Wednesday, 13 October 2021
The SPEAKER (Hon. Colin Brooks) took the chair at 9.02 am and read the prayer.
Announcements
Acknowledgement of country
The SPEAKER (09:03): We acknowledge the traditional Aboriginal owners of the land on which we are meeting. We pay our respects to them, their culture, their elders past, present and future, and elders from other communities who may be here today.
Business of the house
Notices of motion and orders of the day
The SPEAKER (09:03): I wish to advise the house that general business, notices of motion 1 to 8 and 43 and orders of the day 2 and 3, will be removed from the notice paper unless members wishing their matter to remain advise the Clerk in writing before 1.00 pm today.
Documents
Documents
Incorporated list as follows:
DOCUMENTS TABLED UNDER ACTS OF PARLIAMENT—The Deputy Clerk tabled the following documents under Acts of Parliament:
Auditor-General:
Administration of Victorian Courts—Ordered to be published
Protecting Victoria’s Biodiversity—Ordered to be published
Planning and Environment Act 1987—Notices of approval of amendments to the Victoria Planning Provisions—VC202, VC212.
Bills
Essential Services Commission (Compliance and Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill 2021
Council’s agreement
The SPEAKER (09:04): I wish to advise the house that I have received a message from the Legislative Council agreeing to the Essential Services Commission (Compliance and Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill 2021 without amendment.
Forests Legislation Amendment (Compliance and Enforcement) Bill 2019
Royal assent
The SPEAKER (09:04): I wish to inform the house that the Governor has given royal assent to the Forests Legislation Amendment (Compliance and Enforcement) Bill 2019.
Health Legislation Amendment (Information Sharing) Bill 2021
Referral to committee
Ms KEALY (Lowan) (09:04): By leave, I desire to move:
That the proposals contained in the Health Legislation Amendment (Information Sharing) Bill 2021 be referred to the Legal and Social Issues Standing Committee for inquiry, consideration and report.
Leave refused.
Business of the house
Notices of motion
Ms ALLAN (Bendigo East—Leader of the House, Minister for Transport Infrastructure, Minister for the Suburban Rail Loop) (09:05): I advise that the government does not wish to proceed with its notice of motion today and ask that it remain on the notice paper.
Bills
Sex Work Decriminalisation Bill 2021
Statement of compatibility
Ms HORNE (Williamstown—Minister for Ports and Freight, Minister for Consumer Affairs, Gaming and Liquor Regulation, Minister for Fishing and Boating) (09:06): In accordance with the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 I table a statement of compatibility in relation to the Sex Work Decriminalisation Bill 2021:
In accordance with section 28 of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (the Charter), I make this statement of compatibility with respect to the Sex Work Decriminalisation Bill 2021 (the Bill).
In my opinion, the Bill as introduced to the Legislative Assembly is compatible with the human rights protected by the Charter. I base my opinion on the reasons outlined in this statement.
Overview of the Bill
The main objective of the Bill is to decriminalise sex work and transition the sex work industry into existing regulatory environments.
The Bill decriminalises sex work by repealing the Sex Work Act 1994 (SW Act) and removing offences and criminal penalties for participating in consensual sex work, including partially abolishing street-based sex work offences and repealing public health offences associated with sex work. The Bill will facilitate regulation of the sex work industry through existing specialist responsible agencies, including WorkSafe, Department of Health and the Victorian Commission for Gaming and Liquor Regulation (VCGLR).
The Bill will:
• repeal the SW Act in full;
• abolish the current sex work industry regulatory framework, including dismantling the sex work service provider licensing system under the SW Act and remove registration requirements for exempt small owner operators;
• decriminalise street-based sex work in most locations, by repealing offences under the SW Act and creating a new offence under the Summary Offences Act 1966 (Summary Offences Act);
• repeal public health offences mandating STI testing and safer sex practices;
• re-enact offences relating to children and coercion from the SW Act to the Crimes Act 1958 (Crimes Act);
• introduce anti-discrimination protections for sex workers under the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 (EO Act);
• develop a consistent, principles-based definition of ‘commercial sexual services’ to be included across all relevant legislation;
• repeal controls and restrictions on advertising sex work services under the SW Act and re-enact a power to make regulations pertaining to advertising in the Summary Offences Act; and
• allow sex work businesses that also provide sexually explicit entertainment to apply for a liquor licence under the Liquor Control Reform Act 1998 (LCR Act).
Amendments by reform topic
For the purposes of analysis against the Charter, the provisions of the Bill were categorised by reform topic:
A. Cumulative impact of reform on women and LGBTIQ+ communities
B. Street sex work offences
C. Public health offences for sex work
D. Offences relating to children
E. Offences relating to forced work
F. Anti-discrimination protections
G. Sex work advertising controls
H. Sex work licensing and registration system
I. Planning controls and powers to proscribe brothels
Human Rights Issues
The Bill impacts the following human rights under the Charter:
• recognition and equality before the law (section 8)
• protection from torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment (section 10)
• freedom from forced work (section 11)
• freedom of movement (section 12)
• privacy and reputation (section 13)
• freedom of expression (section 15)
• protection of families and children (section 17)
• property rights (section 20)
• rights in criminal proceedings (section 25)
For the following reasons, I am satisfied that the Bill is compatible with the Charter and promotes the protection of human rights. Where rights are limited by the Bill, the limitations already exist in the current legislative framework and those limitations are reasonable and demonstrably justified having regard to the factors in section 7(2) of the Charter.
Analysis of Reforms and Human Rights Implications
A. Cumulative impact of reform on women and LGBTIQ+ communities
• recognition and equality before the law (section 8 of the Charter)—promoted
The repeal of the SW Act and controls for the sex work industry generally promotes the right to equality before the law (section 8) for women and LGBTIQ+ communities. This is a cumulative impact of the amendments outlined to street sex work offences (section B), public health offences (section C), sex work advertising controls (section G), sex work licensing and registration system (section H) and planning controls (section I).
The protection of the right to recognition and equality before the law reflects that every person holds the same human rights by virtue of being human, rather than because of a particular characteristic or membership of a particular group. Sex workers face discrimination on the basis of their occupation in a number of areas, including access to goods and services, housing and accommodation, seeking other employment and access to justice.
This has a disproportionate impact on women and LGBTIQ+ communities, who have historically made up a large portion of this workforce. Decriminalising sex work and repealing the sex work licensing system will have the effect of destigmatising and legitimising sex work and thereby ultimately reducing discrimination against these communities, thereby promoting section 8 of the Charter.
Further, repealing the laws which criminalise undertaking sex work will enable women and LGBTIQ+ people who work in the sex industry to better access the rights and protections afforded to other community members. Decriminalisation is expected to enhance their ability to exercise other Charter rights by increasing the likelihood that they report instances of violence, mistreatment, or suspected trafficking out of fear of prosecution.
The Bill will also promote the right to equality before the law to sex workers more broadly through introducing a new protected attribute to the EO Act, discussed below (section H). However, section 8 of the Charter will not be engaged in respect of promoting equality on the basis of the new protected attribute (‘profession, trade or occupation’) until after the Bill’s proposed amendments are in force.
B. Street sex work offences
• privacy and reputation (section 13 of the Charter)—promoted
• recognition and equality before the law (section 8 of the Charter)—promoted
• freedom of movement (section 12 of the Charter)—potentially limited, promoted in some circumstances
• freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief (section 14 of the Charter)—potentially promoted
• protection of families and children (section 17 of the Charter)—potentially promoted
The Bill decriminalises consensual sex work between adults, including by abolishing street-based sex work offences except where the sex work occurs at or near places of worship and certain places where children frequent and at specified times.
A new offence, to be located in the Summary Offences Act, partially re-enacts existing offences in the SW Act and imposes higher penalties for street-based sex work which occurs in or near a place of worship, a hospital, a school, education and care service premises, children’s services centre or any other place where children may gather. The new offence will apply during the hours of 6a.m. to 7p.m. and on prescribed religious days.
Decriminalising the commercial exchange of sexual services between consenting adults will promote the right to privacy and reputation (section 13), a right which is connected to concepts of personal autonomy and human dignity. Decriminalising sex work removes the power of government to dictate the terms upon which consenting adults can have sexual relations noting that these decisions concern bodily autonomy and should be considered private decisions. Decriminalising sex work also allows sex workers and others associated with the industry to make free and fair choices about their participation in a lawful industry.
While the retention of an offence in relation to street-based sex work at or near places of worship and certain places where children frequent may limit the ability of sex workers to conduct employment activities in areas of their choosing, thereby potentially limiting their right to freedom of movement (section 12), this limitation would be considered proportionate, reasonable and necessary to promote the protection of children (section 17) and the right to practice religion (section 14). Retaining the offence will ensure that community standards in relation to the protection of children and preservation of religious spaces is met. By including prescribed hours and days to the offence, the right is limited in the least restrictive way to promote the protection of children and right to practice religion. Further, any potential limitation on freedom of movement in this way is not one which restricts the rights of sex workers to access educational, health or social services, or to exercise cultural rights.
The Bill will also repeal Part 2A of the SW Act (sections 21B to 21K), which allows a police officer who suspects that a person is loitering in, frequenting or in a public place to solicit or invite others to offer sex work services within a declared area to give that person a notice banning the person from the declared area for a time which does not exceed 72 hours. This only applies to clients, not workers.
Section 12 of the Charter provides that every person lawfully within Victoria has the right to move freely within Victoria, to enter and leave it and the freedom to choose where to live within Victoria. Repealing Part 2A of the SW Act promotes the right to freedom of movement (Section 12) by removing a broad power to restrict the movement of persons inviting or soliciting sex work regardless of whether or not they are working or engaging in certain conduct. To ensure the continued protection of children (section 17) and right to practice religion (section 14), an offence is retained in relation to street-based sex work at or near places of worship and places where children frequent, as noted above.
Although section 16 of the SW Act, which provides penalties for offensive behaviour towards sex workers, is repealed, the rights of street-based sex workers will continue to be supported through existing protections in section 17 of the Summary Offences Act.
C. Public health offences for sex work
• recognition and equality before the law (section 8 of the Charter)—promoted
• privacy and reputation (section 13 of the Charter)—promoted
• freedom from cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment (section 10 of the Charter)—promoted
Under the SW Act, it is currently an offence for sex workers and clients not to adopt safer sex practices, for an infected sex worker to be permitted to work in a brothel and for sex workers to work while infected. These offences are intended to promote public health, but make assumptions about sex work and sexually transmitted diseases that is not based on evidence. Evidence indicates that Australian and Victorian sex workers have comparatively higher rates of compliance with safer sex practices and lower rates of sexually transmitted infections than the general population.
In addition, existing criminal laws that make it an offence to recklessly cause (or engage in conduct that may cause) serious injury, including infecting someone with a sexually transmitted disease, already apply to the sex work industry.
To address sex work stigma and treat the sex work industry in an equivalent manner to other industries, the Bill is repealing public health offences from the SW Act. Repealing these offences will promote the right to recognition and equality before the law (section 8) for women and LGBTIQ+ communities who make up the historical majority of sex workers by ensuring they are not needlessly subject to different workplace health and safety laws that are not evidence-based.
The repeal of these offences will also promote the right to privacy and reputation (section 13), as well as protection from torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment (section 10), as sex workers will no longer be required to undergo mandatory sexual health testing which reinforces the harmful ‘vectors of disease’ stereotype, frames sex workers as a risk to the wider public, fuels sex work stigma and is used to justify discriminatory practices.
D. Offences relating to children
• rights in criminal proceedings (section 25 of the Charter)—relevant
• protection of families and children (section 17 of the Charter)—promoted
• freedom from forced work (section 11 of the Charter)—promoted
• privacy and reputation (section 13 of the Charter)—relevant
• freedom of movement (section 12 of the Charter)—limited
• recognition and equality before the law (section 9 of the Charter)—limited
Section 17(2) of the Charter recognises that every child has the right, without discrimination, to such protection as is in their best interests and is needed by them by reason of being a child. The Bill promotes the protection of children (section 17) under the Charter by preserving criminal offences relating to the protection of children by re-locating relevant offences from the SW Act to Part I Division 1 Subdivision (8FAA) of the Crimes Act and Part I Division 3A of the Summary Offences Act with necessary amendments. The preserved offences are as follows:
• Causing or inducing a child to take part in commercial sexual services, adapted from Section 5 SW Act;
• Obtaining a commercial benefit, payment or reward for commercial sexual services provided by a child, adapted from Section 6 SW Act;
• Agreement for provision of commercial sexual services by a child, adapted from Section 7 SW Act;
• Allowing a child to take part in commercial sexual services, adapted from Section 11 SW Act; and
• Offence to allow child on premises used for commercial sexual services, adapted from Section 11A SW Act.
The Bill also expands the definition of ‘commercial sexual services’ in the Crimes Act to ensure persons (including children) are protected from sexual exploitation regardless of:
• the type of sex work undertaken (including both online, in person, and the number of sexual activities that may cause arousal without penetration, nudity or masturbation),
• the type of commercial payment, benefit or reward received for the service (including money, drugs of dependence, and gifts), or
• the person to whom the commercial benefit, payment or reward was provided to (including both the service provider and any other person).
I acknowledge that this definition may consequently broaden the range of conduct caught by offences currently contained in both the SW Act and the Crimes Act. However, given that the conduct proscribed by the offences involve child sex and/or sexual acts, violence, intimidation, blackmail, coercion, detention, misinformation and drugs, expanding the kinds of sexual activity that fall within the ambit of the offences is consistent with the policy intent of the offences. Put another way, a person must engage in some other criminal activity to be caught by the offence, and so the breadth of ‘commercial sexual services’ should not result in any unfair criminal sanction. Ultimately, this broadened definition is justifiable based upon the importance of ensuring that all forms of forced sex work is prohibited to promote the right under section 11 of the Charter not to be held in slavery or servitude and not to be made to perform forced or compulsory labour.
Under each of the offences relating to children in the Bill, it is a defence for the accused to prove that, having taken all reasonable steps to find out the age of the person concerned, the accused believed on reasonable grounds, at the time the offence is alleged to have been committed, that the person concerned was aged 18 years or more.
The right to a presumption of innocence (section 25) is a fundamental tenet of the common law and is tied to the principle that the prosecution bears the burden of proof and must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Applying strict liability or absolute liability to an offence or reversing the onus of proof, can be considered a limitation of the presumption of innocence (section 25) because a defendant can be found guilty, or an element of the offence proven, without the prosecution being required to prove fault. This essentially increases the risk that an innocent person could be convicted of the offence. The availability of this ‘reasonable steps’ statutory defence substantially mitigates the risk of an innocent person being convicted of causing or inducing a child to take part in an act of sex work.
Some provisions in these re-enacted provisions include a limitation on the rights of an accused in criminal proceedings (section 25) because it interferes with the principle that a person is presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law and effectively reversing the onus of proof. These are outlined below.
The Bill states that in the circumstance, if it is proved that the accused was residing with a sex worker who was a child, the accused must be presumed to be guilty of the offence in the absence of proof to the contrary. This is adapted from section 6(3) of the SW Act. This limitation of the right to a presumption of innocence (section 25) is justified due to the seriousness of the crime of obtaining payment for sexual services provided by a child, the particular vulnerability of children and need for children to be protected from predatory behaviour, and the particular difficulty for the prosecution to meet the legal burden of proving the offences. The availability of the ‘reasonable steps’ statutory defence to an accused, outlined above, also substantially limits the risk that an innocent person could be convicted of the offence.
The Bill states that a person who owns or occupies any premises or who manages or assists in the management of any premises who allows a child to enter or remain on the premises for the purpose of taking part in an act of sex work, whether as the sex worker or as the client or in any other capacity, the accused must be presumed to be guilty. This is adapted from section 11(1) of the SW Act. There are two defences to this, which are the ‘all reasonable steps’ defence outlined above and satisfying the court on the balance of probabilities that the accused did not know, and could not reasonably have known, that a child was on those premises for that purpose at the time the offence is alleged to have been committed.
This limitation of the right to a presumption of innocence (section 25) is justified as it only relates to premises used for the purposes of the operation of a brothel where a higher standard of vigilance is warranted from the accused, the seriousness of the crime of allowing children to take part in sex work, the particular vulnerability of children and need for children to be protected from predatory behaviour, and the particular difficulty for the prosecution to meet the legal burden of proving the offence. The availability of the ‘reasonable steps’ statutory defence to an accused, outlined above, and additional defence for circumstances where the accused could not have reasonably known that the child was at the premises, also substantially limits the risk that an innocent person could be convicted of the offence.
