and Game, how they have lovingly regenerated and restored that environment. It is an absolute picture. And what happens there? Species flourish. Species migrate there. A raft of different species have really come into that area, where once there were none. There are also sustainable populations, so the members can continue to do the work that they do but also enjoy their often family-run pursuits.
So with those words, again, there are some other things I would like to put on record about the hunting fraternity but also the sporting shooters and the way their pursuit is growing in our regions. We have some tremendous rifle clubs and pistol clubs, clay target and field and game ranges. Indeed at the sports academy in Gippsland there are some fantastic athletes. We have got Keith Ferguson in the clay target shooting. He is going from strength to strength. Indeed the women are not being left behind. Aislin Jones and her sister, Renae, from Bairnsdale are outstanding athletes and doing a tremendous job. Indeed a former student of mine is an absolute great personality. She is now married and her married name is Mariska Sartori. She was Mariska Cummaudo. She loves to hunt deer, and she is very passionate about it. So I am wanting to express that it is a really holistic venture that people often participate in in our region.
In terms of the bill, I just want to drill down into some of the main aspects of it. I know my colleague Mr Rich-Phillips has gone through this bill quite substantially, but there are things that I would like to touch on as well to put on the record. One of the important parts I think that it looks at is to do with PSOs, and that is to do with the control of weapons. It is an update on how they deal with capsicum spray. The other thing that is really important about PSOs is that they should be able to have the opportunity to be promoted and go through the ranks. This now will be available; the legislation will enable that. Indeed PSOs were introduced by the Honourable Peter Ryan and the Honourable Ted Baillieu back between 2010 and 2014, and it was really to meet a need in the community. That need was to provide safety and protection generally to people standing on train stations and commuting home late at night. It was a tremendous idea that really provided that safety net for people, and often women, finishing their shifts and coming home. I am really pleased to see that it has also been extended into regional areas. In the Latrobe Valley there are PSOs—we indeed were going to expand that had we got into government, but at least they are still on the train stations as they are at the moment.
On to the timing, in terms of extensions within the Criminal Procedure Act 2009, this bill also makes amendments there. Primarily it is going to extend the phased trial in terms of the digitally recorded evidence for a further two years. That is quite important. I know that when I was on the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee we were looking at this and some of, I guess, the boundaries of how appropriate it is to record evidence. But we can see there that it does need to be extended and there are some benefits for doing that.
Indeed the other thing that has really been important, I think, is for the Magistrates Courts to direct that the accused can appear via audiovisual link in limited circumstances in a remand hearing. Now, what we have seen during COVID is that we have all turned to the flat screen in order to continue our dialogue with the world, but what we really know in terms of the court system is the terrible congestion that there is within the court system and indeed the Magistrates Court. And the tyranny of distance can also play into that for regionally based people that are needing to attend court, so having that audiovisual link is quite important.
Moving on to some of the parts of the bill that are not so flavoursome, indeed the Firearms Act 1996 amendments contain a number of those. Part 5 and indeed clauses 18 and 19 are some areas of concern that have been raised by members with us and through our stakeholder groups. One of those is in relation to the hire, loan, disposal or storage of firearms, and this clause will put a limit on the amount of time a gun dealer can loan a firearm to a licensed user.
This is a strange piece to this legislation, because there is a 30-day-or-so limit with an extra 30 days, so a 60-day period in which that firearm can be loaned, but you can press play and repeat, play and repeat. That 60-day period can flow over and flow over again, and in many ways all this does is really just add a new layer of paperwork upon the firearms dealer.
There are scenarios where a gun shop owner may need to loan a firearm out to a registered user for long-term use. So if there was, say, a particular gun that was needing significant repairs—and as we know, parts are often delayed and delayed and delayed at the moment—you can see where that would be an impost, and also what you are doing is just adding that additional paperwork. So the Liberals and The Nationals are looking to remove clauses 18 and 19, and Mr Rich-Phillips has foreshadowed our amendments there.
The other clause that I would like to speak to is clause 20. The elements of that are in relation to how guns are moved around the state, how they are shipped. Now, there is an element of traceability, which is important—particularly these sorts of guns and parts of guns need to be traceable—but one of the issues that is a frustration is the way this is put into this bill. I was speaking only a couple of days ago to the Sale H&S Firearms owner, who is a great bloke and very community minded, and I asked him about what is happening with freight. He said it is highly frustrating that FedEx TNT has refused to courier firearms interstate and intrastate. The industry have actually asked up to 30 different freight couriers whether they would transport firearms, and the answer is no. I think this is ideologically driven rather than common sense and reasonableness, and my firearms dealer from Sale actually said that they are down to Linfox, potentially, Armorgard or Australia Post. Now, if anybody is ever waiting for something from Australia Post, they are waiting a long, long, long time. Indeed I digress just slightly, with your indulgence, Acting President. I had a beekeeper in my electorate come in. He buys queen bees, as you do, from Queensland. It is supposed to take three days, and it took nine. Indeed the queen bee was not very healthy when it arrived, so he came into my office to say, ‘What about it, Melina?’. It is a federal government issue, but it is still an issue, so Australia Post potentially is not the way for these guns to be moved around the state either.
The other issue that this gentleman raised with me was about the licensing and regulation division of Victoria Police. Now, the police have stretched resources at the moment during COVID—that is a given—but there is an issue that he relayed. He said that the time in which you can speak to the licensing and regulation division has been diminished to only a couple of hours three times a week, otherwise you have to email. It sounds all right in theory, but often there are issues that need to be verbally communicated.
The other thing that he mentioned is the delay in renewal of licences, and this is causing a real and potentially legal issue for the licensed firearms owner. Now, apparently they are only up to processing renewals. They are up to July. So if I am a licensed gun owner and I have sent my renewal in but they are three months behind, I could potentially be out of registration and still not able to have that renewed. So I think the government needs to look at that and needs to look at how it can support the licensing and reg division to get up to speed on that, because it should not be then put back onto and the fault of the licensed gun owner.
On to clause 22, and then I will complete my discussion on this topic: the expansion of those who can approve a firearm prohibition order, or an FPO. This has been a slightly contentious issue, but we have had some discussions indeed in the bill briefing. In relation to that bill briefing, the Department of Justice and Community Safety and the Chief Commissioner of Police reiterated in the strongest possible terms that FPOs are levelled at serious criminals only and not at normally law-abiding citizens who may do an infringement. And there is also IBAC, which can overturn incorrect decisions. We do not want it to get to that, so I am hoping that in the committee of the whole the minister will really expand on that to give that comfort that people who do misdemeanours are not going to be caught up in suspensions and FPOs.
Finally, in terms of clause 24, we want to go back to the discussion around how guns are stored. It is very important that they are stored properly, without a doubt. Incidentally, when I was speaking with somebody in the industry, they said not only are they trying to get rid of the hardwood timber industry but they are trying to get rid of the hardwood containers in which firearms are stored. Now, again, sensibly, we are going to put up an amendment. The Liberals and The Nationals are putting up an amendment that would see the 1.6-millimetre steel bolted container as a minimum standard so that if there are other containers—storage devices could even be concrete, for example, which would potentially be above and stronger than this—they can still be in the system and be used, because it is about safety. It should not be about whether it is painted yellow or green in this case.
The Nationals will continue to support responsible gun ownership. We will continue to support sporting shooters and the hunting fraternity. We admire the work they do in terms of conservation. We respect their right to continue to do this. I noticed Mr Bourman tried to give The Nationals a bit of a wet tea towel whack around the ears. We have been in the community for over 103 years. We will continue to support law-abiding gun owners.
Mr MEDDICK (Western Victoria) (21:22): This bill has many good provisions, both on firearms and other matters, and I will be supporting it. However, I do note that it does not go far enough in protecting Victorians from gun violence. Wherever there are more guns it is the powerless, the vulnerable and the weak who are most at risk—animals overwhelmingly, women killed by vengeful partners, and other vulnerable citizens.
Many rural women have contacted my office to complain of being terrorised by men with guns shooting ducks, shooting kangaroos or shooting other wildlife and also domesticated animals or pets on both private and public property. These complaints often come after the police have been contacted and nothing has been done. After all, who wants to confront armed men with guns in the middle of the night? Easier to dismiss the concerns of unarmed women. Sometimes, such as the case of shooting on other people’s private property, the activity is clearly illegal, but who would stop it?