Accordingly, I consider an appropriate balance has been struck between the creation of absolute liability offences, in which the accused would be liable irrespective of what reasonable efforts they had taken to ascertain the person’s age, and offences which include a requirement that actual knowledge of the person being underage be proven in light of the importance of protecting children (the latter being very difficult to prosecute).
The Bill prohibits children over 18 months from entering or remaining in a brothel for any purpose whatsoever. This is adapted from section 11A of the SW Act. This is a limit on the freedom of movement (section 12) and right to equality before the law (section 8) of children over 18 months but one that is proportionate to the need to protect children (section 17) by preventing children from being exposed to sex work or being exploited.
The Bill provides that if a police officer has reason to believe that a person in a brothel appears to be under the age of 18 years, they may demand particulars of the person’s age and request evidence if they consider the particulars supplied to be false. This is adapted from section 59(1) of the SW Act. A person who refuses or fails to give particulars, gives false particulars or supplies any false evidence is liable to a penalty. This offence impacts the right not to have one’s privacy unlawfully or arbitrarily interfered with (section 13) by requiring individuals to disclose personal information to a police officer. However, there is no limitation on this right, since the interference in this case is lawful and not arbitrary, being only exercisable where a police officer has reason to believe a person in a brothel is under the age of 18 years. Further, the interference with the right to privacy is justified to ensure the protection of children (section 17) from exposure to sex work or sexual exploitation.
E. Offences relating to forced work
• freedom from forced work (section 11 of the Charter)—promoted
Section 11 of the Charter recognises that a person must not be held in slavery or servitude and must not be made to perform forced or compulsory labour. The Bill promotes freedom from forced work (section 11) by preserving criminal offences relating to coercion by re-locating these offences to Part I Division 1 Subdivision (8FAA) of the Crimes Act with necessary amendments. The preserved offences are as follows:
• Forcing person into or to remain in commercial sexual service, adapted from section 8 of the SW Act;
• Forcing person to provide financial support out of commercial sexual services, adapted from section 9 of the SW Act -; and
• Living on earnings of a person providing unlawful commercial sexual services, adapted from section 10 of the SW Act.
I anticipate that maintaining these offences will empower sex workers to more freely exert their rights, including by reporting instances of misconduct (including forced work) by employers.
F. Anti-discrimination protections
• recognition and equality before the law (section 8 of the Charter)—promoted
• property rights (section 20 of the Charter)—relevant
Section 8(3) of the Charter provides that every person is entitled to equal protection of the law without discrimination and has the right to equal and effective protection against discrimination. The purpose of this component of the right to equality is to ensure that all laws and policies are applied equally, and do not have a discriminatory effect, whether directly or indirectly.
‘Discrimination’ under the Charter is defined by reference to the EO Act, which defines discrimination as indirect or direct discrimination on the basis of an attribute contained in section 6 of the EO Act. Section 6 of the EO Act lists protected attributes including disability, age, race and sex. Whilst “employment activity” is a protected attribute, it relates to activities specific to employee entitlements. Currently, discriminating against a person on the basis of their profession, trade or occupation does not constitute discrimination under the EO Act.
Sex workers are reported to experience discrimination due to their occupation, for example when applying for housing or financial products. In order to protect sex workers from discrimination based on their participation in sex work, the Bill introduces a new protected attribute for ‘profession, trade or occupation’ into section 6 of the EO Act. This amendment is intended to prevent discrimination by promoting the right of sex workers to recognition and equality before the law but may also have broader benefits in promoting the rights of other cohorts who face discrimination and stigma as a result of their occupation. To ensure the amendment does not have unforeseen consequences, the Bill also amends the EO Act to provide an exception for discrimination based on this new protected attribute, making it lawful to discriminate on the basis of a person’s profession, trade or occupation if the experience in a particular profession, trade or occupation is a genuine occupational requirement for the position and it is reasonable to discriminate on that basis in those circumstances.
This will ensure sex workers’ right to recognition and equality before the law (section 8) is appropriately considered into the future.
Section 20 of the Charter provides that a person must not be deprived of their property other than in accordance with law. ‘Property’ under the Charter includes all real and personal property interests recognised under the general law, including contractual rights and leases. A ‘deprivation’ of property may occur not just where there is a forced transfer or extinguishment of title, but where there is a substantial restriction on a person’s use or enjoyment of their property. In line with the intention of the Bill to remove all forms of discrimination against sex workers, it also repeals section 62 of the EO Act which allows a person to refuse accommodation to another person on the basis that they intend to use the accommodation for lawful sexual activity on a commercial basis.
While repealing section 62 may potentially deprive accommodation providers of certain aspects of controlling the use of their property, the right to property (section 20) will only be limited where a person is deprived of property ‘other than in accordance with the law’. For a deprivation of property to be ‘in accordance with the law’, the law must be publicly accessible, clear and certain, and must not operate arbitrarily. As any deprivation of property will be in accordance with the law, I consider that the right to property is not limited by the repeal of section 62 of the EO Act.
G. Sex work advertising controls
• freedom of expression (section 15 of the Charter)—relevant
• protection of families and children (section 17 of the Charter)—promoted
• recognition and equality before the law (section 8 of the Charter)—relevant
Section 15 of the Charter provides that every person has the right to hold an opinion without interference and every person has the right to freedom of expression which includes the freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, including through the media, by way of art or in any other medium. Subsection 15(3) recognises that this right may be subject to lawful restrictions reasonably necessary (a) to respect the rights and reputation of other persons; or (b) for the protection of, among other things, public morality.
The advertising of sex work is currently regulated under the SW Act and prevents sex work businesses from advertising job vacancies or from advertising in a way that at all describes the services offered. The current restrictions in the SW Act have a significant impact on the women and LGBTIQ+ communities who make up the historical majority of sex workers, who experience significant barriers to finding work or changing jobs, and are placed in the strange and dangerous position of not being able to describe what services they will or will not provide, compromising their ability to negotiate and establish consent with clients.
Current advertising controls in the SW Act will be repealed. To ensure the continued appropriate regulation on sex work advertising, the Bill expands the regulation-making power contained in the Summary Offences Act to make regulations:
• for, or with respect to, the size, form and content of advertisements for commercial sexual services;
• prohibiting the advertising of commercial sexual services in specified publications, or class of publications, or in a specified manner; and
• generally regulating the publication of advertisements for commercial sexual services.
The Bill impacts the right to freedom of expression (section 15) to the extent that it introduces regulation making powers in relation to sex work advertising and/or makes it an offence to breach the regulations. However, inappropriate advertising signage has the potential to impact public amenity and the character and image of local government areas. There is also the risk of inadvertently exposing children to sex work via signage and other promotion. Thus, any limitation on advertisement of sex work is in keeping with community standards and morality, and is reasonably necessary to protect children (section 17) from exposure to sexual content.
H. Sex work licensing and registration system
• recognition and equality before the law (section 8 of the Charter)—promoted
• privacy and reputation (section 13 of the Charter)—promoted
In Victoria, the current regulatory system for sex work is licensing, as set out in Part 3 of the SW Act, and supported by an offence in Part 2 section 15 of the SW Act regarding being in, entering or leaving an unlicensed brothel.
The licensing system is enforced through the criminalisation of all sex work that occurs without holding a licence, in breach of a licence’s conditions, or while a licence is suspended (section 22 of the SW Act). The SW Act makes an exception for small owner-operator businesses, Under the SW Act, small owner-operators, or private sex workers, must currently register with the Business Licensing Authority (BLA) and obtain a Sex Work Act Number (SWA) in order to lawfully operate without a licence. The registration process requires private workers to provide the BLA with personal information which is stored in a register. Though not accessible to the public, the register can be accessed by ‘the Director, by members or staff of the Authority or by authorised police officers or authorised officers of the responsible authority’. While sex workers can get SWAs ‘deregistered’ on request, a ‘historical record’ of the registration is kept by the BLA. The BLA also retains the authority to refer relevant matters to authorities including the police, WorkCover, the Australian Taxation Office, the Department of Immigration and Border Protection, Consumer Affairs Victoria and any other body.
Repealing Part 3 will decriminalise the commercial exchange of sexual services between consenting adults and promote the right to privacy and reputation (section 13), a right which is connected to conceptions of personal autonomy and human dignity. Decriminalising sex work removes the power of government to dictate the terms upon which consenting adults can have sexual relations——noting that these decisions concern bodily autonomy and should be considered private decisions. Decriminalising sex work also allows sex workers and others associated with the industry to make free and fair choices about their participation in a lawful industry.
Similarly, the repeal of the registration requirement for small owner-operators or private sex workers promotes the right to privacy and reputation (section 13) as well as the right to recognition and equality before the law (section 8) for the women and LGBTIQ+ communities who make up the historical majority of the sector.
I. Planning controls and powers to proscribe brothels
• Recognition and equality before the law (section 8 of the Charter)—promoted
• Freedom of movement (section 12 of the Charter)—promoted
• Privacy and reputation (section 13 of the Charter)—promoted
The Bill repeals:
• Part 4 of SW Act which sets out planning controls for brothels;
• Part 5 of the SW Act that provides powers to declare businesses that do not comply with the planning and licensing requirements as proscribed brothels; and
• a related offence in Part 2 Section 21A regarding operating a brothel other than in a building.
These controls include specific criteria for planning permits for sex work businesses, restrictions on granting permits, limitations on number of brothels/permits a person can have, specific powers of entry for police with or without a warrant for sex work premises and admissibility of evidence provisions for evidence gathered by police.
Under the SW Act, sex work businesses are prohibited from establishing within 200 metres (other than in parts of the City of Melbourne) of a place of worship, hospital, school, education and care services premises, children’s services centre or any other facility or place regularly frequented by children for recreational or cultural activities. These separation requirements are discriminatory and reinforce harmful social stigma towards sex workers and are a barrier to sex work taking place in safe locations. Removing these requirements promotes the right to recognition and equality (section 8) for the women and LGBTIQ+ communities who historically make up the majority of sex workers and ensure that they are treated the same as any other persons and regulated through planning controls which apply to all businesses in Victoria. This in turn reduces the stigma associated with sex work and the resultant discrimination faced by sex workers, particularly women and LGBTIQ+ communities. Removing these requirements also potentially promotes the right to freedom of movement (section 12) by enabling sex workers to establish business premises in areas of their choosing.
Further, current planning regulations prohibit the establishment of commercial sex work businesses in a range of areas which in practice means commercial sex work businesses have been largely pushed to industrial areas. This means that sex workers are forced to work in industrial areas with a lack of public transport, limited foot traffic and poor lighting which makes a sex worker’s commute to and from work dangerous. Removing these regulations promotes the right to recognition and equality (section 8) by enabling women and LGBTIQ+ communities who make up the majority of sex workers to operate in safe commercial areas, like other similar persons, businesses and workforces.
The SW Act grants police powers of entry and inspection to any licensed sex service premise without the need for a warrant. For unlicensed sex industry premises, power of entry without a warrant is granted in 32 specified circumstances. The SW Act also enables an authorised person who believes land is being used for a brothel to enter and search a premises without having to comply with pre-conditions to entry imposed by the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (which include obtaining consent from the occupier, providing two days’ notice and obtaining a warrant). Repealing these powers of entry will promote the right to privacy (section 13) in protecting an individual’s right not to have their privacy, family, home or correspondence unlawfully or arbitrarily interfered with and not to have his or her reputation unlawfully attacked.
Conclusion
For the above reasons, I consider the Bill to be compatible with the Charter.
THE HON. MELISSA HORNE
MINISTER FOR CONSUMER AFFAIRS, GAMING AND LIQUOR REGULATION
Second reading
Ms HORNE (Williamstown—Minister for Ports and Freight, Minister for Consumer Affairs, Gaming and Liquor Regulation, Minister for Fishing and Boating) (09:06): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I ask that my second-reading speech be incorporated into Hansard.
Incorporated speech as follows:
In Victoria, sex work is currently regulated under a legalised model. This means that sex work is only legal if it takes place within the licensing and registration system established by the Sex Work Act 1994 (Sex Work Act). All sex work that occurs outside this system is criminalised.
This system is complex, costly, and onerous. This has led to poor compliance and the growth of a large, unlicensed sex work industry in Victoria, which neither criminalisation nor licensing has been able to eliminate. This has created a complex, dangerous two-tiered industry, where workers have access to different rights and protections under the law purely based on how, where and with whom they work. This has many negative impacts for sex workers and business operators. Sex workers report unsafe working conditions in both the licensed and unlicensed sectors. These issues are exacerbated by the lack of autonomy, stigma and discrimination experienced by sex workers. This has a range of impacts on the health and safety of sex workers at work and in the community.
This system perpetuates stigmatisation of sex work, by proclaiming that sex is a dangerous service in need of extensive government regulation and control. Destigmatising the sex work industry and reducing discrimination is essential for protecting people working in the industry and shifting public perceptions of sex work. Entrenched negative perceptions of the sex work industry impacts sex workers’ mental health, reinforces attitudes that drive violence against sex workers, creates barriers to accessing healthcare, social services and housing, and limits educational and employment opportunities for workers, including those who wish to leave the industry.
This system promotes and enables discrimination against sex workers, who may experience significant barriers simply because of their profession. Criminalisation limits the agency and independence of sex workers to make free and fair choices about their life and participation in a legal industry. It significantly limits their ability to collectively bargain with employers or leave an unsafe workplace, as they cannot readily identify or gain access to alternative employment opportunities within their sector. If identified as a sex worker, particularly if they have a criminal history associated with participating in unlawful sex work, they may experience barriers to services, such as accommodation and financial services.
This system enables harm against sex workers, who report that they are fearful to report crimes to the police due to the risk of self-incrimination. Criminalising sex work reduces sex workers’ access to justice as many sex workers are unwilling to report instances of violence, mistreatment, or suspected trafficking out of fear they may be prosecuted for non-compliance. The current criminalisation approach pushes the sex industry further underground beyond the sight of regulators, support services and the community. The existing framework implies that sex work businesses and sex workers require a criminalisation approach from the government to reduce harm to the community. However, the result of this approach is not less harm for the community, but increased harm to sex workers.
Other models of sex work regulation cause harm to sex workers. Models that criminalise clients or managers but not workers can still make sex work more dangerous for workers. These models are generally designed with the aim of eliminating or suppressing the sex work industry, and do not address the harm, stigma and discrimination experienced by sex workers.
Purpose of this Bill
The Sex Work Decriminalisation Bill recognises that sex work is a legitimate form of work. The Bill will support sex workers’ safety and rights and ensure that sex work is safe work.
The main objective of the Bill is to abolish the sex work licensing system and regulate sex work businesses through mainstream regulators in its place, such as WorkSafe, the Department of Health, Victoria Police and local governments.
Under a decriminalised framework, sex work businesses will be treated in the same way as other Victorian businesses and regulated through standard planning, occupational health and safety and other business laws and regulations that apply to all businesses in Victoria. Victoria Police will remain responsible for enforcing criminal laws.
The Bill is a critical element in delivering a new regulatory framework and the decriminalisation of sex work in Victoria. It will be delivered in conjunction with the development of planning and public health regulatory frameworks, transition activities, and engagement with sex workers and the sex work industry to achieve the intended benefits of decriminalisation.
The approach put forward today is the best option to maximise sex workers’ safety, health and human rights, while also reducing stigma and discrimination by bringing the industry out of the dark and into the light.
How the Bill works
To decriminalise sex work, the Bill will repeal the Sex Work Act and its associated regulations and make a range of consequential amendments and transitional arrangements. The new provisions of the Bill will commence in two stages. Stage One will commence no later than on 1 March 2022. Stage Two will commence no later than on 1 December 2023.
The extended date for Stage Two commencement reflects the significant work still required to prepare for the repeal of the regulatory framework, including the need for WorkSafe to develop health and safety guidelines for workplaces where sex work is occurring and to introduce new planning regulations to guide decision-making following repeal of the Sex Work Act.
Stage One
Stage One will remove offences for participating in consensual sex work. This includes offences relating to street-based sex work and public health.
A new offence will be created in Stage One to prevent street-based sex work from occurring at or near schools, childcare services and places of worship between 6 A.M. and 7 P.M. Street-based sex work also cannot occur at or near places of worship on prescribed holy days, which will be defined in the regulations. We will continue to work with key stakeholders to determine what holy days require exclusions for the entire day.
Independent sex workers, called small owner operators, must currently register their personal details with the Business Licensing Authority to prove they are exempt from the requirement to be licensed. The Bill will close this exempt small owner operator register in Stage One. These small owner operators will continue to be exempt from the licensing requirement, but will no longer need to register.
To establish anti-discrimination protections in Stage One, the Bill will amend the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 to add a new protected attribute of ‘profession, trade or occupation’. The Bill will also repeal section 62, which currently provides that it is lawful for a person to refuse accommodation to another person on the basis that they intend to use it for lawful sexual activity on a commercial basis. These amendments will address discrimination against sex workers and remove barriers to sex work taking place in safe locations.