The minister in her second-reading speech pointed out the benefits of sports shooting and highlighted our sporting shooters’ performance at the recent Tokyo Olympics. She also implied by association that there were many positive economic and social benefits of recreational hunting but named none, presumably because there really are not any. Indeed recreational shooting of animals is increasingly seen as anathema to a civilised society. The many negative economic impacts and social costs are coming to the fore.
Recreational hunting can occur across Victoria at the same time and place as other people are trying to quietly enjoy the countryside. In state forests, for example, there is no specific legislation that applies to hunters or non-hunters who are conducting their recreational activities at the same time. Further, no government body has a clear responsibility or an official communication system to alert non-shooters of potential hunting activities taking place on public land in Victoria. There is currently no requirement for physical signage or a physical warning system of any kind to let people know that shooters could be in the area when entering specified hunting areas or state forests.
Four government bodies are partly responsible for providing information to both hunters and non-hunters undertaking activity in Victoria—four. These include the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning, Victoria Police, Forest Fire Management Victoria, and the pathetic Game Management Authority (GMA). Their respective websites contain a lot of information, most of which is not up to date, contradicts the other websites and is broadly unhelpful to non-shooters. It remains quite unclear what liability shooters have for their impact—at the extreme, the shooting of non-shooting citizens and their companion animals. In Victoria, unlike in New South Wales, hunters are not required to register, book or inform authorities that they are hunting at a specified date and time. Therefore authorities cannot be aware of how many people with firearms are active in a given area at a given time and cannot effectively monitor it. This has implications for overhunting or illegal hunting practices.
As you know, Acting President Bourman, I have long campaigned against the pastime of killing defenceless native waterbirds, and in the last 30 years we have seen the number of shooters on the wetlands decrease from over 100 000 to—at the last season opening I attended and according to GMA officials on the day—about 100 shooters across the state. So with so few shooters attending the wetlands on opening day and indeed across the season, why are there tens of thousands of gun licences issued? Perhaps some of the people holding gun licences do not actually want to hunt ducks. That is just a box you tick when you want an excuse to possess a firearm. In fact there is a genuine concern from anti-gun-violence advocates that many are using the duck-hunting excuse to circumvent the processes that would otherwise apply because it fast-tracks their application.
It is so easy to get a gun licence in Victoria, and even easier if you are a child. Why, we even give you a free game licence if you are aged 12 to 17 years. I have long argued that children should be prevented from taking part in this slaughter, rather than it being promoted and facilitated. Indeed the last time a duck rescuer was blasted in the face with shotgun pellets, it was a child who shot her.
Returning to some of the provisions that are in this bill, I support the improvement in storage requirements for longarm firearms, security measures for moving guns from place to place and the restrictions on gun ownership for sex offenders. I note there is no restriction on gun ownership for those convicted of animal cruelty, and this has to be fixed with the introduction of a similar register and restrictions as those that apply to sex offenders. It is well known and accepted that those who commit cruelty to animals very often progress to violence against people. It should be a given that someone convicted of animal cruelty is forbidden from owning or possessing a gun of any sort at any time for the rest of their lives. I know I have spoken a lot about the shortcomings of this bill, but it does nothing to dull my support for the positive initiatives in it. On the whole, I support the bill and I commend it to the house.
Mr BARTON (Eastern Metropolitan) (21:29): As someone who had a farm for many years, I know that firearms are widespread around our properties throughout the community. I was just trying to reflect on whether in all those years I can recall an incident where someone behaved irresponsibly with a firearm, and I can say with my hand on my heart that that has not been the case. But there are muppets out there, and that is why we have to have regulations and rules.
I am pleased to see this bill creates a higher standard for gun safes. Previously our legislation has been a lot more lenient than that in other states and gun owners could get away with storing their guns in wooden containers. This brings us more in line with the national standards by creating a standard of 1.6 millimetres for storage containers. For perspective, this is a relatively easy standard to meet given the cheapest safe at Bunnings is 2 millimetres. This is a sensible provision and provides firearm owners throughout Victoria with long-awaited clarity. My understanding is that many firearm owners have felt that up until now enforcement agencies have applied the current wording in the Firearms Act 1996 subjectively. By setting a standard, firearm owners can be sure they are now acting within the law.
This bill also introduces requirements to be placed on dealers sending firearms through the mail, especially regarding an individual proving their identity when firearms are being purchased. It will tighten regulatory standards for when licensed dealers hire, loan and dispose of firearms. The bill reduces the time that a registrable offender has to notify police of their return to Victoria from interstate from 14 days down to seven days after their return, another provision that strengthens our safety standards. There is the grandfathering provision for a reclassified firearm, a provision that has a lot of support among the industry. This means that if a certain firearm is reclassified, those with an existing licence for the firearm can still use it.
There has been some speculation from particular groups about changes to firearm prohibition orders. These amendments make no change to the thresholds and the criteria by which FPOs are issued. The existing FPO framework has many character tests, and there already exist a range of actions authorities can take to restrict firearm use when necessary. The FPO changes in this bill specifically target illegal firearm use; these are criminal networks we are talking about. The only change is that inspectors can now authorise FPOs. There have been some groups that have provided a view that this bill will have your local copper knocking on your door to take your firearms away for a minor traffic offence. This is not the case. Only senior police officers can issue FPOs, not your local cop. There are no changes to the issuing of FPOs for those firearm owners who are licensed and working within the law. I have been advised that there have been a thousand of these FPOs issued and only four to firearm owners. The rest have been to those conducting serious criminal activities. This bill is measured and considered. I commend this bill to the house.
Dr CUMMING (Western Metropolitan) (21:33): I rise to speak to the Firearms and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2021. I am a person who grew up with a slug gun—we had a .22 even though we were in Footscray—shooting cans and those kinds of things. I was taught how to handle a gun responsibly by my father. I was always taught to never aim at a person, always aiming down, and I realise the importance of being taught safety around a firearm. This bill tonight speaks to my heart in the way of making sure that we have firearms safety.
I then progressed on to the army reserve. I was taught how to use a weapon in the army reserve, and safety again. When I put on my uniform when I joined the army reserve, I did so to protect my country, for freedom. I also joined the army reserve to protect others. But I also joined to be a medic, and with that I would never have thought I would see in any scenario that anyone here in Australia would be taking a weapon to another human or another Australian, but I have seen so of late. I do digress from this bill at the moment, but I will get straight back to the bill, because I can see others looking at me.
With the amendment bill tonight, there are many reasons why shooting is safe: when you are not aiming at a person, when you are not aiming at an animal, when you are actually doing it for recreation. You can be doing it for sport as well. As the minister said in her second-reading speech, we have sport shooting and recreational hunting, and they have many positive economic benefits but they also have many social benefits.
We also here in Victoria have some of the best shooters in the world, and two of Australia’s best—in fact the world’s best—are Russell Mark and Lauryn Mark, who run Go Shooting in Werribee. It is Australia’s oldest and dearest clay target shooting venture, and it has been operating for over 20 years in Werribee. I also have in my electorate Xtreme Paintball, operating in Plumpton. These places actually offer safe courses and activities which provide team building and healthy outdoor exercise in a safe environment, and I know this also because my brother has a family business of paintball as well—paintball action games in Ballan and Coldstream. If you have ever been part of paintball, you know that it actually really hurts when you get shot with a paintball. It is probably one of the greatest team sports or kinds of recreational shooting that you can actually have, where you actually really understand how dangerous guns can be. You walk off the field covered in bruises and realising that it is no fun to be shot and that you have to be extremely careful, but it does provide that team building, it is very healthy running around the way that you do and it does teach you.
I know others have spoken about children not being able to play with guns, but we have all grown up with water pistols. You have got nerf guns, and these days you have now got the gel guns. I know that Jeff Bourman later might put up an amendment about gel guns, and there are a lot of guns out there that people actually use for recreation and fun. It does not make you want to hurt or shoot people; it actually gives you the understanding that they can be dangerous and there are reasons why you need regulations and you need amendments and you need bills to make sure that we are, as a community, safe.
Also in this bill—and I will stick to the firearms element still—with the PSOs I do support the recognition of their rank and making sure that they are going to be able to get recognised for their education and their achievements. That is a great thing. But I will have questions in regard to the pepper spray element to this. I understand that this is looking back. It is a retrospective amendment to exempt protective services officers that engage in official duties around capsicum spray, but when we actually get to the committee stage I will be asking more questions around that.
Obviously we have all witnessed pepper spray being used during this pandemic and this health crisis, and there have been plenty of people who have not been happy about that occurring. They have also not been happy to see for the first time in our history and in Australia’s history, I would say, rubber bullets being fired at unarmed civilians. I know that this goes beyond what tonight’s bill is about, but for me it is really hard to talk about just one aspect of the safety of firearms and others. I was taught not to shoot at others, to be very mindful, even with being a member of the defence force. I joined the army reserve to defend my community, to make sure that they are safe, to make sure of their freedoms, as well as those of others around the world. I would more than happily defend anyone’s freedoms. It disturbed me greatly to see what transpired at the shrine for the very reasons that—
A member interjected.
Dr CUMMING: You can bring me into—
The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Bourman): Order! Dr Cumming, we have strayed mightily off course. Can we come back to the bill, please.
Dr CUMMING: Yes, completely. Correct. I am very happy about this bill with everything around the safety elements around firearms, but it actually has triggered me—this bill, and others—about what has happened of late. The triggering thing for me is that in all my training and with everything that I know about firearms you would not shoot at civilians with rubber bullets. I will leave it at that, because I see that I am making other people in this place uncomfortable, or I am off the bill. So I will not go there. I do not want to upset others this late at night.
I will go to the positive aspect of this bill tonight. Rather than just being about firearms, it actually has other amendments, and one of the other amendments is around us being in line with the commonwealth legislation around the sex offenders register—that people who actually commit crimes overseas, who engage in grooming a child to engage in sexual activity outside of Australia, will now be recognised here in Victoria and will also actually be put onto the register here. So even though this is a firearms amendment bill—and it does say ‘other amendments’—I am very pleased to see this in place here as another amendment tonight.
I did say that I would be speaking too, later, when we get to the committee stage, about capsicum spray and our PSOs. I will leave my contribution at that.
Mr QUILTY (Northern Victoria) (21:44): I will be brief. The Liberal Democrats will not be supporting this bill. The bill is an omnibus bill, everything jammed together—the good, the bad and the ugly. If the pieces were separated out, we might vote for parts of it, but we believe that parts of this bill represent the salami tactics made famous by Yes, Minister—further minor slices from the sausage of shooters rights. The government will continue slicing away until there is nothing left. Firearm prohibition in this country occurs in leaps after incidents and then in small slices when there are no incidents, but it continues.
The bill amends the storage requirements for category A and B firearms to say they must be kept in firearm safes made of steel with a minimum of 1.6 millimetres thickness that must be bolted to the floor. That sounds reasonable—who wants firearms stored in wooden cabinets? Well, landlords for one. It is almost impossible for anyone who rents to get permission to bolt down their safe. Effectively measures like this are a property requirement for owning a firearm. If you do not own your own house, you cannot bolt down a safe and you will no longer be able to own firearms—salami slices. The minister believes this will reduce the number of firearm thefts, but will it?
Most firearm thefts are targeted. They are not burglars just tripping over a wooden cabinet, they are specific attacks by people who already know where the firearms are and come prepared with tools to rip out the safe. One might well ask where this information is leaking from. Who has the register of all firearms in the state stored in a leaky database, the access to which is not being audited? It is the same people who are pushing stronger safes as a solution to theft. It is widely held amongst shooter groups that the firearms database is leaky. A close follower of my time in this place would be aware that I am not a fan of LRD, the licensing and regulation division of Victoria Police. I believe, amongst many other things, that there have been leaks from firearms databases about the presence and storage locations of firearms. Firearms owners have been steadily upgrading their safes themselves, and I suspect any problem with wooden storage would go away all by itself shortly. But better storage is not going to solve the problem. In a few years we will be back here with a new solution to tighten up storage, which will be another salami slice to firearm owners.
The bill proposes to introduce rules preventing dealers from loaning firearms to licensed shooters. This is a solution looking for a problem. We have a system for licensing firearms ownership. This is where we perform in-depth checks into the suitability of people to own and use firearms. The supposed reason that we license firearms at all is to keep track of them, so all we need is a record of ownership. The fact that a dealer loans a firearm to someone with a licence does nothing to change safety. It is an example of bureaucrats getting concerned about a lack of control rather than concerned about the safety of Victorians. We do not support these changes.
The bill allows the Chief Commissioner of Police to specify what kind of proof of identity will be permissible for licence applications. That probably sounds harmless, but I do get concerned each time we give the commissioner increased discretionary powers, because with the wrong motivation discretionary powers can be used to make things harder for licensed firearm owners.
The bill requires licensed firearms dealers to physically sight a licence before they complete a transaction. We assume that all dealers do this already with people they do not know well. This is minor, but a dealer who knows their customers well will have seen their licence before. This creates a little more red tape and carves off another small slice of the salami. It is death by a million small cuts.
The bill has a grandfathering clause for when firearms are reclassified. That is reasonable, but the fact that firearms are being reclassified at all is a great concern. This should really never happen. We have our categories; we have had them for many years now. They are satisfactory. Every act of reclassification is a salami slice against firearms owners.
The bill also makes amendments to the firearm prohibition orders legislation. FPOs are a significant tool of government intrusion and overreach. They allow government to suspend many of the civil rights of those to whom an order is issued. Such rights breaches are justified by saying that the orders are very rare and they are only ever used against the worst of the worst. That might be the case, but it raises concerns that there have been apparently 1111 orders issued in the three years these laws have been in action, with the numbers of orders issued rising each year. That does not sound like ‘rare’ to me.
We only have to look at the growing culture of lawlessness amongst VicPol that has been exposed in recent years to know that giving them further powers to breach human rights is a concern. This is the organisation that gave us Lawyer X. It has demonstrated a willingness to tear up the rules to achieve an end, including to pursue the political goals of their masters in government. I have grown increasingly sceptical of giving the police any powers to intrude on individuals’ rights, regardless of how noble the objective may sound. I would rather put up with organised crime than a police state, knowing of course that we would still have organised crime in a police state—it would just be run by the police.
The bill gives FPO recipients 24 hours to notify police of a change of address. This seems extremely harsh when the same bill is giving sex offenders a week to do the same thing. It remains an opportunity to catch out those who have the orders or just make their lives difficult.
The bill also gives power to lower ranked officers to issue FPOs. I do not see the need for this. These orders should remain rare and require leaping through hoops before they are issued. It is a feature that they are hard to issue, not a bug. I do not care if there is a backlog—work harder or just prioritise the more important cases.
Now, I note the Legal and Social Issues Committee held an inquiry into FPOs in 2019. The committee made a number of recommendations, most of which the government has ignored. I will be proposing an amendment that introduces at least one of these recommendations: that the conditions on FPOs can be varied and reduced by the commissioner, as happens in other states, but we can discuss that in the committee stage.
The next thing I will talk about is the retrospective legislation to legalise PSOs’ use of capsicum spray. I oppose retrospective legislation, even when it is to fix a government mistake. This retrospective legislation will remove the rights of individuals who have been capsicum sprayed by PSOs to sue for assault. I support the PSOs and I think they do a good job, but I am increasingly nervous about giving the government power—any sort of power.
The bill also allows the Magistrates Court to compel accused to appear by video link in exceptional circumstances. On the face of it this might be reasonable, but I am increasingly disinclined to support the government eroding the rights of the accused, because in this state the citizens need to keep hold of every right that they have.
We have further amendments to the bill, which I will circulate now.
Liberal Democratic Party amendments circulated by Mr QUILTY pursuant to standing orders.
Mr QUILTY: Again, I will discuss them in more detail in the committee, but they include a move to legalise the sport of airsoft and the use of airsoft and gel blasters. Basically they are games played with toy firearms. There will also be an amendment to amend what conditions the police can use to judge someone not fit and proper to hold a firearms licence and to remove minor speeding offences, minor road offences and also minor offences under the COVID health emergency acts—that will be the third amendment. Parts of the act I could support, but as an omnibus bill the Liberal Democrats will not be supporting it.