Stage One will also repeal all legislated advertising controls on sex workers and the sex work industry, so that it is no longer an offence to advertise job vacancies or describe services that are offered at the business. A regulation-making power will be retained.
For the avoidance of doubt, the Bill will also make explicit in Stage One that local laws created by local governments must not be inconsistent with or undermine the intent of the Bill to decriminalise sex work and reduce discrimination against, and harm to, sex workers.
Stage Two
Stage Two will dismantle the sex work licensing and registration framework by repealing the Sex Work Act in full. Repealing the Sex Work Act will mean that sex work businesses will be regulated under standard business laws. For example, sex work business owners can apply for a liquor licence following the removal of the prohibition on supply or consumption of liquor at sex work premises.
An updated definition of ‘commercial sexual services’ will be inserted into the Crimes Act 1958 (Crimes Act) and used across the Victorian statute book. The updated definition is intended to ensure victims are not excluded from seeking justice on the basis of the type of sex work undertaken, the type of payment provided, or who accrued the payment.
The Bill will preserve certain criminal offences relating to children and coercion currently within the Sex Work Act by re-enacting them in the Crimes Act. Additionally, the Bill will create an offence for any person who allows a child to enter or remain at a business premises where commercial sexual services are provided.
The Bill will move the ability to create advertising regulations for commercial sexual services to the Summary Offences Act 1966 (Summary Offences Act). It will be an offence for a person to publish an advertisement for commercial sexual services that contravenes the regulations.
Review of these amendments
The Bill also provides for a review of the operation of the amendments no later than 5 years after Stage Two commences. The Minister will determine the Terms of Reference of the review. Noting this caveat, it is expected that the Review would consider whether the Bill has achieved its stated purpose of reducing discrimination against, and harm to sex workers, as well as the operation of laws, policies and regulations enacted as a result of the repeal of the Sex Work Act. The review will be tabled in Parliament.
This Bill is an important step forward in achieving better public health and human rights outcomes for sex workers in Victoria. Its development was supported by Ms Fiona Patten’s review into decriminalisation of sex work, and I thank her for this important work. These reforms will ensure that every worker in the industry has the same rights and access to the entitlements and protections under law, as they would in any other job.
I commend the Bill to the house.
Ms STALEY (Ripon) (09:07): I move:
That the debate be adjourned.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.
Ordered that debate be adjourned for two weeks. Debate adjourned until Wednesday, 27 October.
Victorian Collaborative Centre for Mental Health and Wellbeing Bill 2021
Statement of compatibility
Mr MERLINO (Monbulk—Minister for Education, Minister for Mental Health, Minister for Disability, Ageing and Carers) (09:08): In accordance with the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 I table a statement of compatibility in relation to the Victorian Collaborative Centre for Mental Health and Wellbeing Bill 2021:
In accordance with section 28 of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (the Charter), I make this statement of compatibility with respect to the Victorian Collaborative Centre for Mental Health and Wellbeing Bill 2021 (the Bill).
In my opinion, the Bill, as introduced to the Legislative Assembly, is compatible with the human rights as set out in the Charter. I base my opinion on the reasons outlined in this statement.
Overview of the Bill
The Bill provides for the establishment of the Victorian Collaborative Centre for Mental Health and Wellbeing (Centre) with certain functions and powers and sets out its governance arrangements. In doing so the Bill discharges recommendations of the Royal Commission into Victoria’s Mental Health System (Royal Commission) Interim and Final Reports.
Human rights issues
In establishing the Centre, this Bill and its guiding principles will promote the right to life (in section 9 of the Charter) and further the legal recognition of and enjoyment of rights of persons with a disability under the law (section 8).
However, although the Bill broadly promotes the right to equality, certain clauses may limit the right in section 8 to the extent discussed in this Statement. Other human rights protected by the Charter are that are relevant to the Bill and discussed below are: the right to privacy and reputation (section 13(a)); and the right to take part in public life (section 18).
Functions of the centre
Clause 8 sets out the functions of the Centre, which include to:
• provide, promote and coordinate the provision of mental health and wellbeing services;
• assist service providers to facilitate and improve access to mental health and wellbeing services;
• provide or arrange the provision of specialist support services and care for persons who have experienced trauma;
• develop strategies for conducting research, and applying and disseminating research findings in the field of mental health and wellbeing;
• conduct, promote and coordinate research in the field of mental health and wellbeing, including in collaboration with other persons and entities—
and various other educational, advisory and reporting functions.
Right to privacy
Section 13(a) of the Charter provides that a person has the right not to have their privacy, family, home or correspondence unlawfully or arbitrarily interfered with. An interference with privacy will be lawful if it is permitted by a law which is precise and appropriately circumscribed and will not be arbitrary provided it is reasonable in the circumstances and just and appropriate to the end sought.
To the extent that the Centre, in the performing its functions under clause 8 of the Bill, collects personal information, the Charter’s right to privacy will be engaged. This includes in the course of its agreements with a designated mental health service and academic institution under clause 10. It is likely that the collection of sensitive information (within the meaning of the Privacy and Data Protection Act 2014 (PDP Act)) and health information (within the meaning of the Health Records Act 2001 (HR Act)) will be required to inform the Centre’s provision or arrangement of appropriate specialist services. However, any interference with privacy occasioned by such measures will be lawful and not arbitrary.
The Centre has the power to do all things necessary or convenient to perform its functions (clause 9). The collection of personal information will only occur in the performance of the Centre’s functions, and the collection of sensitive and health information about a person may be necessary to identify and arrange appropriate specialist services.
The Centre also has research-related functions. Clause 35 relevantly provides that to the extent necessary to conduct research in the field of mental health and wellbeing, the Centre may collect health information and identifiers (within the meaning of the HR Act), personal information (within the meaning of the PDP Act), and also unique identifiers (within the meaning of the Victorian Data Sharing Act 2017). However, any interference will be authorised by legislation and not be arbitrary. Relevantly, clause 35 provides that it will not affect the operation of the PDP Act and HR Act. This means that the Centre and the entities that it collects information from will need to comply with applicable restrictions on information collection, use and disclosure in each Act. This will ensure that parties to information-sharing arrangements under the Bill for research purposes will still be subject to controls on how they deal with that information.
For these reasons, clauses 8, 9 and 35 are compatible with the right to privacy in section 13(a) of the Charter.
Board membership and Director appointments
Clause 10 relevantly provides that, subject to the Minister’s approval, the Centre must enter into agreements with (i) another designated mental health service; and (ii) an academic institution that conducts research into the field of mental health and wellbeing, in order to assist the Centre in performing its functions.
Clause 11 relevantly provides for the Centre to have a Board with certain numbers of members, of which:
• at least two are persons who identify as experiencing or as having experienced mental illness or psychological distress;
• at least two are persons who identify as caring or supporting, or having cared for or supported, a person with mental illness or psychological distress;
• at least one is a representative of the designated mental health service the Centre has entered into an agreement with under clause 10; and
• at least one is a representative of the academic institution that conducts research into the field of mental health and wellbeing, that the Centre has entered into an agreement with under clause 10.
Board members are to be appointed on the recommendation of the Minister who must have regard to the need for members to have experience, skills or knowledge that is relevant to the functions of the Board. The Minister must also be satisfied that members fulfil the criteria above on making a recommendation for appointment (clause 11).
Clause 23 provides that the Board with the approval of the Minister must appoint two Directors of the Centre, of whom:
• one is a person who has worked or is working in academia in the field of mental health and as a mental health practitioner; and
• one who is a person who identifies as experiencing or having experienced mental illness and psychological distress and has demonstrated the ability to apply their experiences to improve systems that deliver health or human services or to develop policy.
Rights to equality and to take part in public life
Section 8(2) of the Charter provides that every person has the right to enjoy his or her human rights without discrimination. “Discrimination” under the Charter means discrimination on the basis of “protected attributes”, within the meaning of the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 (EO Act).
Section 18(2)(b) of the Charter relevantly provides that every eligible person should have the opportunity, without discrimination, to access public office. “Discrimination” has the same meaning in this section as in section 8(2).
Clauses 11 and 24 generally impose eligibility requirements, which is consistent with s 18(2)(b) of the Charter. However, clauses 11(6) and 23(1)(b) each restrict eligibility for certain Board member and Director positions to persons who are experiencing or have experienced mental illness and psychological distress, or to persons who are or have been the carers of such persons. Disability is a protected attribute under the EO Act and is defined to relevantly include a “malfunctioning of a part of the body, including … a mental or psychological disease or disorder” (section 4(1)). This broad definition will likely capture mental illness. Carer status is also a protected attribute. Clauses 11(6) and 23(1)(b) may therefore be seen to have a discriminatory effect under sections 8(2) and 18(2)(b) of the Charter, by restricting eligibility on the basis of protected attributes and precluding other persons from being appointed as a Board member or a Director on these bases, and therefore from accessing public office.
However, Board members and Directors are to include persons with appropriate lived experience of mental health and wellbeing, in order for the Board and Directors to perform their legislative functions (clauses 12 and 25). The perspectives and insights of people with lived experience of mental illness and psychological distress will be critical to the Centre’s work and this is reflected in the fact that people with lived experience will be represented at all levels of the Centre’s governance. This is consistent with the Royal Commission’s vision that people with lived experience be central to the planning and delivery of all aspects of the mental health and wellbeing system. I am therefore satisfied that if such measures were to constitute discrimination, any limit on the rights to equality and to participate in public life would nevertheless be reasonable and demonstrably justified in accordance with section 7(2) of the Charter, having regard to the reasons set out above.
The same could be said of clause 20(3)(b)––(c), which allows committee members to be appointed the basis of their having experienced mental illness or been a carer and might appear to be differential treatment based on a protected attribute. However, this criteria is not compulsory, and members may also be appointed to a committee where they have “expertise in matters to be considered by the committee” (clause 20(3)(a)). Therefore, clause 20 will not have a discriminatory effect.
For these reasons, clauses 12, 20 and 25 are compatible with the rights to equality and to participate in public life in sections 8(2) and 18(2) of the Charter.
Right to privacy
Board appointments are restricted to persons who fulfil certain eligibility requirements, to the satisfaction of the Minister (clause 11). The Minister must have regard to the need for members with experience, skills or knowledge relevant to the functions of the Board (clause 11). For the Minister to satisfy themselves of these matters, they must have access to prospective Board members’ personal information, including sensitive and health information, to fill the positions that require person who are experiencing or have experienced mental illness. Although this information will be provided voluntarily, this may be seen interfere with the right to privacy of such persons.
However, as above, the Bill doesn’t vary the operation of the PDP Act and HR Act, and so the Minister will be bound by the limits on collecting, using and disclosing sensitive and health information in those Acts. Information collection is required for the important purpose of ensuring that persons who have lived experience of mental illness and psychological distress are appointed to the Board. Therefore, any interference with the right to privacy occasioned by clause 11 will be lawful and not arbitrary, and therefore compatible with the Charter right to privacy.
For the reasons set out in this Statement, in my opinion, the Bill is compatible with the human rights as set out in the Charter.
The Hon. James Merlino, MP
Minister for Mental Health
Second reading
Mr MERLINO (Monbulk—Minister for Education, Minister for Mental Health, Minister for Disability, Ageing and Carers) (09:09): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I ask that my second-reading speech be incorporated into Hansard.
Incorporated speech as follows:
When the Royal Commission into Victoria’s Mental Health System tabled its Interim Report, it described a vision for a reformed mental health system. In the new redesigned system, people living with mental illness or psychological distress, their families and carers will be at the forefront, listened to and valued as active contributors and leaders. They will have access to comprehensive treatment, care and support delivered by a skilled and diverse workforce. They will have access to a system that improves over time and responds to the changing needs of the many people that it serves. A new system that is based on connection and collaboration.
It is only fitting that the first recommendation of the Interim report of the Royal Commission was to establish the Victorian Collaborative Centre for Mental Health and Wellbeing. With the Royal Commission’s Final Report, the Collaborative Centre cemented its place at the heart of the transformation of Victoria’s reformed mental health and wellbeing system. This Bill will launch the Collaborative Centre as a new entity—an independent body corporate—that will connect lived experience leadership, innovative service delivery, and cutting-edge mental health research, to form part of the foundational architecture of the transformed system.
The Victorian Government is committed to implementing each of the Royal Commission’s recommendations and in doing so, delivering the biggest social reform in our state’s history. We have invested in the mental health and wellbeing system Victorians deserve. The record $3.8 billion invested through the State Budget earlier this year will start us out on an ambitious ten-year reform agenda. The momentum is only building, and we intend to see it through.
This Bill is a crucial early step to point this long-term reform in the right direction. The Collaborative Centre will deliver better mental health outcomes for all Victorians through supporting translational research, workforce development, and modelling international best practice for mental health care and treatment. It establishes the objectives and guiding principles of the centre, lays out the functions of the centre, and stipulates governance arrangements that embed collaboration and lived experience leadership within the Board and executive levels.
Objectives and Guiding Principles of the Centre
I will first speak to the objectives and the guiding principles of the Collaborative Centre as outlined in the Bill.
The objectives of the Collaborative Centre are clear. It will embody the characteristics of responsiveness, collaboration and continuous improvement that exemplify Victoria’s transformed mental health and wellbeing system. It will support continuous improvement and learning. It will draw together expertise from across Victoria and around the world, to research, develop and disseminate effective practice to effect large-scale positive changes across the system. It will integrate the participation of people with lived experience across all functions and governance levels. The proximity of cutting-edge research with innovative service provision within the Collaborative Centre will ensure research priorities are set by mental health consumers, carers and practitioners and ensure new knowledge is relevant to and translated into practice.
In delivering on these objectives, the Collaborative Centre will be held to the following guiding principles:
• Mental health and wellbeing is shaped by the social, cultural, economic and physical environments in which people live and is a shared responsibility of society.
• The inherent dignity of people living with mental illness or psychological distress is to be respected and the necessary holistic support required to ensure their full and effective participation in society is to be provided.
• The family members and carers of people living with mental illness or psychological distress are to have their contributions recognised and supported; and mental health and wellbeing treatment, care and support services are to be provided on an equitable basis to those who need them and as close as possible to their communities.
• Comprehensive mental health and wellbeing treatment, care and support services are to be provided on an equitable basis to those who need them and as close as possible to their communities.
• Collaboration and communication is to occur between services within and beyond the mental health and wellbeing system and at all levels of government; and
• Responsive, high-quality, mental health and wellbeing services attract a skilled and diverse workforce.
• People living with mental illness or psychological distress, their family members, carers, and local communities, are central to the planning and delivery of mental health treatment, care and support services.
• Mental health services are to be informed by continuing research, evaluation, and innovation, to respond to community needs now and into the future.
Functions and powers of the Centre
I will now talk to the eight functions of the Collaborative Centre as described in the Bill.
First, to provide, promote and coordinate the provision of mental health and wellbeing services. This will include providing a comprehensive range of multidisciplinary services to adults and older adults in their local community.
Secondly, to provide or arrange the provision of specialist support services and care for persons who have experienced trauma. This provides for the establishment of the Statewide Trauma Service which will improve mental health and wellbeing outcomes for people of all ages with lived experience of trauma.
Further, to conduct, promote and coordinate interdisciplinary translational mental health and wellbeing research, including developing and implementing a broad research strategy, disseminating knowledge through a formal statewide network, and delivering a ‘clearing house’ for research output and best practice guidance.
The Collaborative Centre will establish links and service access pathways between mental health services and the Centre by performing a coordination function for statewide services and supporting service improvement.
The Centre will provide, promote and coordinate activities that support the continuing education and professional development of service providers and persons who work or conduct research in the field of mental health and wellbeing.
It will also develop and implement research strategies that addresses priority needs in Victoria’s mental health and wellbeing system, including through collaboration with the mental health and wellbeing sector, workforce development organisations, and academic and research institutes and entities.
The Collaborative Centre will collate and disseminate best practice advice and guidance to be applied across mental health and wellbeing settings.
Finally, it will report to the Minister and Secretary on its functions.
These functions will help to complement wider reforms in the mental health sector and support the Government’s commitment to implementing the recommendations of the Royal Commission in full.
Governance of the Centre
A crucial feature of the Centre is the leadership and inclusion of people with a lived experience of mental illness at the heart of responses to mental health in Victoria.
To this end, the Governance Board has four dedicated positions for people with lived experience; two with a consumer background and two with a family, carer or supporter background. These positions aim to reflect some of the diversity that exists across people with a lived experience of mental illness or psychological distress and promote their active and full participation at all levels of the mental health and wellbeing sector.