Ms PATTEN (Northern Metropolitan) (21:53): I am pleased to rise to speak to this omnibus bill on firearms, control of weapons, sex offenders registration and Victoria Police. I support much of this legislation. I certainly support responsible gun ownership, and I think that many parts of this bill go towards that and go to rectifying issues that possibly could have been rectified some time ago. But I cannot support the further bedding down, the further trampling down, in relation to firearm prohibition orders (FPOs). As we said back in 2018, these completely trample on fundamental human rights. Once a firearm prohibition order has been made it allows police officers without warrant or consent to enter and search the premises of the person subject to the firearm prohibition order. It also allows them to search other persons present. This could be in a car. Someone could be in a car with someone with a firearm prohibition order and the police could stop that car and search not the person with the firearm prohibition order but the passenger in that car, including children. It allows police to search people without warrant, even without suspicion. They do not even have to have suspicion to do this. They do not have to have reasonable suspicion that a person has committed an offence.
The person subject to an FPO does not have to have ever even acquired, possessed, carried, used or owned a firearm. Firearm prohibition orders can be made because of the behaviour of a person—that behaviour is undefined in the act—or because of the people that person associates with. Firearm prohibition orders can even be made to children as young as 14. It basically dispenses with all of the normal processes involved in the issuing of warrants, and that is why we argued back in 2018 that if you were going to issue a firearm prohibition order, at least there should be some oversight by the Magistrates Court. Now, that was not allowed, and even back then, in 2018, the statement of compatibility conceded that this piece of legislation was not proportionate to the limitations of human rights under the Victorian charter. I think the interesting thing about our charter sometimes is that we talk about the wonderful charter that we have—and I do believe it is a wonderful charter, and I am a passionate proponent of the charter—but we can introduce legislation that says, ‘It actually tramples every single right that we have in the charter, but we think that that is okay’. Now, I know that I am not the only person deeply offended by this. I know that Liberty Victoria was deeply offended by this when these changes were made back in 2018.
And now it adds insult to injury. This should be an incredibly serious order that really, I would say, only a court should make, but okay, we have dispensed with that; we have said that senior police officers can make this. But now this bill is amending that to say, ‘No. Junior police officers can make this; police officers, inspectors in stations can make firearm prohibition orders’. And let us just remember, if you have a firearm prohibition order issued against you, this means that even anyone with you can be searched without warrant. This means that your house can be searched without warrant. This means that if you are visiting a house it can be searched without warrant.
Now, as someone who chaired the inquiry into firearm prohibition legislation and heard considerable evidence around this, again this legislation, in particular this section on extending the ability of who can issue firearm prohibition orders, is—I would put it kindly—a solution looking for a problem. At the time that we conducted the inquiry there was no backlog. There was no concern that people were not getting issued with firearm prohibition orders because no-one could—
Business interrupted pursuant to standing orders.
Mr LEANE: Pursuant to standing order 4.08(1)(b), I declare the sitting to be extended by up to 1 hour.
Mr Finn interjected.
Ms PATTEN: Thank you, Minister. I am surprised by the interjections that you received from Mr Finn, because I thought he was listening to every word that I was speaking.
Mr Finn: I am.
Ms PATTEN: Thank you, Mr Finn, because in many ways I am actually supporting some of the amendments that your party—
Mr Finn interjected.
Ms PATTEN: This is actually incredibly serious, when we start seeing this type of legislation that we know completely breaches our charter of human rights and completely tramples on it, and yet we are saying not only that it tramples on it but that we should allow far more people to exercise this right. Again, I cannot even fathom where this is coming from.
Certainly when we looked at this—it is COVID times, so 2019 might seem like a decade ago—it was only in November 2019, less than two years ago. What we see here in this bill is not what the committee recommended. Sure, there are parts—no, this is not what the committee recommended. In fact we were concerned by the level of discretion that this legislation allowed. We were incredibly concerned at the ability for these orders to be issued, and we thought that it could lead to inconsistent practices and confusion. In fact we were pretty firm about this. We noted that the VCAT case that actually led to the inquiry in some ways showed the trampling and the overarching heaviness of this legislation. The reason that VCAT heard the case and in actual fact overturned those firearm prohibition orders, noting that obviously that order was changed, was that they thought it overrode and was beyond what was acceptable—that, yes, certainly someone with a firearm prohibition order should be contained by certain orders but not be prohibited from dropping his children off at his mother-in-law’s house because his father-in-law had a firearms licence. That was an overstep. This bill just treads down on that overstep. That is what this bill does. To now say that in actual fact it does not need to be senior officers and now it just needs to be an inspector that can do this, I cannot even begin to understand why we are even doing this.
I look at the recommendations that our inquiry made, and I think that many of them were actually quite reasonable: that the Chief Commissioner of Police could possibly amend a firearm prohibition order and, with small things like the circumstance I mentioned earlier, that you might be able to say to someone who had an FPO that they could drop their children off with their grandparents even though one of the grandparents had a licence for a firearm. But that is not where they went. They ignored the findings of the report, and they ignored the recommendations of the report, with the exception of recommendation 3, where we suggested that they amend the legislation to include a requirement that a person subject to a firearm prohibition order must provide notification of change of address. Well, I am pleased that they must do that. I note in Mr Quilty’s contribution that they must do that within a week.
Mr Quilty: A day.
Ms PATTEN: Sorry, a day. And those under sex offender register orders have a week to do that. Look, I am really troubled by this part of the legislation. I do not think we should dispense with fundamental human rights to relieve a bit of workload pressure. In 2019 the police did not report workload pressure. They did not report this. They did not report that this was the difficulty with the legislation. Now we are hearing that they would like to issue far more. Remember that this legislation, because it tramples on so many human rights, is meant for the most serious of serious of serious criminals. So why are we expanding this? Why are we making this easier? Again, as I say, if we have a charter of human rights, we should adhere to it, and this legislation does not do that.
Now, I can support many aspects of this bill. There are many areas where I think it is sensible. There are many areas where I think it is just promoting responsible gun ownership or it is changing other parts of legislation, like the sex offender register scheme, that are purely sensible, but this part worries me. While I support most parts of the bill, I cannot support the clauses on the firearm prohibition orders.
Dr KIEU (South Eastern Metropolitan)
Incorporated pursuant to order of Council of 7 September:
The Victorian government is clear on its stance on policing and community safety. Since being elected in 2014 we have provided the resources, tools and powers that police need to keep the community safe.
We have invested nearly $4 billion in new funding for police. This includes 3135 new police officers, which includes hundreds of FV specialists, more PSOs for mobile patrols, new stations for our growing force and state-of-the-art equipment like mobile devices and body-worn cameras, which are providing critical to assisting FV victims but also improving accountability for interactions between police and the public.
Importantly, we also have further enabled community engagement work for police, including how they engage with young people and community policing initiatives.
This bill, the Firearms and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2021, continues the focus on improving firearm safety, whilst at the same time balancing the interests of legitimate firearms users—such as recreational hunters, sports shooters and primary producers.
There are also a number of other reforms in this bill to continue improvements across our justice system and to deal with the ongoing pressures of the COVID-19 global pandemic. This requires amendments to a range of acts, including the Sex Offenders Registration Act 2004 (SORA), Victoria Police Act 2013 (VP act), Control of Weapons Act 1990 (CW act), Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1958 (EMP act) and Criminal Procedure Act 2009 (CP act).
Control of Weapons Act 1990 amendment
The bill retrospectively validates the conduct of PSOs who engaged in official duties with oleoresin capsicum spray (OC spray) so that they do not commit an offence against the Control of Weapons Act 1990.
This is an historical issue that should have been identified when the former government expanded PSOs onto the train network. It was always intended that PSOs were properly authorised to possess, carry and use the service equipment issued to them.
It was this government that identified the issue and which acted to correct the historical oversight.
PSOs are well trained in the use of OC and the state always intended PSOs to be lawfully in possession of OC spray for the purposes of carrying out their official duties of protecting the Victorian community.
This amendment brings legal certainty but does not limit a civil claim that a use of force by PSO was unreasonable—all it does is remove a claim being based solely on the fact that a valid exemption was not in place at the time of the PSO’s conduct.
Victoria Police Act 2013 amendment
The bill amends the Victoria Police Act 2013 to retrospectively validate the promotion of PSOs in accordance with the Victoria Police (Police Officers, Protective Services Officers, Police Reservists and Police Recruits) Enterprise Agreement 2019.
This was an important component of the recent EA for our hardworking police and PSOs and updates the Victoria Police Act accordingly.
Criminal Procedure Act 2009 amendment
The bill amends the Criminal Procedure Act 2009 to enable the expanded phased trial and evaluation of digitally recorded evidence in chief to continue for a further two years to 3 October 2024.
Expanding the phased trial of digitally recorded evidence in chief (DREC) will ensure that the experience of victim-survivors using DREC is captured and will enable the full assessment of DREC, particularly the impacts of DREC on the criminal justice and policing systems.
The initial DREC trial in 2018 gave effect to recommendation 58 delivered by the Royal Commission into Family Violence (RCFV). An evaluation of the initial DREC trial recommended extending the trial to ensure that benefits for the justice system and victim-survivors could be fully assessed.
An expanded phased trial was recommended given the evaluation findings were limited due to the trial’s low case numbers, the confined evaluation methodology, which meant that victim-survivors’ experiences were not captured and that there were no DRECs played in court during the initial 2018 trial.
Firearms Act 1996 amendment
The bill amends the Firearms Act 1996 to facilitate the accurate classification of firearms, to provide for enhanced firearm storage requirements and to generally improve the administration of that act. This includes:
• requiring higher minimum standards for firearm storage to better prevent firearms being stolen by upgrading storage requirements for category A and B firearms. These reforms will align the storage requirements for category A and B firearms with the storage requirements for the higher classified category C and D firearms
• requiring licensed firearms dealers to comply with minimum conditions when sending firearms and firearms parts through a postal or courier service to prevent opportunistic stealing of firearms being sent in the mail
• imposing a maximum duration for the hire and loan of a firearm by a licensed firearms dealer to prevent dealers entering agreements for indefinite periods, thereby providing better oversight and monitoring of firearms that are loaned through commercial arrangements
• requiring a licensed firearms dealer to sight a valid firearms licence before they dispose of a firearm—putting into legislation something that is already in practice
• requiring a person subject to a firearm prohibition order to notify the Chief Commissioner of Police within 24 hours after a change of residential address and providing a minor broadening of the delegation list of senior police officers authorised to approve an FPO. Even with this minor broadening, there is still only 1.5 per cent of the entire Victoria Police sworn workforce who can issue an FPO.
There are some misconceptions about this bill that have been circulated among the licensed and legitimate firearm community pushed by the National Shooting Council, a fringe group that is seeking to divide legitimate firearm representative groups and associations.
These claims include new powers associated with FPOS, claiming that any police officer can slap a 10-year ban on legitimate and law-abiding firearm owners and that FPOs will be used to take firearms over people for speeding tickets and CHO breaches or because a police officer has a grudge against someone.
These claims are simply not true and are not supported by legitimate firearm and shooting associations.
The firearm prohibition order scheme is already in law (since 2018). The criteria and thresholds for issuing an FPO are not changing. The FPO scheme is targeted at those people who operate outside the licensed and regulated firearms community.
Victoria Police have not issued any FPOs for speeding tickets. In and of itself such an infringement would never justify an FPO and would never stand up to scrutiny from the approving delegate, VCAT or the Supreme Court, nor to IBAC review.
Unless people are wanting to advocate for people who use illegal firearms for criminal purposes, they should have no problem with these laws.
The claims are confused too. There is already a fit and proper test used by police for licensed firearm owners and an existing prohibition provision for licensed firearm owners that is uncontroversial and has been part of the licensing and regulatory approach for a very long time. There are no changes to these licensing arrangements for law-abiding firearm owners.
Sex Offenders Registration Act 2004 amendment
The bill amends the Sex Offenders Registration Act 2004 to provide for consistency with commonwealth amendments relating to child abuse material, to reduce the time that a registrable offender has to notify the police of their return to Victoria and to make amendments consequential to machinery-of-government changes.
These are important changes to update the SORA and keep it consistent with changes at a commonwealth level.
In the whole, this is an important bill that improves firearm safety with sensible changes for the licensing and regulation of firearms that makes pragmatic updates to the already existing firearm prohibition order scheme targeting illegal firearms, as well as updating various acts as they relate to OC spray and the sex offenders act, the use of AVL and delivering on parts of the Victoria Police enterprise agreement.
There has been significant consultation with affected parties on the development of the bill and widespread support for the various reforms contained within it.
I commend the bill to the house.
Ms TIERNEY (Western Victoria—Minister for Training and Skills, Minister for Higher Education) (22:07): I thank members for their contributions tonight in what is an important debate and for highlighting the importance of firearm safety as well as the benefits of other reforms that the government is wanting to introduce. Members have spoken about the importance of a well-regulated licensing system for lawful use of firearms. We have all agreed on a good and robust system that recognises the responsibilities and the obligations of firearm ownership, a system that provides for sport and recreational shooting as well as the important role of firearms in farming and legal hunting and that protects community safety.
Improving this system is exactly what we believe this bill does. It requires target hardening for storage of category A and B firearms, making them harder to steal. It strengthens obligations when firearms are sent and are received through the post. It also streamlines the licensing scheme to benefit handgun clubs and introduces a grandfathering clause that I understand most in the chamber do support.
We also have a number of minor amendments to the firearm prohibition orders, which I know are of interest to many and which we believe will improve the operation of the scheme without diminishing any of the appeal and oversight requirements. Importantly, these amendments were the subject of consultation with the Victorian Firearms Consultative Committee, which is comprised of representatives of firearm users and dealers, technical experts, law enforcement and academia.
There are a range of other important reforms in this bill, which again I know are important to many in this place. They go to legal certainty for PSOs using OC spray, extending the digitally recorded evidence-in-chief trial, enabling audiovisual links in the justice system, updating the Sex Offenders Registration Act 2004 and delivering on commitments negotiated between Victoria Police and the Police Association Victoria regarding the PSOs and their career structure.
I will briefly turn to some of the specific issues that have been raised by members this evening. In relation to firearm issues and starting with storage, there has been some discussion that the storage amendment rules out higher quality storage arrangements already being used. It is important to point out that these changes prescribe minimum standards; they do not prevent higher quality standards if the firearm user so decides. Victoria Police has also confirmed that it has been a longstanding practice to accept storage receptacles made of a higher quality material and that they will continue to do so. There has also been discussion about the government paying for upgrading storage requirements for category A and category B firearms users. This bill does not provide for funding for individuals. It does give time for firearms users to upgrade their storage.
It is also important to note that the benefits of the upgraded storage are massive in terms of the firearms user but also for the broader community, because firearms theft is a growing problem for law enforcement and represents a community safety risk as firearms become part of the black market and fall into the hands of organised crime. Category A and B firearms are currently the most prevalent firearms stolen in Victoria. A significant risk factor in firearms theft is firearms being stored in receptacles that can be forced open and have their contents removed. Obviously criminal elements are currently defeating existing storage requirements for category A and B firearms. These responsible changes are supported by both Victoria Police and the government’s advisory body on firearms.
Briefly going to the issue of hiring and loaning by licensed firearms dealers, there have been some points made about the changes to loaning and hiring of firearms, with some members saying indefinite loans should be allowed. However, Victoria Police and the government believe that there should be some oversight. Currently firearms licence holders are effectively acquiring the firearms without having the firearms registered against their licence, as is required when a firearm is purchased through the permit-to-acquire process. Victoria Police has identified instances where firearms have been loaned for extended periods and the dealer is no longer able to confirm the movement of the firearms. When Victoria Police have contacted licence-holders to determine a firearm’s whereabouts, licence-holders have denied ever possessing it in some cases and stated that they believed they had completed a purchase or claimed to have returned the firearm.
Some examples that police have identified: a licensed firearms dealer loaning 53 firearms and these not being recorded on the online dealer system; firearms being loaned to licence-holders, but when the police made inquiries with the users they indicated that they had purchased them, but no permit-to-acquire process had been followed. These are not ideal situations, and I do not think anyone in the house wants firearms in the community that cannot be identified or that have been acquired without the proper process, not to mention just plainly not knowing where they are, and that is why we are bringing about these changes.