The Bill provides for the Board to establish two key partnerships: one with a health service and one with a research partner. Once selected, both partners will have dedicated positions on the Collaborative Centre’s Board. This will enable greater integration between research and service delivery. It will also nurture and establish a wide range of partnerships across academic and health sectors——crucial for the Collaborative Centre to fulfill its functions at the centre of a networked and adaptive mental health and wellbeing system.
The Centre will also feature an innovative joint executive leadership model, with Co-Directors working collaboratively to facilitate the Centre’s operations. One of the Co-Directors will be a person with a lived experience of mental illness and the other Director will come from an academic background. The Co‐Directors will have joint executive authority over the operations and strategy of the Collaborative Centre, similar to the more traditional role of a Chief Executive Officer in a single executive leadership arrangement. This approach is intended to foster cooperation and will ensure that traditional power structures identified by the Royal Commission that placed greater emphasis on clinical academic expertise are adjusted to incorporate greater agency for people with lived experience.
In establishing these governance arrangements, this Bill aims to hold fast to the centrality of the experience and outcomes for people with lived experience—that means their voices and perspectives must be part of any solutions within the new system.
This signals a united approach which moves us from “us and them” to “all of us together”—the genuine collaboration that will be at the heart of the new mental health and wellbeing system.
I commend the Bill to the house.
Ms STALEY (Ripon) (09:09): I move:
That debate be adjourned.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.
Mr MERLINO (Monbulk—Minister for Education, Minister for Mental Health, Minister for Disability, Ageing and Carers) (09:09): I move:
That debate be adjourned for 13 days.
Ms STALEY (Ripon) (09:09): I would like to speak on that motion, and I would speak against that motion because we have had about a minute’s notice that the government planned to only give 13 days instead of the normal 14 days. I think we made it pretty clear last sitting week that we have a strong view that we are prepared to be collaborative when we are given warning. However, there are certain conventions of the house that we think are important to maintain, and one of those is that there is proper time for consideration of legislation and to go out to communities, get the stakeholder feedback and fully consult with people on bills, and 13 days is, to be blunt, not 14 days. And 14 days is the appropriate time for the government to lay over a bill.
We have had the second-reading speech distributed now for about a minute, and it appears that it is not in any way impugning the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006. In fact the point of this bill appears to be worthy. I do not want anybody to misunderstand that we have any problem per se with this bill. The issue we have repeatedly said is: we think—well, it is not just that we think—14 days is the accepted period that we lay bills over. The government cannot get its legislative program organised well enough that it can deliver 14 days. I have got to say, I will be very curious to hear if the whip or one of the other government members wants to put an argument here that this is somehow such an urgent bill that 13 days is enough or the issue that the bill is addressing has just arisen and so that is why we have to have it put in today and only be given 13 days.
The fact is the reason we have got 13 days here is because the government has not organised its legislative program properly. It cannot even argue, ‘Oh, well, we’ve put extra weeks in. We’ve sat week to week, which we did last week, and we’ve sat this week’. That might have been an argument for the bills that they brought in the sitting week before last, but it is certainly not an argument for this bill. There is no excuse for this bill, other than the incompetence and hubris of this government in thinking, firstly, that it does not need to manage its legislative program properly and, secondly, that it can just come into the house and deliver a late message that it wants 13 days instead of 14.
We cannot say that this can pass without comment. If I am not clear enough yet, I need the government members to understand that every time they do this, we will make this point. They will lose valuable debating time for their legislation. The Leader of the House and the government consistently say they want time to debate their legislation, and this week we have given them the maximum amount of time that they can get on the notice paper. We truncated our debate on the government business program. I had no intention of standing up here right at this moment and having to do this, and I had no intention of asking my whip to find further speakers. But the fact is we will speak this one out, and the reason we will do that is because the government needs to know there are consequences when they misuse the forms of the house.
Now, we do not have on this side of the house the capacity to stymie the government through winning a vote. We understand; it is the Assembly. The government holds the numbers in the Assembly. But we do have the right and the capacity to restrict their ability to get their legislation debated to the fullest extent that they want, and we will pursue that right for as long as the government continues to have such a high-handed approach—that it is okay to just come in here with no notice and say, ‘We want 13 days’ on a bill that is not controversial on the face of it. I do not know; I have only just got the second reading and the bill. But really the government needs to do better here. They must do better.
Mr CHEESEMAN (South Barwon) (09:14): I do rise to speak in favour of 13 days. Of course this year has been an unprecedented year with COVID-19, and that has meant that the government and indeed the Parliament have had to respond in an unprecedented way to ensure that we can meet as a Parliament, indeed in a very safe way. That has led of course to a number of weeks, on the basis of health advice, being cancelled and some additional weeks added into our sitting week.
I must say that this government is very, very committed to delivering the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Victoria’s Mental Health System. We have heard of the unprecedented challenges that exist in that space. The government is very, very keen to implement every single one of those recommendations. That is why we are so determined to add additional sitting weeks so that we can continue to deliver on the government’s legislative program. This bill will be a key bill for debate at the next sitting week, and I very much look forward to that debate.
Ms KEALY (Lowan) (09:16): I speak in support of the member for Ripon in her comments regarding the importance and the imperative of having a full 14 days consultation with our key stakeholders in the mental health community regarding this very important bill. It is simply not fair on everyday Victorians, particularly when we talk about the finding of the Royal Commission into Victoria’s Mental Health System that we must incorporate the lived experience at every single moment, to have a truncated period of time where those people can have their say over the legislative framework. The minister said in his own second-reading speech:
With the Royal Commission’s Final Report, the Collaborative Centre cemented its place at the heart of the transformation of Victoria’s reformed mental health and wellbeing system.
If this is the legislative framework that is at the heart of Victoria’s reformed mental health system, then we need to make sure that we get it right. I am deeply concerned that it may not be right, because when I welcomed and helped to launch Mental Health Month with the Mental Health Foundation Australia just last week the former Minister for Disability, Ageing and Carers and Minister for Child Protection, who was representing the Minister for Mental Health, actually said twice in his contribution that he looks forward to seeing the royal commission’s findings when they are handed down in coming weeks. Now, this is a report that was handed down in February, and to have this government say that they are not even aware of the royal commission’s findings and then putting forward legislation within 10 days that has a truncated period—we have every right to be concerned that they have not got this right.
We all understand and support the necessity for reform in the mental health system in Victoria. The royal commission’s findings were absolutely clear that this is a system in crisis and needs to be rebuilt. Part of that is of course the importance of the Victorian Collaborative Centre for Mental Health and Wellbeing. The importance of this is that we have cutting-edge research in Victoria so that we can best apply an evidence-based approach to treating mental ill health and mental illness in our community. Now, if we do not get this right, we wonder what will happen with the flow-on, and we have only got one opportunity to get mental health reform right in this state.
As I said earlier, a key element of the recommendations of the royal commission was about incorporation of people with lived experience in providing their input into how the mental health system in Victoria will operate and how it will function. Of course legislation gives that framework over how the overall operation of Victoria’s mental health system will work with people with lived experience and will provide that treatment and support. That is why—and this is a brand new bill, it is not an amendment—we need to make sure that we get it right.
But most importantly it is not about me getting up and having my say as the Shadow Minister for Mental Health on this. It is about everyday Victorians who have not been able to access the mental health services that they need, that have been given substandard mental health support and care and that have had to endure all of the problems we have seen over the pandemic over the last 20 months and have not been able to get the support that they need, because the system has been completely overwhelmed and our mental health workforce is absolutely fatigued. If we do not have the nuances and the legislative framework in place that will adequately support that framework and how the mental health system works with lived experience input, then I fear that the whole focus on mental health over the past number of years will be completely lost. So we need to make sure we get it right and not cut short the consultation period, the period where we, who are the opposition, whose job it is to hold the government to account, must have the opportunity to contact our stakeholders and the people in our community and to give them the opportunity to be able to critique the bill.
Reading through legislation is not straightforward for people who are not trained to do so, and so they as much as us need as much time as possible to be able to understand what this legislation will mean for them when they are rebuilding the mental health framework, which will hopefully make sure that every Victorian gets the mental health support they need when they need it.
So by the government bringing forward this legislation and seeking to truncate the consultation before the bill is brought on in the Legislative Assembly all they are doing is making it harder for stakeholders to give their input to this legislation, and that is a great shame. It is a great shame, and we should ensure that every single Victorian and certainly all of the stakeholders that I have in my database—I have over 450 stakeholders—can give input. I will be asking them, but I will have to ask them to keep it quick, because you have truncated their time to give input.
Mr FREGON (Mount Waverley) (09:21): I think it was in 1959 that Dinah Washington had the song What a Difference a Day Makes, and we are now discussing the difference between 13 and 14 days. A day can make a difference, and I will make a very brief contribution on my support for the 13 days, because when we return here in two weeks I hope very much that we all take it very seriously and jump straight to it. So on the Tuesday in a fortnight it would be excellent to be talking about this very important bill from a monumental royal commission. I have no doubt the member for Lowan will have plenty of time to prepare her response.
Ms Britnell interjected.
Mr FREGON: No, I think I have got the point, member for South-West Coast. I obviously support the movement of 13 days, and I look forward to all of the contributions from the opposition, not just rolling the arm over for a couple and letting it go.
Ms BRITNELL (South-West Coast) (09:22): I rise to support the motion put forward by the member for Ripon—
A member interjected.
Ms BRITNELL: Supporting the motion and we are opposing a motion. Absolutely we are opposing a motion. The motion we oppose is because we do require a legislative process that gives us the respectful amount of time, that has been accepted at the minimum to be 14 days for a very long time. Now, this government over the last few years just continues to rush legislation through. So here we are today just minutes ago getting a bill about a very important subject of mental health. We are in the middle of a pandemic. We are all aware of the absolute front-of-mind challenge of people really struggling. That is on the back of a royal commission that was six years in the making, where people know already that the system is breaking. So we have had a long time to do some fixing, but we have not seen this government act. They have waited for the royal commission report, and there were so many things that could have been done in the interim that they have not done. Yet here we are with a bill on mental health and improving the system, and instead of using the process where we have the respect to be able to go out to our communities and give them the time they need to study the bill and give proper feedback so we can debate with respect to their views in this place, this government just says, ‘Now, let’s rush it through’.
Now, okay, it is 13 days versus 14 days. Why is it that they continue to do this? It is because they can. The hubris nature of this government is extraordinary, and it just keeps growing, because what we see week after week is bills getting rushed through. Now, why could you not debate it on the Wednesday? I think what you are doing is completely doing the overreach because you know you have got the numbers in the Assembly. You are not interested in consultation. You are not interested in listening to the debate points brought forward by our communities. This is not me standing here. I am the voice of South-West Coast. They will feed to me over the next two weeks—and less in this instance—the information they would like me to bring forward that they are concerned about. If they get a chance to read it in that time, they will do that. It is just like the bill we are about to move to, the health systems platform improvements across hospitals. We have had six days. Now, this is mandating hospitals to introduce new information systems. The government is so arrogant now that when we went to the bill briefing about it and asked about costs—no, they could not answer that question—no costs were available. We asked about the business case—have not done one. You know, these are things that the community needs to have reassurance on that this government can actually manage.
Well, if you cannot manage a legislative program, if you are that disorganised that you cannot even manage to put the normal two-week process in place, that you are rushing things through because you have not even looked at the legislative program, it just says one thing: you are not interested in listening to your communities, you are not interested in the fair and reasonable processes that ensure our communities have the respect of being able to feed back to you the information that will affect them once these changes take place and giving them the opportunity to actually make changes and respectfully listen to that.
Fourteen days is all we have asked for, and yet it is six days one week and 13 days the next week. It is a total disregard for the community, a community who have been struggling more than ever. Mental health is one of the really big challenges that must be coming into your office. It is coming into mine day after day—people writing to me, people ringing me, people begging me to help them get appointments to see specialists who have mental health capabilities. There are just not the skilled people. There is just not the funding available. That is what this is about. Not that we have had a chance to look at this bill, but from what I understood when the minister introduced it, the overarching concept was to make sure we improve the mental health system. Well, why wouldn’t you want to do that properly? Why wouldn’t you want to give the respect to the community and listen to them?
This is not about us standing up here, insulted by losing one day. This is us standing up here representing our communities and saying, ‘Show some respect and do things properly so that we have the opportunity to consult our communities’. That is not that big of an ask. But if you are so arrogant now that you think you do not even need this place, if you are not interested in the process and you want to rush bills through that you do not even think it is necessary to consult your community on, if you want to introduce legislation and have no budget for it even, then you will fail. (Time expired)
House divided on motion:
| Ayes, 13 | ||
| Addison, Ms | Hutchins, Ms | Spence, Ms |
| Bull, Mr J | Kilkenny, Ms | Staikos, Mr |
| Cheeseman, Mr | Pallas, Mr | Theophanous, Ms |
| Crugnale, Ms | Pearson, Mr | Thomas, Ms |
| Edbrooke, Mr | ||
| Noes, 7 | ||
| Angus, Mr | Morris, Mr | Rowswell, Mr |
| Britnell, Ms | O’Brien, Mr D | Staley, Ms |
| Kealy, Ms | ||
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned until Tuesday, 26 October.
Register of opinion on motion
Ayes
Ms Allan, Mr Andrews, Ms Blandthorn, Mr Brayne, Mr Carbines, Mr Carroll, Ms Connolly, Ms Couzens, Ms Edwards, Mr Eren, Mr Foley, Mr Fowles, Mr Fregon, Ms Halfpenny, Ms Hall, Mr Halse, Mr Hamer, Ms Hennessy, Ms Horne, Ms Kilkenny, Mr Maas, Mr McGhie, Mr McGuire, Ms Neville, Mr Pakula, Ms Richards, Mr Richardson, Mr Scott, Ms Settle, Ms Suleyman, Mr Tak, Mr Taylor, Ms Ward, Ms Williams
Noes
Mr Battin, Mr Blackwood, Mr Hodgett, Mr McCurdy, Ms McLeish, Mr Northe, Mr M O’Brien, Mr Riordan, Mr Tilley, Ms Vallence, Mr Wells
Special Investigator Bill 2021
Statement of compatibility
Ms HUTCHINS (Sydenham—Minister for Crime Prevention, Minister for Corrections, Minister for Youth Justice, Minister for Victim Support) (09:33): In accordance with the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 I table statement of compatibility in relation to the special Bill 2021.
Opening paragraphs
In accordance with section 28 of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006, (the Charter), I make this Statement of Compatibility with respect to the Special Investigator Bill 2021 (the Bill).
In my opinion, the Bill, as introduced to the Legislative Assembly, is compatible with the Charter. I base my opinion on the reasons outlined in this statement.
Overview
The Bill establishes the Office of the Special Investigator (OSI) as a new investigative body with responsibility for investigating possible criminal conduct or breaches of discipline in connection with Victoria Police’s use of Ms Nicola Gobbo as a human source. It provides for the OSI’s functions, powers and duties. It also provides for the oversight of the OSI by the Victorian Inspectorate.
Human Rights Issues
Human rights protected by the Charter that are relevant to the Bill
The Bill engages the following human rights under the Charter:
• freedom of movement (section 12);
• right to privacy and reputation (section 13);
• freedom of expression (section 15);
• right to liberty and security of person (section 21);
• right to a fair hearing (section 24); and
• rights in criminal proceedings (section 25).
For the following reasons, I am satisfied that the Bill is compatible with the Charter and, if any rights are limited, those limitations are reasonable and demonstrably justified having regard to section 7(2) of the Charter.
Criminal investigative powers
The Bill empowers the OSI to investigate the commission of offences in connection with Victoria Police’s use of Ms Gobbo as a human source (defined in the Bill as a ‘relevant offence’) and offences against the Special Investigator Act. Division 1 of Part 3 of the Bill provides for an investigating OSI officer’s criminal investigation powers, which include the power to:
• require a person to state their name and address (clause 30);
• apply to a magistrate for a search warrant (clause 31) and, where authorised by the warrant, compel assistance from a person with knowledge of a computer or computer network to access electronically held data (clause 32 and clause 33); and
• apply to a court for an arrest warrant (clause 37).
The Bill also amends the Surveillance Devices Act 1999 to permit the OSI to apply for the issue of surveillance device warrants.
Right to privacy
Section 13 of the Charter states that a person has the right not to have their privacy unlawfully or arbitrarily interfered with and the right not to have their reputation unlawfully attacked. The right to privacy protects a person from government interference or excessive unsolicited intervention by other individuals.
I consider that the right to privacy is engaged by the criminal investigation powers given to investigating OSI officers. However, for the following reasons, I am satisfied that any interference with the right to privacy is lawful and not arbitrary, and therefore that the Bill is compatible with section 13.