The bill limits the hire or loan of firearms for a period greater than 30 days to improve oversight of agreements and to prevent hired or loaned firearms from being effectively acquired. On or before the expiry of the 30-day hire or loan of a firearm, firearms licence holders will have the opportunity to apply to the licensed firearms dealer to renew the hire or loan agreement for an additional 30-day period. Following the expiry of the hire or loan agreement a licensee can enter into a new agreement with the licensed firearms dealer if they need to.
We have heard some claims about too much bureaucracy or about making life too hard, but this is really about community safety. I can also confirm that Victoria Police will adopt a practical approach to this change, supporting an extension or a new agreement after 60 days—that is the renewal—to occur in writing or via email between the user and the licensed firearm dealer, with the dealer maintaining a record of the firearm and its location. I think that that can put to bed a number of claims that have been made by some today.
There is also the issue of mailing requirements, and I know that that also is a point that Mr Bourman has included in his proposed amendments. We will also in committee on Thursday deal with firearm prohibition orders (FPOs), the delegation issue and of course the issue of defining ‘behaviour’ in the legislation that has been raised by some members today.
In respect to the Shooters and Fishers amendments that have been moved this afternoon, the member often provides very useful insights and contributions to this house. We have assessed these amendments, and we thank him for flagging them a little bit earlier. We have sought the advice of Victoria Police on a number of things that he is proposing, and on the basis of this advice we will not be accepting the amendments put by Mr Bourman. His amendments seek to exempt gel blasters, airsoft and T-shirt cannons, omit changes to the hire and loaning of firearms, omit changes to the sending of firearms and firearm parts by post, remove the change of FPO delegation and omit the storage amendment. I will deal with each in turn, but before I do so I think it is worth pointing out that our bill has been subject to extensive consultation and development. The amendments put by Mr Bourman simply have not. There is an argument that some of these matters on a procedural note appear to be out of scope, but I will still try to deal with the substance of them, Mr Bourman.
In respect of the exempting of gel blasters and airsoft and T-shirt cannons, this is not supported by the government on the grounds that these devices are imitation firearms, on the grounds of jurisdictional consistency and on public safety grounds. In respect to gel blasters, Victoria Police reviewed the status of gel blasters that discharge water gel balls and are manufactured to resemble real firearms and has confirmed that they are on the whole imitation firearms under the Control of Weapons Act 1990. Victoria Police have frequently been called to instances where a gel blaster is mistaken for a real firearm. This requires a police response proportionate to a person carrying a real firearm, involving large numbers of attending police officers. Police must treat the incident as serious and act according to police protocols, increasing the chance of a potentially fatal injury, causing public harm and placing a strain on police resources. The manufacture of gel blasters is continually evolving to make them look more realistic as imitations of genuine and often militaristic-style firearms. Even recreational activities involving gel blasters still carry unacceptable risk. From public inquiries Victoria Police know that most people seeking authorisation to use gel blasters do so to participate in recreational tactical skirmish activities using gel blasters that look like real firearms. There are no regulated skirmish venues for gel blasters, which means the proposed military-style skirmishes could only be carried out in public settings or on private property where they are more likely to be seen and cause public alarm.
In respect to airsoft devices that could be reasonably mistaken for working firearms and discharge a projectile by an action other than the expansion of gases or compressed air or other gas, they are regulated under the Control of Weapons Act 1990 as they are defined as imitation firearms. Victoria Police will not provide permits to acquire airsoft rifles. This is because Victoria Police considers that there is no genuine reason for someone to carry, use or possess an airsoft firearm. There are no approved competitions in which an airsoft firearm would be used, and they cannot be used for hunting or vermin control. Furthermore, the Victorian government is not considering changing the regulation of airsoft and similar equipment in Victoria at this time as most of these devices are exact copies of current military firearms and function as fully automatic or semiautomatic firearms and some can fire plastic ball bearings which can break the skin and cause pain on contact. This is completely consistent with the position of other jurisdictions in Australia.
In respect to the T-shirt cannon, Victoria Police advise that a T-shirt cannon is a category E longarm pursuant to the definition of clause 3(1)(da) of the Firearms Act 1996, which defines a category E longarm as, quote, ‘a cannon which is not a black powder ball firing cannon’. Those who need access to T-shirt cannons have the opportunity to apply for a category E licence and demonstrate genuine need. In practice the licensee would also need to acquire a separate permit to use a firearm, a T-shirt cannon, in a public place. Victoria Police has issued category E licences for genuine event companies. Even if the amendment were passed, commonwealth regulation would continue to limit the ability to import T-shirt cannons, so there is no point to this and the government will not support it.
In relation to the hiring and loaning of firearms, I think I have covered off on that in my earlier comments. I look forward to the committee of the whole. (Time expired)
House divided on motion:
| Ayes, 31 | ||
| Atkinson, Mr | Kieu, Dr | Ratnam, Dr |
| Bach, Dr | Leane, Mr | Rich-Phillips, Mr |
| Barton, Mr | Lovell, Ms | Shing, Ms |
| Bath, Ms | Maxwell, Ms | Stitt, Ms |
| Crozier, Ms | McArthur, Mrs | Symes, Ms |
| Davis, Mr | Meddick, Mr | Taylor, Ms |
| Elasmar, Mr | Melhem, Mr | Terpstra, Ms |
| Erdogan, Mr | Ondarchie, Mr | Tierney, Ms |
| Finn, Mr | Patten, Ms | Vaghela, Ms |
| Grimley, Mr | Pulford, Ms | Watt, Ms |
| Hayes, Mr | ||
| Noes, 4 | ||
| Bourman, Mr | Limbrick, Mr | Quilty, Mr |
| Cumming, Dr | ||
Motion agreed to.
Read second time.
Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Attorney-General, Minister for Emergency Services) (22:29): I move:
That the bill be committed on the next day of meeting.
Motion agreed to.
Questions without notice and ministers statements
Written responses
The PRESIDENT (22:29): Before I call the minister, this afternoon Ms Crozier raised a point of order about her substantive question and the supplementary. I said I would review Hansard. After reviewing Hansard, I believe the minister answered both questions.
Adjournment
Ms STITT (Western Metropolitan—Minister for Workplace Safety, Minister for Early Childhood) (22:29): I move:
That the house do now adjourn.
Greening Euroa project
Ms LOVELL (Northern Victoria) (22:30): (1568) My adjournment matter is for the Minister for Water, and it concerns a revolutionary drought-proofing project currently being undertaken by Strathbogie Shire Council. The action that I seek is for the minister to support Strathbogie shire’s Greening Euroa project by providing funding of $3.8 million to complete the project by constructing a pipeline from the wastewater management facility to allow the use of treated recycled water in the Euroa township.
The Greening Euroa project is an initiative of the Strathbogie Shire Council driven by a passionate local community to address the impact of chronic water shortages in the town. With climate change delivering warmer temperatures and less rainfall, the community sought a way to use recycled water to irrigate Euroa’s green open spaces during the summer months. The Greening Euroa project will be delivered in three stages to access the water and upgrade it from class C to class B quality before it is piped to underground storage tanks located around the town. Stages 1 and 2 of the project have been completed, with the first stage funded by Strathbogie shire and stage 2 jointly funded by the shire, Goulburn Valley Water and a grant from the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning. The final stage of the project centres on the construction of the pipeline to convey the treated water from Euroa’s wastewater management facility to the town.
Goulburn Valley Water have been wonderful supporters of the project and have already installed a standpipe near the Euroa Golf Club to allow access to the treated water. The local sporting grounds and school ovals in Euroa are still struggling to recover from years of prolonged drought and water restrictions. This project is a game changer in regard to water management in the town, and eight different user groups of public amenities have been identified as benefiting from the initiative, including the Euroa Bowls Club and the Euroa Croquet Club, all the three local schools, the Euroa tennis club and the management committees of Euroa Memorial Oval and Friendlies Oval. All the groups have committed to the plan with the knowledge that they will receive an assured allocation of water.
My adjournment is directed to the Minister for Water as it involves funding for the construction of water infrastructure, and I urge her to support this transformational project by providing the $3.8 million that is required to deliver it.