The Bill confers the OSI with the powers necessary to enable the OSI to effectively perform its statutory functions, as recommended by the Royal Commission into the Management of Police Informants (Royal Commission). The powers of investigating OSI officers do not exceed the scope of criminal investigation powers of other law enforcement agencies, such as Victoria Police.
The interference with the right to privacy is proportionate to the purpose of the OSI’s powers. The power to require a person to state their name and address may only be used if an investigating OSI officer believes on reasonable grounds that the person has committed, or is about to commit, a relevant offence or an offence against the Bill, or may be able to assist in the investigation of such an offence. The powers to apply for a search or arrest warrant similarly require an investigating OSI officer to have reasonable grounds for the belief that premises or a vehicle should be searched, or a person arrested, because an offence has been committed. A warrant may only be issued by a court where it is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for this belief, and may be executed by any investigating OSI officer.
When a search warrant is executed, an investigating OSI officer must identify themselves to the occupier or a person at the premises and give that person a copy of the warrant. The Bill also contains procedures to enable a person to claim a privilege in relation to relevant documents or things under the search warrant. These measures will further ensure that any interference with the right to privacy is not arbitrary.
As the OSI is a public authority within the meaning of the Charter, the Special Investigator and OSI staff will be obliged to properly consider human rights in their decision making and to act compatibly with human rights in exercising their statutory functions, in accordance with section 38 of the Charter.
The exercise of the OSI’s criminal investigation powers will be subject to several safeguards. The exercise of the powers under Part 3 is restricted to investigating OSI officers appointed by the OSI. In appointing an ‘investigating OSI officer’, the OSI must be satisfied that the person is suitably qualified and trained to perform the functions and exercise the powers under Part 3.
Importantly, the exercise of the OSI’s powers under Part 3 will also be subject to independent oversight by the Victorian Inspectorate. The Victorian Inspectorate will have a broad jurisdiction to receive complaints about the conduct of the OSI and OSI personnel.
In addition to these safeguards for the powers under Part 3, the power to apply for surveillance device warrants will be subject to the rigorous framework in the Surveillance Devices Act 1999. Under that Act, the Public Interest Monitor is entitled to be heard in applications for surveillance device warrants to ensure there is an appropriate basis for such warrants. The Victorian Inspectorate is also empowered to oversee the use of surveillance devices by authorised law enforcement agencies.
Right to freedom of movement and right to liberty and security of person
Section 12 of the Charter provides that every person lawfully within Victoria has the right to move freely within Victoria. Section 21 of the Charter provides that every person has the right to liberty and security, including the right not to be subject to arbitrary arrest. Section 21(3) provides that a person must not be deprived of his or her liberty except on grounds, and in accordance with procedures, established by law.
In my view, the rights in sections 12 and 21 of the Charter are engaged by the search and arrest warrant powers in clauses 31 and 37 of the Bill, which allow an investigating OSI officer executing a warrant to use reasonable force and seek any assistance necessary to apprehend, detain and search a person.
In accordance with section 7(2), I am satisfied that any limitation of section 12 is necessary to achieve the aims of the Bill and is reasonable and demonstrably justified. In accordance with section 21(3), I am satisfied that any deprivation of liberty authorised by the Bill will be on grounds, and in accordance with procedures, established by law.
As noted previously, powers relating to search and arrest warrants are critical to the investigative function of the OSI. The Bill places robust controls on these powers, including independent oversight by the Victorian Inspectorate and the requirement for the OSI to report to the Victorian Inspectorate on the issue of an arrest warrant.
In addition to the safeguards noted previously, the OSI’s powers of arrest will be subject to the safeguards in the Crimes Act 1958 that apply where a person is held in custody, including where a person is under arrest by warrant or in the company of an investigating official. These obligations include that every person taken into custody for an offence must, within a reasonable time, be:
• released unconditionally;
• released on bail; or
• brought before a bail justice or the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria.
Right to freedom from self-incrimination
Section 25(2)(k) of the Charter states that a person charged with a criminal offence is entitled not to be compelled to testify against themselves or to confess guilt.
The right to freedom from self-incrimination is engaged by clause 32 and clause 33, which empower an investigating OSI officer, on authority of or following execution of search warrant, to direct a person with knowledge of a computer or computer network to access electronically held data. The Bill provides that a person is not excused from complying with such a direction on the ground that it may result in information being provided that might incriminate the person.
Importantly, the purpose of clauses 32 and 33 is to facilitate the OSI’s access to evidence that is already the lawful subject of a search warrant issued by a magistrate. Significantly, an individual will not be compelled to alert the investigating OSI officer to the existence of potentially self-incriminating evidence or to provide information about the substance of that evidence. Nor will they be required to bring new evidence into existence. To the extent that section 25(2)(k) may be limited by clause 32 and 33, that limitation is reasonable and demonstrably justified in accordance with section 7(2) of the Charter.
Disciplinary investigation powers
Division 2 of Part 3 of the Bill provides for the OSI’s powers to commence a disciplinary investigation into Victoria Police officers in relation to the use of Ms Gobbo as a human source.
Significantly, clause 43 empowers an investigating OSI officer to direct a police officer to give specified information, produce any specified document or answer any specified question relevant to the subject matter of a suspected breach of discipline. Clause 44 expressly abrogates the privilege against self-incrimination for the purposes of a direction given under clause 43. It also provides that a failure to comply with a direction given clause 43 will, itself, constitute a breach of discipline.
The Bill also empowers the OSI to lay charges against a police officer for a breach of discipline, as recommended by the Royal Commission.
Right to fair hearing and right to freedom from self-incrimination
Section 24(1) of the Charter provides that a person charged with a criminal offence has the right to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial court or tribunal. Section 25(2)(k) protects the right of a person charged with a criminal offence not to be compelled to testify against themselves or to confess guilt.
While section 25(2)(k) of the Charter refers to ‘a person charged with a criminal offence’, courts have interpreted the protections as extending to persons who have not been charged. This acknowledges that the privilege against self-incrimination can be infringed by the use in criminal proceedings of evidence which a person was compelled to give prior to being charged.
I consider that clause 43 may engage the right to fair hearing in section 24(1) and the right to be free from self-incrimination in section 25(2)(k) of the Charter. However, for the following reasons, I am satisfied that clause 43 does not limit these rights.
The powers in Division 2 of Part 3 reflect the Royal Commission’s commentary in its final report that the Special Investigator should have the powers and procedures that apply in usual police disciplinary matters. Division 2 reflects the disciplinary powers of the Chief Commissioner under the Victoria Police Act 2013.
Importantly, the Bill prevents individuals from being compelled to give evidence while the subject of current or possible future criminal charges in relation to the same conduct. If a police officer is suspected by the OSI of having committed an offence relating to Ms Gobbo’s use as a human source, the Bill provides that a direction under clause 43 can only be given to a person if:
• the OSI has firstly determined there is insufficient evidence to charge the police officer for such an offence and has concluded any investigation for such an offence;
• the OSI has first been advised that the DPP has determined not to prosecute the police officer for such an offence;
• any criminal charges against the police officer for such an offence have been discontinued or proven; or
• the police officer has been acquitted of any charge in relation to such an offence.
This limitation recognises the risk of unfairness that could arise if a person were compelled to give evidence while facing a criminal investigation into the same conduct. The risk of potential unfairness is heightened in the context of the OSI’s investigations, due to the significant overlap in conduct that may fall within its criminal and disciplinary investigatory jurisdictions.
These protections are reinforced by a prohibition against the direct use of evidence obtained by the OSI against the person before any court or person acting judicially, except in proceedings for:
• perjury or giving false information;
• an offence against the Special Investigator Act; or
• breach of discipline.
In addition, the Bill expressly prohibits any evidence gathered as a direct or indirect result of any information, document or answer given under direction from being admissible in evidence against the person in any criminal proceeding or proceeding for the imposition of a penalty. That is, the Bill provides a derivative use immunity in respect of information, documents or answers given under a clause 43 direction.
As noted above, the Bill imposes several procedural, reporting and independent oversight-related safeguards on the exercise of powers under Part 3. These safeguards will also apply to the power under clause 43. In addition, the Bill requires a copy of a direction given under clause 43 to be given to the Victorian Inspectorate, along with a report specifying the reason for the direction. This will ensure the Victorian Inspectorate can rigorously monitor the appropriateness of the OSI’s use of the coercive disciplinary power.
While an investigating OSI officer will be precluded from giving a direction under clause 43 in certain circumstances outlined above, it is possible that a police officer may be subject to disciplinary proceedings while facing a criminal investigation or criminal proceedings in relation to the same conduct. This is because the OSI may lay a breach of discipline charge on the basis of evidence obtained from sources other than information, documents or answers given under a clause 43 direction.
An inquiry into a breach of discipline charge laid by the OSI involves a disciplinary proceeding undertaken by an independent person appointed by the Chief Commissioner of Victoria Police under the Victoria Police Act 2013. The rights under section 24(1) and section 25(2)(k) may therefore also be engaged at the disciplinary proceeding stage because a police officer may choose to give evidence to defend the breach of discipline charge. The evidence given may be relevant to the police officer’s defence of concurrent or subsequent criminal proceedings.
To mitigate the risks of interfering with section 24(1) and 25(2)(k) once a breach of discipline charge is referred to Victoria Police, the Bill contains certain notification and consultation requirements. Where a police officer charged with a breach of discipline may be facing an ongoing criminal investigation in relation to the same conduct, the Bill requires the OSI to notify Victoria Police of this fact when referring a breach of discipline charge. The Bill also requires the OSI to notify Victoria Police of any criminal charges laid in respect of the same conduct. In such cases, the person appointed to inquire into and determine the breach of discipline charge will also be required to consult with the Director of Public Prosecutions.
In light of this framework, I do not consider that the Bill, in authorising the OSI to lay a charge for breach of discipline against a police officer who is facing an ongoing criminal investigation, limits the rights under sections 24(1) and 25(2)(k).
Access to records of the Royal Commission or other records directly given to the OSI
Clause 66 of the Bill empowers the OSI to access, receive, assess and deal with all Royal Commission records to further its criminal and disciplinary investigations. The Bill also empowers the OSI to access, receive, assess and deal with records provided directly by the IBAC to the OSI for the purpose of its statutory functions.
Significantly, the OSI will have access to evidence given by a person subject to the abrogation of the privilege against self-incrimination. The Bill places limits on the admissibility of such evidence against the person who gave or produced that evidence, consistent with the Acts under which the person gave or produced the evidence.
However, the Bill authorises the admissibility of evidence acquired as a consequence of that evidence—that is, derivatively obtained evidence—against the person who gave or produced the evidence. The Bill also clarifies that the OSI may use Royal Commission records or records provided directly by IBAC to support an application for a warrant under the Crimes Act 1958, Criminal Procedure Act 2009 and Surveillance Devices Act 1999.
While section 44 of the Inquiries Act and section 41 of the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission Act 2011 enable, respectively, a Royal Commission and IBAC to share information or documents with another body where relevant to its functions, information shared under those provisions would ordinarily continue to be covered by any legislative protections that existed at the time the evidence was gathered. In contrast, the Bill overrides any implied derivative use immunity that attaches to certain evidence gathered by the Royal Commission and IBAC, through operation of section 40 of the Inquiries Act 2014 and section 144 of the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission Act 2011, respectively.
Noting that the IBAC will have the discretion to enter into a coordinated investigation with the OSI under section 72 of the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission Act 2011, the Bill preserves both the direct use and derivative use immunity that may attach to evidence gathered in the course of a coordinated investigation through operation of section 144 of the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission Act 2011.
Right to fair hearing and right to freedom from self-incrimination
I consider that, by enabling the access and use of evidence given subject to the abrogation of the privilege against self-incrimination, the Bill engages the rights in sections 24(1) and 25(2)(k) of the Charter. However, I am satisfied that any limitations on these rights are necessary to achieve the aims of the Bill and are reasonable and demonstrably justified in accordance with section 7(2) of the Charter.
The matters uncovered by the Royal Commission go to the heart of the integrity of Victoria’s criminal justice system. The thorough investigation of possible offences in connection with Victoria Police’s use of Ms Gobbo as a human source is therefore of significant concern and benefit to the Victorian community. This is especially the case given the special status and powers of police officers to enforce the law and the considerable public interest in maintaining public confidence in the police force.
In recommending the establishment of a Special Investigator, the Royal Commission specifically recommended that the Special Investigator be given full and free access to its records. It is vital that the Special Investigator be able to access and use evidence essential to achieving its statutory purpose, namely to determine:
• whether there is sufficient evidence to establish the commission of criminal offending in connection with Victoria Police’s use of Ms Gobbo as a human source;
• the admissibility of that evidence in a criminal proceeding; and
• what other evidence may need to be gathered to establish whether any other relevant offences may have been committed.
The limitation of the rights under sections 24(1) and 25(2)(k) is reasonable and demonstrably justified. In my view, there are no less restrictive means available to enable the OSI to perform its recommended functions. Without the ability to use the Royal Commission and IBAC records to further its investigations, the OSI would be required to duplicate the work of the Commission and re-examine previous lines of inquiry already considered by the IBAC. This would significantly prolong the OSI’s investigations and unduly delay the finalisation of these important matters.
Importantly, the Bill preserves provisions that render inadmissible coercively obtained evidence given by a person, against that person. This measure protects against the most serious unfairness that would arise from the use of evidence given following the abrogation of the privilege against self-incrimination.
To the extent that the use of such evidence is permitted, it is restricted to allowing the OSI to gather further evidence to establish the commission of an offence.
Permitting the derivative use of evidence given subject to the abrogation of the privilege against self incrimination appropriately balances the public interest in the effective and timely investigation of offences with the Charter rights of those subject to the OSI’s investigations.
Right to privacy
By permitting the OSI to deal with records containing personal information that were produced to the Royal Commission or provided directly by IBAC, the Bill engages the right to privacy under section 13 of the Charter.
For the following reasons, I am satisfied that any interference with this right is permitted by law, sufficiently certain, and appropriately circumscribed. In addition, I consider that the restrictions on privacy are reasonable and necessary to achieve the aims of the Bill and to allow the OSI to perform its statutory functions. Accordingly, the Bill is compatible with section 13 in relation to the access and use of records containing personal information.
Clauses 66 and 69 respectively provide for what use can be made of Royal Commission and IBAC records, by reference to the OSI’s functions. Without the ability to use the records of the Royal Commission or IBAC to conduct its investigations, the OSI would be unable to effectively perform the functions recommended by the Royal Commission. In the absence of these records, the OSI would be required to duplicate the work of the Commission and IBAC—significantly delaying the OSI’s investigations and the restoration of public trust in Victoria’s criminal justice system in relation to these matters.
Importantly, the Bill imposes on the OSI a positive obligation relating to the secure management and storage of records provided to it. This requirement will complement the OSI’s obligations under the Privacy and Data Protection Act 2014.
Offences
Part 5 of the Bill creates several offences intended to safeguard the integrity of the OSI’s investigations and proper exercise of its functions. The offences prohibit:
• hindering or obstructing an OSI officer;
• making false or misleading statements;
• unauthorised use or disclosure of OSI information by an OSI officer or former OSI officer;
• causing or threatening detriment to a person who assists the OSI or an OSI officer; and
• destroying or concealing evidence.
The offences created by the Bill promote the public interest in ensuring the integrity of criminal proceedings, for example by preventing the destruction of evidence relevant to the prosecution of a criminal offence.
The offence of causing or threatening detriment to a person who assists the OSI or an OSI officer has been modelled on two similar offences which already exist in the Crimes Act 1958, in section 31D and section 257. Where a person is charged with this offence under the Bill, it will be a defence for the accused person to prove that the conduct was a lawful action, for example, any action engaged in the normal course of a lawful employment or industrial action or any action otherwise in accordance with law. This defence is consistent with the existing similar offences in the Crimes Act 1958. The defence is intended to exclude people who are undertaking otherwise lawful activities such as disciplinary processes, where their conduct is not improperly motivated but may fall within the definition of ‘detriment’ and attract the application of this offence. This defence engages the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty in section 25 of the Charter, as the onus is on the accused to demonstrate that the conduct was lawful. To the extent that the right in section 25 is limited, I consider that the limit is reasonable and demonstrably justified in accordance with section 7(2) of the Charter.
The Evidence Act 2008 indicates that where an accused bears the burden of proving an exception to a charge, the court must be satisfied that the exception applies on the balance of probabilities. I consider that it is more appropriate that the accused bear the onus of proving the exception as it relates to matters that fall peculiarly within an accused’s knowledge—that is, the purpose for which the person engaged in conduct. These matters would be unduly onerous on a prosecution to investigate and disprove at first instance.
By prohibiting the unauthorised use or disclosure of information relating to any investigations by the OSI or its functions and powers, the Bill may engage the right of freedom of expression in section 15 of the Charter. Section 15 protects a person’s right to seek, receive and impart information freely. However, section 15(3) states that lawful restrictions on this right may be necessary to respect the rights and reputation of other persons, or to protect public safety, order health or morality.
In accordance with section 15(3) of the Charter, I am satisfied that the offence of unauthorised disclosure of information is a lawful restriction on a person’s rights under section 15 that is reasonably necessary to respect the rights of other persons and for the OSI to safeguard its own investigations.
Prohibiting the unauthorised use or disclosure of OSI information is necessary to mitigate the risk of sensitive information being disseminated inappropriately. The OSI will hold highly sensitive material, including Royal Commission records, which may include personal information and information that attracts public interest immunity.
The offence against unauthorised use or disclosure provides for a range of exceptions, including where use or disclosure is authorised by the OSI, information is already in the public domain or a reasonable excuse applies.
The Victorian Inspectorate will also be responsible for receiving, assessing and investigating public interest disclosures that may be made by OSI officers under the Public Interest Disclosures Act 2012. This will provide an avenue for OSI officers to raise appropriate concerns about the OSI’s investigations without contravening the offence against unauthorised use or disclosure of information relating to the OSI.
Public interest disclosures regime
The Bill empowers the OSI to:
• receive and investigate public interest disclosures referred to it by IBAC that relate to Victoria Police’s use of Ms Gobbo as a human source;
• refer public interest disclosures or public interest complaints made to the OSI about OSI staff to the Victorian Inspectorate;
• refer public interest disclosures or public interest complaints otherwise made to the OSI to IBAC for assessment and investigation; and
• disclose information under the Public Interest Disclosures Act 2012 for the purposes of the OSI’s criminal or disciplinary investigations.
These functions engage the right to privacy and reputation under section 13 of the Charter, as they may result in information about a person’s private life or adverse to their reputation being disclosed. However, for the following reasons, I am satisfied that any interference with the right to privacy is lawful and not arbitrary.
Importantly, information shared under the public interest disclosure regime will be subject to the existing confidentiality obligations and protections in the Public Interest Disclosures Act 2012. For example, section 39 of that Act provides that the protections under the Act do not apply to a person who has knowingly or recklessly made a false disclosure. This will ensure that any unlawful attack on a person’s reputation is not protected.
Where IBAC refers a public interest complaint to the OSI to investigate, the complainant will be permitted to request information about the investigation. However, the OSI will be prohibited from providing the complainant with any information that the OSI considers may involve the unreasonable disclosure of information related to the personal affairs of any person.
Reporting functions
The Bill requires the OSI to prepare annual reports in accordance with the Financial Management Act 1994. The annual report must include the number of investigations carried out under Part 3.
The Bill also provides for the OSI to lay a special report before Parliament at any time, on any matter relating to the performance of its duties or functions.
While the OSI’s reporting functions may engage the right to privacy and reputation in section 13 of the Charter, I am satisfied that the Bill does not limit this right. The matters required to be included in the annual report are aggregate in nature, and the OSI is not required to include personal information.
The OSI’s preparation of special reports is confined to any matter relating to the OSI’s performance of its duties or functions. Given the significant public interest in the matters within its jurisdiction, the OSI should be able to inform the Parliament and the community of relevant issues. By doing so, the Bill promotes the right to receive information freely in section 15 of the Charter.
The Bill contains safeguards to ensure individuals are afforded natural justice and do not have their reputation arbitrarily or unlawfully attacked. If the OSI intends to include in a special report any adverse findings, comments or opinions about a person, the OSI must give the person a reasonable opportunity to respond to the adverse material and include any response in the special report.
The Hon. Natalie Hutchins MP
Minister for Crime Prevention
Minister for Corrections
Minister for Youth Justice
Minister for Victim Support
Second reading
Ms HUTCHINS (Sydenham—Minister for Crime Prevention, Minister for Corrections, Minister for Youth Justice, Minister for Victim Support) (09:34): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I ask that my second-reading speech be incorporated into Hansard.
Incorporated speech as follows:
The Special Investigator Bill 2021 (the Bill) is an important step towards the Victorian Government’s commitment to implement all recommendations of the Royal Commission into the Management of Police Informants (the Commission).
This Bill delivers recommendations 1, 3, 92–99, 101 and 103 of the Commission by providing for the appointment of a Special Investigator and establishing the Office of the Special Investigator (the OSI). The Bill confers on the OSI the functions, powers and duties necessary to investigate the conduct of persons involved in the use of Ms Nicola Gobbo as a human source, in particular Ms Gobbo and current and former Victoria Police officers named in the Commission’s final report and in the complete and unredacted closing submissions of Counsel Assisting the Commission.
The Bill will assure Victorians that their criminal justice system accords with the rule of law, as it should.
The Commission’s recommendations
The Government announced the establishment of the Commission on 3 December 2018. This announcement followed the publication of the High Court’s decision in AB v CD, EF v CD [2018] HCA 58, which revealed former criminal defence barrister, Ms Nicola Maree Gobbo, was a registered Victoria Police human source.
The Commission delivered its final report to government on 30 November 2020. The report contained 111 recommendations, 54 of which are directed to government. On 7 May 2021, the Government released its response to the Commission’s final report and reiterated its commitment to implement the Commission’s recommendations.
The Commission condemned the conduct of Ms Gobbo and Victoria Police, and pressed the need for a full and independent investigation of potential criminal or disciplinary offences, in the interests of accountability and transparency.
The Commission considered it would be inappropriate for Victoria Police and potentially not within scope of the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission (IBAC), to examine in full the conduct of Ms Gobbo and current and former Victoria Police officers.
As such, the Commission recommended government establish a purpose-specific Special Investigator to investigate criminal offences and breaches of discipline connected with Victoria Police’s use of Ms Gobbo as a human source.
In response, the Government committed $13.47 million to establish the OSI, to ensure justice is served, and to promote accountability and public confidence in the criminal justice system.
In June 2021, former High Court justice, the Honourable Geoffrey Nettle AC QC, was engaged to perform this role and will be appointed to his statutory position following passage of the Bill. Justice Nettle has commenced crucial preparatory work, including working through the extensive publicly available records of the Commission.
I now turn to the Bill.
Establishment of the OSI
The Bill establishes the OSI as an independent statutory office. This independence from government is central to public confidence in the OSI’s operations, as it will ensure that these investigations are conducted free from government influence.
The Bill provides for the appointment of the Special Investigator as a statutory office holder. The Special Investigator must be an Australian lawyer with at least ten years’ experience, with special knowledge of criminal legal practice or investigations.
The Bill empowers the OSI to employ staff and engage consultants as necessary to perform its functions. As such, the Bill will enable the OSI to delegate these functions, duties and powers to OSI officers. However, the exercise of the criminal and disciplinary investigative powers under Part 3 of the Bill will be restricted to investigating officers suitably qualified and trained to exercise these powers.
The OSI’s functions
The key functions of the OSI are to investigate whether there is sufficient evidence to establish any criminal offences, or breaches of discipline arising from, or out of, the conduct of persons involved in Victoria Police’s use of Ms Gobbo as a human source.
The Bill requires the OSI to conduct these investigations in relation to Ms Gobbo and any current and former police officers named in the Commission’s final report or in the complete and unredacted submissions of Counsel Assisting the Commission.
However, in line with the Commission’s recommendation, the Bill will also empower the OSI to investigate any other Victoria Police officers who may have committed criminal offences, or breaches of discipline, arising from, or out of, the use of Ms Gobbo as a human source by Victoria Police. Given the breadth of the Commission’s investigations and findings, and the expectation that any individual responsible for wrongdoing will be held to account, the Bill will empower the OSI to investigate current and former Victoria Police employees (not only sworn police officers) who may have committed criminal offences arising from the use of Ms Gobbo as a human source.
In addition to these functions, the OSI will:
• access, receive and assess over 155,000 documents which were gathered by the Commission and records from the 2014 IBAC inquiry conducted by the Honourable Murray Kellam, to determine whether there is enough admissible evidence to support the commission of any criminal offence or breach of discipline;
• access, receive, assess and deal with any relevant IBAC records provided to the OSI and conduct coordinated investigations with the IBAC under the IBAC Act to determine whether a relevant offence, an offence against the Special Investigator Bill or breach of discipline has been committed;
• receive public interest disclosures and investigate public interest complaints;
• compile briefs of evidence to give to the Victorian Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), who will determine whether criminal charges should be filed;
• charge police officers with breaches of discipline arising from, or out of, the use of Ms Gobbo as a human source by Victoria Police and refer those charges for determination to an independent person appointed by the Chief Commissioner of Victoria Police (Chief Commissioner) under the Victoria Police Act 2013;
• report to the Implementation Monitor established by the Police Informants Royal Commission Implementation Monitor Act 2021; and
• report to Parliament on any matter relating to its functions and duties.
The OSI’s performance of its functions and exercise of its powers will be carried out fairly, impartially, independently and in the public interest, and be oversighted by the Victorian Inspectorate (VI).
Criminal investigations—functions and powers
The Bill gives the OSI all necessary and proportionate powers to investigate the commission of relevant offences arising from, or out of, the conduct of persons involved in the use of Ms Gobbo as a human source. The Bill provides investigating OSI officers with a range of powers similar to those that can be exercised by police under the Crimes Act 1958. These include the power to:
• require a person to state their name and address;
• to apply to a magistrate for a search warrant, including a warrant compelling assistance from a person with knowledge of a computer or computer network to access electronically held data; and
• to apply to a court for an arrest warrant.
The Bill also provides the OSI with access to Victoria’s surveillance devices and witness protection regimes.
Once an investigation has been completed, the OSI will compile briefs of evidence to give to the DPP. Upon receipt of a brief of evidence, the DPP will advise the OSI whether it should file a charge-sheet and commence proceedings against that individual for a relevant offence or offence under the Bill.
Disciplinary investigations—functions and powers
The Bill provides the OSI with all necessary and reasonable powers to investigate potential breaches of discipline committed by Victoria Police officers in relation to the use of Ms Gobbo as a human source by Victoria Police.
These powers include the power to give a direction to a police officer to give any relevant information, produce any relevant document, or answer any relevant question. This power was specifically recommended by the Commission.
However, to limit any unfairness arising from concurrent criminal and disciplinary investigations into the same conduct, the Bill will preclude an investigating OSI officer from issuing a direction until all criminal investigations and prosecutions in relation to criminal offences arising from the same conduct have been finalised.
The Bill will also prevent any information that is given subject to a direction, from being admissible against the person who was subject to the direction.
The Bill empowers the OSI to lay charges for a breach of discipline against a police officer, where they consider that there is evidence to support a charge for a breach. This gives the OSI the same powers as those that apply in usual police disciplinary matters. However, in line with the Commission’s recommendations, the OSI will not inquire into or determine breach of discipline charges. The Bill requires that once a disciplinary charge has been laid, the OSI must refer the charge to an independent person authorised by the Chief Commissioner.
Use of Commission and IBAC records
As recommended by the Commission, the Bill gives the OSI and the IBAC full and free access to the Commission’s records. This will enable the OSI and the IBAC to use the Commission’s records for the performance of their functions. It delivers the Commission’s intent that Special Investigator not be required to duplicate work already undertaken by the Commission in the conduct of its investigations.
The Bill also provides that the OSI may access and use information provided to it by the IBAC which the IBAC considers relevant to the OSI’s statutory functions, and that the OSI will have access to the records of the inquiry into the conduct of current and former Victoria Police officers in relation to the management of Nicola Gobbo as a human source conducted by the Honourable Murray Kellam AO QC, the findings of which were detailed in a confidential report dated 6 February 2015.
However, the Bill places important safeguards on the use of these records. First, the Bill requires the OSI to keep Commission and the IBAC records securely.
In addition, any information or evidence produced to the Commission will not be able to be admitted into evidence against the person who produced it. This preserves the direct use immunity contained in section 40 of the Inquiries Act 2014, which applied to records obtained by the Commission.
The Bill will, however, allow for material given or produced to the Commission to be used derivatively against the person who gave or produced the material—that is, to identify further lines of inquiry. As such, any evidence that is obtained as a consequence of having accessed Commission records will be admissible in evidence against the person who produced those records to the Commission. The Bill partially overrides the derivative use immunity that is provided for in section 40 of the Inquiries Act.
The Bill also partially displaces section 144 of the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Act 2011 (IBAC Act), to ensure the IBAC records provided to the Commission, or given directly to the OSI, are able to be used on the same terms as other Commission records.
Where the IBAC obtains records in the course of a coordinated investigation with the OSI and provides those records to the OSI, the Bill provides that the OSI can only use those records on the same terms that the IBAC could.
The Bill will also afford documents or things considered to be ‘protected’ under the IBAC Act the same protections once transferred to the OSI. Where requests are made to the OSI to produce a ‘protected document or thing’ in a proceeding, the OSI will not be required to produce or enable inspection of protected documents. Rather, any such requests will be referred to the IBAC for action.
The Bill also includes a mechanism to enable the OSI to apply to the Supreme Court to determine how claims of privilege or secrecy provisions apply to Commission and IBAC records. This will allow the OSI to resolve any public interest immunity claims over documents that may not have been resolved by the Commission before such documents are included in a brief of evidence and considered by the DPP. This approach minimises any risk to the integrity of future criminal prosecutions.
Powers to investigate public interest disclosures
The Bill also brings the OSI under Victoria’s public disclosure regime established by the Public Interest Disclosures Act 2012 (Public Interest Disclosures Act). This will ensure that any whistle-blowers who provide information to the OSI are afforded protections and remedies for inappropriate reprisals under the Public Interest Disclosures Act.
The Bill allows public interest disclosures about police officers and employees in relation to the use of Ms Gobbo as a human source to be made directly to OSI officers. The OSI will then notify the IBAC, which will assess the disclosure in this first instance and determine whether it is a complaint. The IBAC can then refer a public interest complaint to an appropriate agency, including the OSI, for investigation. If referred to the OSI, the OSI may use a public interest complaint to further its criminal and disciplinary investigations.
The Bill provides that any public interest complaints about the OSI or current and former OSI officers will be given to the VI to investigate.
Criminal offences
The Bill creates new offences to safeguard the integrity of the OSI’s functions and investigations. These offences include the offence of hindering or obstructing an OSI officer, threatening a witness or an OSI officer, disclosing sensitive information without authorisation, and destroying or concealing evidence the OSI may be interested in.
These offences will deter attempts to compromise the OSI’s investigations. They will also protect against unauthorised use of the highly sensitive material held by the OSI.
The Bill provides exceptions to these offences where appropriate. For example, it will not be an offence to disclose or use OSI information where use or disclosure of information is authorised by the Special Investigator, information is already in the public domain, or where another reasonable excuse applies.
Oversight of the OSI
The Bill provides for oversight of the OSI by the VI.
The Bill enables the VI to:
• monitor the compliance of the OSI and OSI officers in exercising their investigatory functions and powers under the Bill, including the use of coercive powers and arrest warrants;
• receive, assess and investigate complaints about the OSI or OSI officers;
• receive and investigate public interest disclosures about OSI officers;
• assess the effectiveness and appropriateness of the policies and procedures of the OSI relating to the legality and propriety of its activities; and
• report on and make recommendations as a result of performing certain oversight functions.
This oversight is consistent with the existing oversight role played by the VI for the IBAC.
Reporting functions
The Bill imposes various reporting requirements on the OSI.
The Bill requires the OSI to prepare annual reports in accordance with requirements under the Financial Management Act 1994.
The OSI may report directly to Parliament, at any time it considers appropriate, on any matters relating to the performance of its duties and functions. This is consistent with the special reporting functions of the IBAC and the VI.
Given the sensitivity of the matters to be examined by the OSI, the Bill provides a number of limitations on reporting of sensitive details for matters under investigation.
As recommended by the Commission, the Bill will also require the Special Investigator to report regularly to the Implementation Monitor on the progress to establish the OSI’s operations, and on the outcomes of the OSI’s investigations. The Bill will also require the Chief Commissioner to report to the OSI and to the Implementation Monitor on the outcome of any disciplinary proceedings following disciplinary charges laid by the OSI.
Conclusion
This Bill ensures that the Special Investigator is empowered to perform their role in the manner envisaged by the Commission.
The Special Investigator will play a key role in increasing confidence in Victoria’s justice system–ensuring that possible criminal conduct or breaches of discipline arising from, or out of, Victoria Police’s use of Ms Gobbo as a human source are thoroughly and appropriately investigated. These investigations will represent another important step forward to ensure that the events that led to the Commission can never occur again.
I commend the Bill to the house.
Ms STALEY (Ripon) (09:34): I move:
That the debate be adjourned.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.