Child sex offender mandatory sentencing
Mr GRIMLEY (Western Victoria) (22:32): (1569) My adjournment debate is for the Attorney-General. I stood in this place on 17 June 2020, around 480 days ago, and asked a question about mandatory minimum sentencing for those who sexually abuse children. That question is still unanswered. My question was in response to the federal Labor Party announcing its support for a government bill that introduced mandatory minimum sentencing for the most serious child sex offences. This included a mandatory minimum of one to four years for recidivist child sex offenders. The federal bill also included a maximum penalty for child sex offenders of life imprisonment and the presumption against bail to keep offenders in custody while they await trial.
Before my speech I read that last year around 39 per cent of convicted commonwealth child sex offenders did not spend a single day in prison in the 2018–19 financial year. I said then and I will say again now that this is totally out of step with public expectation. I understand it has been a busy 18 months, but for me and my party finding ways to reduce child sex offending will always be our top priority. This is why it makes me so disappointed and frustrated that I have waited over 480 days for a response to this question of why the state government will not join their federal counterparts in committing to mandatory sentencing for child sex perpetrators. I have also sent multiple reminders to the state Government Whip, so it is not as if I have not tried to get an answer in an amicable way. This is extremely important to my party, our members and our constituents, and we would very much appreciate an answer. Therefore the action that I seek from the minister is to please respond to my question from June 2020 about why this state government does not reflect its federal party in imposing mandatory sentencing for sexual crimes against children.
Reservoir traffic management
Mr ONDARCHIE (Northern Metropolitan) (22:34): (1570) To quote others in this place, I will be brief. The adjournment matter I have this evening is for the Minister for Roads and Road Safety. Reservoir residents are concerned about traffic and congestion and the time it takes to get to work. My officers recently conducted a community survey in Reservoir, and I am very pleased that many residents responded. Every morning residents in Reservoir experience choked roads and frustration as traffic is banked up. Residents have told me that the new light sequencing at Cheddar Road, High Street, Edwardes Street, Spring Street and Broadway is completely out of whack and needs to be reviewed before the lockdown ends and more cars get on the road. They say it is a nightmare trying to get to work on time in the morning peak hour and in the evening it has been difficult for people to get to their homes and see their families. The action I seek from the minister is by way of directing the Department of Transport to investigate the new light sequencing and safety at the intersection of Cheddar Road, High Street, Edwardes Street, Spring Street and Broadway so my residents can spend less time in traffic and more time with their families.
COVID-19
Dr CUMMING (Western Metropolitan) (22:35): (1571) My adjournment matter is to the Minister for Health, and the action I seek is for the mask mandate for children to be revised in light of the recommendations from the World Health Organization. The chief health officer has ruled that children in years 3 to 6 will be required to wear masks while at school and that masks for prep to year 2 students will be strongly recommended. The mask mandates are especially cruel to young children. By hiding teachers’ lips and muffling their speech, mask wearing makes it harder for young children to develop linguistic skills and prevents children that have hearing impairments from lip-reading. The lack of facial cues opens up both students and teachers to misinterpretation of one another. This is especially true for children on the autism spectrum. How are children supposed to develop social skills when they cannot see one another’s faces?
Researchers from a university in Germany have listed other problems. They established an online registry for parents to report the side effects of mask wearing in children. Of the nearly 18 000 parents who chose to respond, more than half reported that masks were giving their children headaches and making it difficult for them to concentrate. More than one-third reported other side effects. These included an increased reluctance to go to school, unhappiness, malaise, impaired learning, drowsiness and fatigue.
The World Health Organization provides guidelines on its website. These guidelines say that children aged five years and under should not be required to wear masks. WHO and UNICEF advise that decisions to use masks for children aged six to 11 should be based on the following factors: specific settings and the interaction that the child has with other people who are at high risk of developing serious illness, such as the elderly or those with underlying health conditions; and the potential impact of wearing a mask on learning and psychosocial development, in consultation with teachers, parents, caregivers and/or their medical providers. In other words, you need to consult the parents as well as take into consideration medical conditions and their teachers. They also talk about adequate adult supervision and instructions for a child to put on a mask or take it off and wear it safely. They also talk about access to masks as well as laundering and replacement of masks in certain settings such as school services. They also talk about the ability of a child— (Time expired)
Metro Tunnel
Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan—Leader of the Opposition) (22:38): (1572) My matter is for the attention of the Minister for Transport Infrastructure in the other place, and it concerns the Metro Tunnel project and the work that is going on around Dorcas Street and in particular the St Kilda Road issue in the Domain precinct. The draft development plan that has been released for Dorcas Street to Kings Way lays out a plan to remove 221 car parking spaces from the Domain precinct.
A member interjected.
Mr DAVIS: No, that would be right. They do not answer. They are very secretive on all of this. Appendix C indicates that all the car parking spaces along St Kilda Road on the western side between Kings Way and Bowen Crescent and on the eastern side between Toorak Road West and Bromby Street are to be removed. This is going to have a very significant impact on the access of people, trades and taxis. The current parking spaces are very often full, so there is going to be a real impact. There is often illegal parking in the area as well. This is going to hit access, hit property values. There will be a reduction in parking overall in the Domain precinct, and yet there are new residential complexes that will be opened as time goes forward.
Now, Margaret Ricardo from City Condos at 416 St Kilda Road has written to me—and I think to Ms Crozier as well—and correctly drawn attention to this problem. The state government claim they are consulting, but they are not actually listening. I want a reconsideration by Minister Allan. It is time she actually began listening to the community. Perhaps she would like to come to a meeting in the park. I will find a location, and I would be happy to host a meeting with her and many of the local community.
One solution that is proposed by Ms Ricardo is changing tram stop number 22 to two tracks and two platforms—she points to some examples on Commercial Road—instead of three tracks and platforms, which would enable parking spaces in the area to be retained. This is one thing that could be looked at; there may be other solutions. On the western side, between Kings Way and Bowen Lane, a bicycle lane, a vehicle parking lane and one traffic lane could exist between the nature strip and the median strip. A second traffic lane could be reinstated between the median strip and the tram stop. This could be done without removing existing trees. Similarly parallel parking could be retained on the eastern side of St Kilda Road between Toorak Road West and Bromby Street. All these are very sensible suggestions, but the truth is the government just blunders on, does not listen to the community, does not engage properly and often does not understand the impact that its proposals and its projects are having. What I would ask is that the minister meet with the community, reconsider this project and actually take on board their very practical and sensible suggestions.
COVID-19
Mr QUILTY (Northern Victoria) (22:42): (1573) My adjournment matter tonight is for the Minister for Health—for a change. Today my office saw an elderly gentleman who was angry that this government is not thinking logically, not caring about the impact of the government’s rules in not providing easy access to a COVID certificate. This is a senior member of our community who has little to no understanding of smartphones, MyGov or the Medicare Plus app and still struggles with QR check-ins. Over the past 20 months he has followed the rules—sanitised, isolated, covered his face with a mask and been double vaccinated. He has done what the government asked of him, for his safety and the safety of his community. His frustration at having to be responsible for tracking down a way to prove he is fully vaccinated drove him to my office.
He came in after spending time on the phone to Medicare, following the prompts talking him through all the options, only to be told that he can obtain a certificate online. There was no person at the end of the line, just a computerised voice offering no solution. His limited mobility sees him unable to stand in line for hours on end at a Medicare office or to have a COVID certificate supplied. His doctor has supplied him with a printout of his vaccination history which shows not only his COVID vaccinations but all previous vaccinations that are not needed anyway for entry rights. It is printed on an A4 piece of paper with a doctor’s signature. The potential for this to become creased or torn as he needs to pull it out of his pocket every time he is required to prove his vaccination status has him concerned about how long it will last, or indeed if it will be accepted. He came in with a simple question: why can’t the government organise a card like a Medicare card to be sent to everyone once they are double vaccinated? It is easy to put in your wallet and sturdy enough to last. He wanted to know why the onus of organising proof lies at the feet of the public, especially the elderly, who have the least accessibility to and understanding of the online processes.
Now, it is no secret I am not a fan of the vaccine passports and everything related to them, but here I am raising the issues of a constituent who has come in. The action I seek is for the minister to provide an easy solution to those that do not have access to or the ability to download a digital COVID certificate.