Ordered that debate be adjourned for two weeks. Debate adjourned until Wednesday, 27 October.
Windfall Gains Tax and State Taxation and Other Acts Further Amendment Bill 2021
Statement of compatibility
Mr PALLAS (Werribee—Treasurer, Minister for Economic Development, Minister for Industrial Relations) (09:35): In accordance with the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 I table a statement of compatibility in relation to the Windfall Gains Tax and State Taxation and Other Acts Further Amendment Bill 2021.
In accordance with section 28 of the Charter ofHuman Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Charter), I make this Statement of Compatibility with respect to the Windfall Gains Tax and State Taxation and Other Acts Further Amendment Bill 2021.
In my opinion, the Windfall Gains Tax and State Taxation and Other Acts Further Amendment Bill 2021 (Bill), as introduced to the Legislative Assembly, is compatible with the human rights as set out in the Charter. I base my opinion on the reasons outlined in this Statement.
Overview
The Bill introduces a new windfall gains tax on the uplift in land value associated with a rezoning of land through a standalone Principal Act, being the Windfall Gains Tax Act 2021 (Windfall Gains Tax Act) and through a number of consequential amendments to the Valuation of Land Act 1960 and the Taxation Administration Act 1997 (Taxation Administration Act).
Relevantly, the Bill also makes technical amendments to the Water Industry Act 1994 (Water Industry Act) and the Water Act 1989 (Water Act), the Land Tax Act 2005 (Land Tax Act), the Gambling Regulation Act 2003 (Gambling Regulation Act) and the Taxation Administration Act.
Several of the other amendments made by the Bill do not engage the human rights listed in the Charter because they either do not affect natural persons, or they operate beneficially in relation to natural persons. However, the following amendments have been identified as potentially engaging human rights contained in the Charter:
Windfall Gains Tax Act:
• Imposition of a tax on owners of land when land or part of land is rezoned and the rezoning constitutes a windfall gains tax event.
Water Industry Act and the Water Act:
• Transfer regulation and setting of Murray Darling Basin water charges from an accredited arrangement under the Commonwealth Water Charge Rules (2010) to regulation under the Victorian framework, like all other rural and urban water charges determined by the Essential Services Commission (ESC) under Victorian legislation for water infrastructure.
Land Tax Act:
• Amendment to restrict the exemption from land tax for land that is leased for outdoor sporting, recreational, cultural or similar activities if the proceeds from the lease are applied for charitable purposes, to land owned by a charitable institution and used as such.
Gambling Regulation Act:
• Amendment to insert a new Part 4A of Chapter 6A to alter the taxation arrangements in relation to keno by imposing a tax on a keno entity’s net keno revenue during a return period, including prescribing the rate of tax applying to net keno revenue, who is liable for the tax, and providing that the Commissioner of State Revenue is to collect the tax.
Taxation Administration Act:
• Amendment to make the proposed Windfall Gains Tax Act, which establishes the windfall gains tax, a taxation law for the purposes of that Act and to enable the new tax to be administered under the same administrative framework as the other taxation laws.
• Amendment to make proposed Part 4A of Chapter 6A of Gambling Regulation Act, which establishes the keno tax, a taxation law for the purposes of that Act and to enable the new keno tax to be administered under the same administrative framework as other taxation laws.
• Amendment to Part 10 of the Taxation Administration Act to clarify objection rights in respect of Part 9A of that Act.
Human rights issues
The human rights protected by the Charter that are relevant to the Bill are:
• Freedom of movement, as protected under section 12 of the Charter which provides that every person lawfully within Victoria has the right to move freely within Victoria and to enter and leave it and has the freedom to choose where to live.
• Privacy and reputation, as protected under section 13 of the Charter which provides that a person has the right to not to have his or her privacy, family, home or correspondence unlawfully or arbitrarily interfered with and not to have his or her reputation unlawfully attacked.
• Property rights, as protected under section 20 of the Charter which provides that a person must not be deprived of his or her property other than in accordance with law. This right is not limited where there is a law that authorises a deprivation of property, and that law is adequately accessible, clear and certain, and sufficiently precise to enable a person to regulate their conduct.
• The presumption of innocence, as protected under section 25(1) of the Charter which provides that a person charged with a criminal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.
• Protection from self-incrimination, as protected under section 25(2)(k) of the Charter which provides that person charged with a criminal offence is entitled without discrimination not to be compelled to testify against himself or herself or to confess guilt. The Supreme Court has held that this right, as protected by the Charter, is at least as broad as the common law privilege against self-incrimination. It applies to protect a charged person against the admission in subsequent criminal proceedings of incriminatory material obtained under compulsion, regardless of whether the information was obtained prior to or subsequent to the charge being laid. The common law privilege includes immunity against both direct use and derivative use of compelled testimony.
• The right to a fair hearing, as protected under section 24 of the Charter which provides that a person charged with a criminal offence or a party to a civil proceeding have the right to a fair hearing. The right to a fair hearing applies to both courts and tribunals, such as the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT). Generally, the right to a fair hearing is concerned with procedural fairness and access to a court or tribunal, rather than the substantive fairness of a decision of a court or tribunal determined on the merits of a case.
For the reasons outlined below, the Bill is compatible with each of these rights.
Windfall Gains Tax Act
Right to property: Section 20
Parts 1 to 6 of the Bill introduce a new Windfall Gains Tax Act to provide for a new windfall gains tax, imposed on owners of land on the uplift in land value associated with the rezoning of certain land. The introduction of the windfall gains tax makes the owner of land liable to pay the tax in circumstances when previously no tax was payable.
The windfall gains tax has been introduced because Planning Scheme amendments, which change the use of land, can lead to a significant increase in the value of the land, the benefits of which flow exclusively to the landowner. The Government has decided that some of the increase in land value that results from planning decisions by the Government should be captured by the Government and shared by the rest of the community, rather than accruing solely as a windfall to the private landowner.
To the extent that the new windfall gains tax is payable by a natural person, the right to property is engaged.
However, the imposition of the windfall gains tax is not arbitrary because it is precisely formulated and will be administered in accordance with the proposed provisions in the new standalone Principal Act, being the Windfall Gains Tax Act, which will be a taxation law that is adequately accessible, clear and certain, and sufficiently precise to enable affected taxpayers to inform themselves of their legal obligations and to regulate their conduct accordingly. Furthermore, taxpayers will have the protections provided by the Taxation Administration Act including rights of objection, review, appeal and recovery.
Water Industry Act and the Water Act
Right to fair hearing: Section 24
Clause 104 of the Bill inserts new Part 18 into the Water Act to preserve the current situation for fees and tariffs imposed before 1 July 2024. That is, the levying of Murray Darling Basin water charges approved or determined by the Goulburn-Murray Rural Water Corporation and the Lower Murray Urban and Rural Water Corporation as part of their current pricing cycles under Part 1B of the Water Industry Act and the Commonwealth Water Charges Rules 2010 are not subject to merits review by VCAT will continue to be exempt from the objection process (and VCAT review pathway) available under section 266 and section 271 of the Water Act.
It is noted that the engagement with section 24 is limited. The restriction will only continue to apply to the setting of tariffs, or imposition of a fee under a tariff, through the accredited arrangements under Part 1B of the Water Industry Act for the current pricing period, which will end on 30 June 2023 for the Lower Murray Urban and Rural Water Corporation and 30 June 2024 for the Goulburn-Murray Rural Water Corporation. This is intended to preserve the status quo on a transitional basis. Tariffs and fees imposed under tariffs set by these Water Corporations after these dates will be subject to the objection process (and VCAT review) through sections 266 and 271 of the Water Act.
As such, although the Bill engages section 24 of the Charter, it does not limit, restrict or interfere with the scope of that right.
Land Tax Act
Right to property: Section 20
Section 71 of the Land Tax Act provides an exemption from land tax for land that is leased for outdoor sporting, recreational, cultural or similar activities if the proceeds from the lease are applied for charitable purposes.
Section 74 of the Land Tax Act provides an exemption for land that is either used by a charitable institution exclusively for charitable purposes, or that is owned by a charitable institution and vacant but declared to be held for future use for charitable purposes.
Clause 61 the Bill amends the Land Tax Act to restrict the exemption from land tax for land that is leased for outdoor sporting, recreational, cultural or similar activities if the proceeds from the lease are applied for charitable purposes only to land owned by a charitable institution and used as such.
This limitation will result in land that is currently exempt to lose that exemption where the owner is not a charitable institution. By limiting the operation of the exemption, this amendment may engage the right to property, since the exemption will no longer extend to a natural person who is the owner of affected land.
However, this amendment is not an arbitrary deprivation of a natural person’s property; it is precisely formulated to give effect to the original policy intent of the provision which was intended to provide an exemption for land that was vested in a charitable organisation but used for a non-charitable purpose (e.g. outdoor sporting activity). The provision as it currently stands provides potential for tax avoidance by private land owners seeking to qualify for the exemption by leasing land for a nominal amount (as opposed to commercial rents under arms-length leases) to an entity which purports to use the land for outdoor sporting, recreational, cultural or similar activities.
Gambling Regulation Act
Right to property: Section 20
From 1 January 2019, the Victorian Government introduced a point of consumption (POCT) framework for wagering and betting tax to capture all wagering and betting undertaken by consumers located in Victoria. Wagering and betting entities are liable to pay wagering and betting tax to the Commissioner on their net wagering revenue from customers located in Victoria at the time of making a bet. Gambling products other than wagering and betting, such as keno games, currently sit outside the POCT framework.
Part 9 of the Bill seeks to replace the current tax arrangement for keno games with a POCT framework similar to that of the wagering and betting tax. The new keno tax is to be imposed on the net keno revenue of a keno entity.
To the extent that some amounts might not have previously been included in an entity’s taxable revenue and will result in additional tax being paid by a natural person who falls within the definition of a keno entity, the right to property may be engaged.
The imposition of the keno tax is not arbitrary because it is precisely formulated and will be administered in accordance with the proposed Part 4A of Chapter 6A of the Gambling Regulation Act, which will be a taxation law that is adequately accessible, clear and certain, and sufficiently precise to enable affected taxpayers to inform themselves of their legal obligations and to regulate their conduct accordingly. Furthermore, taxpayers will have the protections provided by the Taxation Administration Act including rights of objection, review, appeal and recovery.
Taxation Administration Act
Fair hearing—Section 24(1))
The State Taxation Acts Amendment (Relief Measures) Act 2020 amended the Taxation Administration Act by inserting Part 9A to provide the Commissioner with standing powers to give effect to emergency tax relief measures announced by the Victorian Government when issued with a ministerial direction from the Treasurer.
Part 9A enables the Commissioner to waive, defer or refund tax paid (or to do any combination thereof) to give effect to emergency tax relief announced by the Victorian Government. Part 9A of the Taxation Administration Act also includes a provision, section 95D (the Privative Clause), that prevents any action being taken against the State of Victoria, the Treasurer or the Commissioner of State Revenue in relation to anything arising out of an act or omission under Part 9A.
The policy intent behind the Privative Clause is that where the Commissioner declines to provide a refund, waiver or deferral of tax under Part 9A where a taxpayer fails to meet eligibility requirements for such relief, no action can be initiated against the Commissioner, the Treasurer or the State of Victoria in respect of that decision. This is because it would be inappropriate for decisions made under Part 9A to be subject to action (understood to cover proceedings commenced in a court of law or an administrative tribunal such as VCAT) in the nature of merits or statutory judicial review, or any other cause of action available at law.
Clause 77 of the Bill amends Part 10 of the Taxation Administration Act to clarify how the statutory right of objection operates in respect of matters arising out of Part 9A of that Act, particularly given the operation of the Privative Clause. The amendment is intended to clarify the relationship between the Privative Clause, with a taxpayer’s statutory right to seek internal merits review of an assessment or certain decisions by way of an objection under Part 10 of the Taxation Administration Act. The effect of the proposed amendment to Part 10 is that taxpayers retain their statutory right to internal merits review by way of objection; they are only prevented from relying on grounds arising out of Part 9A, so as to align the operation of Part 10 with Part 9A of the Taxation Administration Act.
To the extent that the proposed amendment may preclude a natural person from seeking internal merits review of an assessment or certain decisions on grounds pertaining to Part 9A of the Taxation Administration Act, the right to a fair hearing is engaged and may be limited.
However, any limitation on the right to a fair hearing is reasonable, proportionate and necessary to ensure the efficient administration of Part 9A emergency tax relief measures, where taxation powers are exercised in extraordinary circumstances to give effect to emergency tax relief measures that are intended to operate beneficially for eligible taxpayers.
As stated earlier, decisions made under Part 9A are made in response to significant emergencies, requiring the immediate action of the State, the Treasurer and the Commissioner to respond to urgent needs that arise in the Victorian community. The decisions made operate for the benefit of recipients of emergency taxation relief. Providing a right of objection under Part 10 in relation to such decisions adds a level of formality and revision that is unsuited and inappropriate to the context in which such decisions are made. Decisions made under Part 9A are also likely to be iterative in nature and there may be sequence of decisions with a cumulative effect.
The proposed amendment will also clarify the operation of the Taxation Administration Act by clarifying and aligning the operation of both the Privative Clause in Part 9A, and the statutory right to internal merits review under Part 10. Finally, any limitation on the right to a fair hearing is proportionate. The statutory right of objection is not being removed by this proposed amendment; the amendment operates only to place the bare minimum restriction on that statutory right as is necessary to achieve the policy intent and to resolve any uncertainty that arises between potentially inconsistent provisions within the Taxation Administration Act.
Taxation Administration Act—new taxation laws
Clause 82 of the Bill amends the Taxation Administration Act to make the Windfall Gains Tax Act a taxation law. Clause 71 of the Bill amends the Taxation Administration Act to make Part 4A of Chapter 6A of the Gambling Regulation Act a taxation law. Accordingly, the proposed Windfall Gains Tax Act and new point of consumption keno tax imposed under Part 4A of Chapter 6A of the Gambling Regulation Act will be administered as taxation laws under the Taxation Administration Act. Therefore, the following Charter rights may be engaged: freedom of movement; the right to privacy; the right to property; the right to a fair hearing; the presumption of innocence; and protection from self-incrimination.
Freedom of movement: Section 12
Investigation powers of tax officers
Part 9 of the Taxation Administration Act provides authorised officers with investigation powers to administer and enforce the taxation laws, which will include the proposed Windfall Gains Tax Act and Part 4A of Chapter 6A of the Gambling Regulation Act. The administration of windfall gains tax and the keno tax under these proposed taxation laws may therefore involve the exercise of investigative powers provided in section 73 of the Taxation Administration Act. These investigative powers may also be exercised in relation to the collection of reportable information under Part 9 of the Taxation Administration Act.
Under section 73(5) the Commissioner of State Revenue or an authorised officer exercises their power to direct a natural person to attend and give evidence in relation to that matter, Accordingly, a person’s right to move freely within Victoria may be engaged. Section 73(8) makes it an offence to refuse to comply with a direction made under section 73(5). However, a person required to attend and give evidence orally is to be paid expenses in accordance with the prescribed scale contained in the Taxation Administration Regulations 2017. It is arguable that a person’s right to move freely within Victoria may be engaged when the Commissioner of State Revenue or an authorised officer exercises their power under section 73(5).
Also, although the power to compel a person to attend a particular place at a particular time technically limits that person’s freedom to choose to be elsewhere at that time, this differs qualitatively from the types of measures that Victorian courts have regarded as engaging the right to freedom of movement, such as restrictions placed on a person’s place of residence, or ability to leave their residence, and police powers to conduct a traffic stop.
To the extent that section 73 of the Taxation Administration Act is capable of being considered to limit the right of freedom of movement, any such limit is demonstrably justified under section 7(2) of the Charter, as the Commissioner of State Revenue’s power to compel a person’s attendance to give evidence will in certain circumstances be essential to obtain the information needed for the proper administration of the Windfall Gains Tax Act and Part 4A of Chapter 6A of the Gambling Regulation Act, and for the collection of reportable information in accordance with the Taxation Administration Act.
Right to Privacy: Section 13(a)
Investigation powers of tax officers
Part 9 of the Taxation Administration Act provides the Commissioner of State Revenue and authorised officers with investigation powers to administer and enforce taxation laws, which will include the proposed Windfall Gains Tax Act and Part 4A of Chapter 6A the Gambling Regulation Act. The following investigation powers may interfere with the right to privacy, as well as the right not to impart information, which forms part of the right to freedom of expression under section 15 of the Charter:
• Section 73 of the Taxation Administration Act provides that the Commissioner of State Revenue may, by written notice, require a person to provide the Commissioner with information, produce a document or thing in the person’s possession, or to attend and give evidence under oath.