COVID-19
Mrs McARTHUR (Western Victoria) (22:44): (1574) My adjournment matter is for the Premier and concerns the gaping divide between Victoria and New South Wales as our northern cousins begin their journey towards freedom and recovery while Victorians continue to languish under the yoke of this increasingly incompetent government. New South Wales enjoys many things that Victoria does not, such as the Sydney Opera House, Mount Kosciusko or even the Blue Mountains. Clearly we can add competent government to this list. Yesterday New South Wales, with a 70 per cent double-vaccination rate, began opening up their economy, releasing millions of their citizens from 106 days of lockdown and giving much-needed relief to thousands of struggling businesses. New South Wales Premier Dominic Perrottet was quoted yesterday as saying:
I see it as a day of freedom. It is a freedom day.
Imagine that: a premier that actually celebrates—and actively celebrates—the burgeoning freedom of their citizens, rather than regularly berating them or blaming a different population group each day for the abject failure of their own government’s pandemic response. In stark contrast with the citizens of New South Wales enjoying their freedom by sitting in pubs, cafes and restaurants, the long-suffering people of Victoria have to put up with rumours abounding that the Andrews government may delay their measly easing of restrictions even further.
Having learned nothing from the example provided by New South Wales, the Victorian contact-tracing regime appears just as hopeless as when this government killed 801 people following their quarantine catastrophe—something I am happy to remind the Premier about in case he does not recall. With Victoria in day 70 of a seven-day lockdown and recording 1466 new locally acquired cases in the last 24 hours, compared to 360 in New South Wales, it is difficult to say what is more ridiculous—this government’s assertion of a ‘short, sharp lockdown to flatten the curve’, now in its ninth week, or its repeated assurance that it has the situation in hand.
The Victorian people are looking across the border and seeing a state enjoying the fruits of their hard-won freedom, guided by a government that is willing to invest in the freedom of its own people. Comparing this to our own situation surely is a recipe for despair. So the action I seek is for the Premier to take a leaf out of Premier Perrottet’s leadership manifesto and return freedom to Victoria, specifically any local government area that reaches 70 per cent double vaccination.
Sunbury Day Hospital
Mr FINN (Western Metropolitan) (22:47): (1575) I wish to raise a matter this evening for the attention of the Minister for Health. Every day—or just about every day, anyway—I travel to Sunbury via Bulla Road and Sunbury Road. Over recent times I have noticed the building of the toxic soil dump that has been going on, and it looks like it is coming to completion. I am amazed at the size of the thing, to start with. I would be surprised if you could not actually see it from the moon. It is quite a substantial development. On the other side of the road, of course, there are other developments. There are residential developments. There is one that is directly opposite the toxic soil dump, there is one that is next door and another one that is next door, and they are all building homes. They are all building homes that families will move into, and of course they will all be breathing in the toxic dust because, as we know, Sunbury and Bulla are very, very windy places—I can vouch for that—and the wind will pick up this stuff and carry it.
Mrs McArthur interjected.
Mr FINN: That is right. As I travelled into Sunbury I then passed the Sunbury Day Hospital, a proposal that I first put up back in 1996, a long time ago.
A member: Last century!
Mr FINN: It was last century. It was put up and finally built, but in no way was it built to reach its full potential, and this is what I am asking the Minister for Health to actually finalise tonight. My view is that this day hospital needs an oncology ward. If the government is going to create a situation where the people of Bulla and the people of Sunbury are going to be exposed to carcinogens and they are going to be exposed to the possibility of contracting cancer, the very least this government can do is to provide an oncology unit at the Sunbury Day Hospital to treat the local people when they contract cancer.
COVID-19 vaccination
Ms BATH (Eastern Victoria) (22:50): (1576) My adjournment matter is for the Minister for Health in the other place and it is on behalf of the VFF, the Victorian Farmers Federation, and indeed the president, Emma Germano. I was speaking with her today. Vaccine-authorised worker lists certainly include the agricultural sector, which includes but is not limited to farming activities in the form of agriculture, horticulture, viticulture, irrigation, permaculture, apiculture, grains, fibre production, dairy, flower industry, commercial fishing, aquaculture and livestock, to name a few, and the sector needs clarity.
The VFF recently wrote to the minister and asked the minister to prioritise vaccination of workers and their employees under the current mandatory rules and is yet to receive a response. This was some time ago. On the cusp of 15 October, they are justifiably anxious about having their valid questions answered. Indeed an email that Emma Germano sent to members of Parliament today said, and I quote:
Industry groups have been talking to farmers non-stop since the announcement was made and all of us just want to be able to pass on accurate information and support our growers in a timely manner.
Ms Emma Germano also goes on to talk about a variety of other questions that she would like answered:
Will employers be left in the lurch about whether their workers can work?
Are employers going to be at risk under industrial relations laws?
How do we avoid breaches of worker’s privacy and who can request this personal information of vaccination status?
And what types of penalties will be incurred? Under a cloud of labour shortages and facing peak harvest season, farmers, workers and their families deserve an answer on what is workable in the future. So the action I seek from the minister is to address all of the questions that the VFF has raised with the minister and to do so immediately to alleviate the significant stress that the industry is facing and enable our ag sector to continue its vital role in feeding, nourishing and clothing Victorians.
COVID-19
Ms CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan) (22:52): (1577) My adjournment matter this evening is for the Minister for Health. Today the minister made a big statement and had a media release about getting 1000 healthcare workers from international jurisdictions to come back to Victoria or to return to Victoria and come and work in Victoria. Now, this is a big headline. Of course our health system is under enormous pressure. The government has failed to prepare our health system for the COVID crisis that we are facing. I have said it many times—it is an absolute shambles. The response has been an absolute shambles, and as a result healthcare workers are tired. They are leaving in droves. They are finding it extremely challenging, and that is all because the government has failed to prepare our healthcare system. Whether it is our hospitals or our paramedics, all of our healthcare system is feeling the pressure.
And we have got this headline today, ‘More support for our hardworking healthcare workers’. Well, where has it been? It is now 12 October and the government is making this announcement. We are in the longest lockdown in the world—in the world. We are having the worst outcomes, the highest numbers of cases anywhere in this country and we have got this crisis on our hands, and this government has finally said, ‘We’d better do something’. So they are recruiting. And I want to go to one point of this media release, where it says:
To be eligible, healthcare workers will need to have an existing employment contract with a Victorian health service, have active professional registration, and be ready to travel.
Now, the government is saying in their big fanfare announcement today that there would be 1000 healthcare workers that want to return home as part of this package designed to help ease the pressure on our current health system. So the action I am seeking from the minister is to outline which healthcare services have already got international healthcare workers having an existing employment contract with a Victorian health service, as the media release suggests is required before these 1000 healthcare workers can be in place in our health services. And I would also like to know from the minister: at what time does he think all these 1000 healthcare workers are going to be on the ground in our healthcare services?
Tutor learning initiative
Ms VAGHELA (Western Metropolitan) (1578)
Incorporated pursuant to order of Council of 7 September:
My adjournment matter is directed to the Deputy Premier, Minister for Education and Minister for Mental Health, the Honourable James Merlino, MP. This adjournment matter relates to the portfolio responsibilities of education.
The pandemic has impacted all of us, including our young Victorians.
While our education system adapted quickly to the sudden change in the way education is delivered, the Andrews Labor government wants to make sure that not one school student is left behind.
Some students have thrived during remote learning; however, there is no denying some are struggling. Students who have struggled the most during the pandemic include those who have low levels of English, those who are at risk of disengagement or those with home environments not supportive of online learning.
In 2021, more than 6400 tutors in Victorian schools supported over 200 000 students across the state, thanks to a $250 million package announced in 2020.
Thousands of retired and preservice teachers came forward to support students with their studies. Dedicated and personalised learning has supported students and helped them re-engage with learning.
Now we are further supporting students by extending support. Victorian schools will receive a further $230 million to keep the tutor program going next year.
The action I seek from the minister is to provide me with an update on how students in the Western Metropolitan Region are being supported through this fantastic program.
Responses
Ms STITT (Western Metropolitan—Minister for Workplace Safety, Minister for Early Childhood) (22:55): There were 10 adjournment matters this evening to a range of ministers, and written responses will be provided in accordance with the standing orders.
The PRESIDENT: The house stands adjourned.
House adjourned 10.55 pm.