• Section 76 of the Taxation Administration Act provides that an authorised officer may, at any reasonable time, enter and search any premises, and inspect, photograph or make copies of any document on the premises.
• Section 77 of the Taxation Administration Act provides that an authorised officer may apply to a magistrate for a search warrant in relation to a premises, including a residence, if the authorised officer considers on reasonable grounds that there is, or may be within the next 72 hours, on the premises a particular thing that may be relevant to the administration or execution of a taxation law.
• Section 83 of the Taxation Administration Act provides that an authorised officer may, or may require an employee of the occupier to, operate equipment on the premises to obtain information from a storage device that the authorised officer believes, on reasonable grounds, contains information relevant to the administration of a taxation law.
• Section 86 of the Taxation Administration Act provides that an authorised officer may, to the extent it is reasonably necessary to do so for the administration or execution of a taxation law, require a person to give information, produce or provide documents and things, and give reasonable assistance, to the authorised officer.
In each provision that permits authorised officers to exercise powers of entry and search, the powers of those authorised officers are clearly set out in the Taxation Administration Act and are strictly confined by reference to their purpose. They are also subject to appropriate legislative safeguards. In particular:
• A warrantless search under section 76 of the Taxation Administration Act cannot be conducted in respect of premises used for residential purposes except with the written consent of the occupier of the premises (section 76(6)). An authorised officer may not exercise a power under section 76 unless the officer produces, on request, his or her identity card (section 76(5)).
• A search warrant issued by a magistrate under section 77 of the Taxation Administration Act must specify the premises to be searched, a description of the thing for which the search is made, any conditions to which the warrant is subject, whether entry is authorised to be made at any time or during specified hours, and must specify a day not later than seven days after its issue after which the warrant ceases to have effect (section 77(3)). Where entry under warrant or pursuant to court order occurs, an authorised officer must issue an announcement and give persons on the premises an opportunity to allow entry, unless the officer believes on reasonable grounds that immediate entry is necessary to ensure the safety of a person, or ensure the effective execution of the search warrant is not frustrated (section 78). The authorised officer is also required to identify himself or herself and must give a copy of the warrant to the occupier of the premises (section 79).
• Division 3 of Part 9 of the Taxation Administration Act includes broad secrecy obligations that prohibit tax officers (which include authorised officers) from disclosing information obtained in relation to their functions, except as permitted under the Taxation Administration Act.
The amendments also apply section 92 of the Taxation Administration Act, which permits the qualified disclosure of information obtained in the administration of a taxation law, to the proposed Windfall Gains Tax Act and Part 4A of Chapter 6A of the Gambling Regulation Act. Specifically, section 92(1) permits the disclosure of such information for several different purposes, including with consent of the person to whom the information relates, in connection with the administration or execution of a taxation law, to an authorised recipient such as the Ombudsman or a Victoria Police officer of or above the rank of inspector, or in connection with the administration of a legal proceeding arising out of a recognised law. As with the search and seizure powers of authorised officers under this Part, these permitted disclosures are strictly confined to their legitimate purposes and are subject to considerable legislative safeguards.
In particular, section 94 of the Taxation Administration Act prohibits ‘secondary disclosures’, that is, disclosure of any information provided under section 92, unless it is for the purpose of enforcing a law or protecting public revenue. Further, section 95 provides that a tax officer is not required to disclose or produce in court any such information unless it is necessary for the purposes of the administration of a taxation law, or to enable a person listed as an authorised recipient under section 92 to exercise a function imposed on the person by law.
Accordingly, to the extent that these investigation powers could interfere with a person’s privacy, any interference would not constitute an unlawful or arbitrary interference.
Property Clearance Certificates
Clause 88 of the Bill amends Division 4 of Part 9 of the Taxation Administration Act to enable the Commissioner to issue a property clearance certificate regarding Windfall Gains Tax.
As with the property clearance certificates in section 95AA of the Taxation Administration Act, only an owner, mortgagee or bona fide purchaser may apply for a property clearance certificate. The Commissioner of State Revenue is required to disclose the amount payable with respect to any charge on the land for unpaid windfall gains tax, and may also provide additional information. This may include, for example, an amount of windfall gains tax that has not yet been assessed, or information relating to another debt payable to the Commissioner of State Revenue under a revenue law with respect to that property.
Disclosure of information under Division 4 of Part 9 may also be exercised in relation to Part 4A of Chapter 6A of the Gambling Regulation Act since this will be a law for which the Commissioner of State Revenue has the power of general administration.
To the extent that information that may be disclosed in a property clearance certificate is personal information, the right to privacy is engaged. However, the right to privacy is not limited. The disclosure contemplated by this amendment will not be arbitrary, nor will it constitute unlawful interference. The disclosure of this information will be expressly permitted by and subject to the secrecy provisions of the Taxation Administration Act.
Requirement to Provide Information in Returns
Proposed Part 4A of Chapter 6A of the Gambling Regulation Act will require a person who is liable to pay keno tax to periodically lodge a return with the Commissioner of State Revenue. Section 10 of the Taxation Administration Act, as it will apply to this Part, requires a taxpayer to provide in this return all information necessary for a proper assessment of tax liability, including any further information not otherwise required under a taxation law.
It is expected that most returns will be submitted by entities, rather than individuals, and not all of the information required to be provided in a return will be personal information. However, to the extent that the collection of personal information may result in interference with a person’s privacy, any such interference will be lawful and not arbitrary. These provisions do not require that a person’s personal information be published, and only require the provision of information necessary to achieve the purpose of administering and executing this taxation law. Accordingly, they do not limit the right to privacy.
Right to property: Section 20
Investigation powers of tax officers
Part 9 of the Taxation Administration Act provides authorised officers with investigation powers to administer and enforce taxation laws, which will include the Windfall Gains Tax Act and Part 4A of Chapter 6A of the Gambling Regulation Act. The right in section 20 of the Charter is relevant to a number of powers which provide for tax officers to enter certain premises, and to seize or take items. These powers are discussed in detail below, in relation to the right to privacy.
The right in section 20 will not be limited by these powers, because any deprivation of property will occur in accordance with law. The circumstances in which inspectors or authorised persons are permitted to seize or take items or documents are provided for by clear legislative provisions, and the powers are strictly confined. The items that may be taken or seized will be relevant to and connected with enforcing compliance with the Windfall Gains Tax Act and Part 4A of Chapter 6A of the Gambling Regulation Act. For instance, a magistrate may only issue a search warrant if satisfied by evidence on oath or affidavit that there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that there is, or may be within the next 72 hours, a particular thing on the premises that may be relevant to the administration or execution of a taxation law. Further, under section 77 of the Taxation Administration Act, a document or thing may only be searched for, seized or secured against interference if it is described in the warrant issued by a magistrate.
The powers of an authorised officer include, under section 76 of the Taxation Administration Act, the power to seize a document or thing where the officer has reason to believe or suspect it is necessary to do so in order to prevent its concealment, loss, destruction or alteration. Similarly, section 83 of the Taxation Administration Act provides that an authorised officer may seize a storage device and the equipment necessary to access information on the device if the officer believes, on reasonable grounds, that the storage device contains information relevant to the administration of a taxation law and it is not otherwise practicable to access the information on the device.
Sections 76 and 83 of the Taxation Administration Act, as they will apply to the Windfall Gains Tax Act and Part 4A of Chapter 6A of the Gambling Regulation Act, do not limit the right in section 20 of the Charter because they are sufficiently confined and structured, accessible and formulated precisely such that any deprivation occurs in accordance with the law. Further, these provisions guard against any permanent interference with property where no offence has been committed. For example, the Taxation Administration Act provides that reasonable steps must be taken to return a document or thing that is seized if the reason for its seizure no longer exists (section 84), and the document or thing seized must be returned within the retention period of 60 days, unless the retention period is extended by an order of the Magistrates Court (section 85).
Fair hearing—Section 24(1))
Clauses 74, 78 and 94 of the Bill amend section 135 of the Taxation Administration Act to provide that it is the intention of sections 5, 12(4), 18(1), 96(2) and 100(4) of the Taxation Administration Act, as those sections apply after the commencement of those clauses respectively, to alter or vary section 85 of the Constitution Act 1975. These provisions preclude the Supreme Court from entertaining proceedings of a kind to which these sections apply, except as provided by those sections.
A central purpose of this Bill is to bring the Windfall Gains Tax Act and Part 6A of Chapter 4A of the Gambling Regulation Act under the Taxation Administration Act. Section 5 of the Taxation Administration Act defines the meaning of a non-reviewable decision in relation to the Taxation Administration Act, which will apply to the Windfall Gains Tax Act and Part 4A of Chapter 6A of the Gambling Regulation Act. ‘Non-reviewable’ is referred to in sections 12(4) and 100(4) of the Taxation Administration Act.
The reason for limiting the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in relation to a compromise assessment under section 12 of the Taxation Administration Act is that agreement has been reached between the Commissioner of State Revenue and the taxpayer on the taxpayer’s liability, and the purpose of the section would not be achieved if the decision were subsequently reviewable. Section 18 of the Taxation Administration Act establishes a procedure, the adherence to which is a condition precedent to taking any further action for recovering refunds of tax. The purpose of the provisions is to give the Commissioner of State Revenue the opportunity to consider a refund application before any collateral legal action can be taken. The purpose of these provisions would not be achieved if the Commissioner of State Revenue’s actions were subject to collateral legal action before the Commissioner has had the opportunity to consider a taxpayer’s refund application.
Division 1 of Part 10 of the Taxation Administration Act establishes an exclusive code for dealing with objections, and this Division will also apply where the Commissioner of State Revenue issues an assessment in relation to the Windfall Gains Tax Act or Part 4A of Chapter 6A of the Gambling Regulation Act. This code establishes the rights of objectors in a statutory framework and precludes any collateral actions pertaining to the Commissioner of State Revenue’s assessment. The objections and appeals provisions of Part 10 of the Taxation Administration Act establish that review of assessments is only to be undertaken in accordance with an exclusive code identified in that Part. The purpose of these provisions would not be achieved if any question concerning an assessment was subject to legal action except as provided by Division 2, Part 10 of the Taxation Administration Act.
A power is provided to the Commissioner of State Revenue under section 100 of the Taxation Administration Act, which provides the Commissioner with discretion to allow an objection to be lodged even though out of time. This decision is non-reviewable to ensure the efficient administration of the Taxation Administration Act and to enable outstanding issues relating to assessments to be concluded expeditiously.
In this context, to the extent that limiting the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court may limit a person’s fair hearing rights as protected under section 24(1) of the Charter, any such limit would be demonstrably justified. The classification of certain decisions under the Taxation Administration Act as ‘non-reviewable’ is directly related to the particular statutory purpose and context of those particular decisions, and the Taxation Administration Act provides an alternative regime for dealing with objections, which is necessary for the efficient discharge of the Commissioner of State Revenue’s functions under the Taxation Administration Act, which will now include the administration of both the Windfall Gains Tax Act and Part 4A of Chapter 6A of the Gambling Regulation Act.
Presumption of innocence—(section 25(1))
Defences of reasonable excuse
The right to be presumed innocent may be considered relevant to a number of offences under the Taxation Administration Act that place an evidential burden on the defendant, and which apply to the proposed Windfall Gains Tax Act and Part 4A of Chapter 6A of the Gambling Regulation Act as a result of clauses 82 and 71 of the Bill.
As outlined above, section 73 of the Taxation Administration Act empowers the Commissioner of State Revenue to issue a written notice requiring a person to provide information, produce a document or thing, or give evidence. Section 73A provides that the Commissioner of State Revenue may certify to the Supreme Court that a person has failed to comply with a requirement of a notice issued under section 73. The Supreme Court may inquire into the case and may order the person to comply with the requirement in the notice. Section 73A(4) provides that a person who, without reasonable excuse, fails to comply with an order of the Supreme Court under s 73A(2), is guilty of an offence.
Section 88 of the Taxation Administration Act makes it an offence for a person, without reasonable excuse, to refuse or fail to comply with a requirement made or to answer a question of an authorised officer asked in accordance with sections 81 or 86 of the Taxation Administration Act.
Section 90 establishes a defence of reasonable compliance for offences relating to the investigation powers of authorised officers under Part 9 of the Taxation Administration Act. It provides that a person is not guilty of an offence if the court hearing the charge is satisfied that the person could not, by the exercise of reasonable diligence, have complied with the requirement to which the charge relates, or that the person complied with the requirement to the extent that he or she was able to do so.
Although these provisions require a defendant to raise evidence of a matter in order to rely on a defence, the provisions impose an evidential, rather than legal burden. Courts in other jurisdictions have generally taken the approach that an evidential onus on a defendant to raise a defence does not limit the presumption of innocence. The defences and excuses provided relate to matters within the knowledge of the defendant, which is appropriate in circumstances where placing the onus on the prosecution would involve the proof of a negative (which would be very difficult).
For the above reasons, these provisions of the Taxation Administration Act, as applied to the Windfall Gains Tax Act or Part 4A of Chapter 6Aof the Gambling Regulation Act, do not limit the right to be presumed innocent in section 25(1) of the Charter.
Self-incrimination—Section 25(2)(k)
Section 86 of the Taxation Administration Act, which will apply to the proposed Windfall Gains Tax Act and Part 4A of Chapter 6Aof the Gambling Regulation Act, provides that an authorised officer may, in the exercise of his or her investigative functions, require a person to give information, produce or provide documents and things, and give reasonable assistance, to the authorised officer. It is an offence to fail to comply with a requirement made or to answer a question under this section. Section 87(1) limits the right to protection against self-incrimination by providing that a person is not excused from answering a question, providing information or producing a document or thing on the ground that to do so might tend to incriminate the person or make the person liable to a penalty. Section 87(2) provides that, if a person objects to answering a question, providing information or producing a document or thing, the answer, information, document or thing is not admissible in any criminal proceeding other than proceedings for an offence against a taxation law, or proceedings for an offence in the nature of perjury.
Section 87 of the Taxation Administration Act is a reasonable limit on the right to protection against self-incrimination under section 7(2) of the Charter. The ability of an authorised officer to require a person to give information or answer questions is necessary for the proper administration of the proposed Windfall Gains Tax Act and Part 4A of Chapter 6A of the Gambling Regulation Act. To this end, the information, answers or documents obtained are only admissible in proceedings for an offence relating to the proper administration of the Windfall Gains Tax Act or Part 4A of Chapter 6Aof the Gambling Regulation Act, and section 87(2) of the Taxation Administration Act otherwise preserves both the direct use immunity and derivative use immunity.
Further, with respect to the power of an authorised officer to require the production of documents, at common law, the protection accorded to the compelled production of pre-existing documents is considerably weaker than the protection accorded to oral testimony or to documents brought into existence to comply with a request for information. This is particularly so in the context of regulated industry, where documents or records are required to be produced during the course of a person’s participation in that industry and exist for the dominant purpose of demonstrating that person’s compliance with his or her relevant duties and obligations. The duty to provide documents in this context is consistent with the reasonable expectations of these individuals as persons who operate within a regulated scheme.
There are no less restrictive means available to achieve the purpose of enabling the proper administration of the Windfall Gains Tax Act or Part 4A of Chapter 6A of the Gambling Regulation Act, as providing an immunity that applies to the offence of perjury or an offence under the Bill or the Taxation Administration Act would unreasonably obstruct the role of an authorised officer to investigate compliance with the Windfall Gains Tax Act or Part 4A of Chapter 6A of the Gambling Regulation Act. Accordingly, the relevant clauses are compatible with the right not to be compelled to testify against oneself in section 25(2)(k) of the Charter.
For these reasons, in my opinion, the provisions of the Bill are compatible with the rights contained in sections 12, 13, 20, 24, 25(1) and 25(2)(k) of the Charter.
TIM PALLAS, MP
Treasurer
Second reading
Mr PALLAS (Werribee—Treasurer, Minister for Economic Development, Minister for Industrial Relations) (09:35): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I ask that my second-reading speech, except for the section 85 statement, be incorporated into Hansard.
Incorporated speech as follows, except for statement under section 85(5) of the Constitution Act 1975:
It is my pleasure to introduce this Bill, which amends the Duties Act 2000, Essential Services Commission Act 2001, Gambling Regulation Act 2003, Land Tax Act 2005, State Taxation and Mental Health Acts Amendment Act 2021, Taxation Administration Act 1997, Water Act 1989 and Water Industry Act 1994, and will introduce a new Principal Act for the Windfall gains tax.
This Bill implements budget revenue initiatives and tax relief measures from the 2020–21 Budget and 2021–22Budget to support the Government’s strong financial management, including the introduction of a Windfall gains tax (WGT) on planning scheme amendments that rezone land, to take effect from 1 July 2023, and a land tax concession and absentee owner surcharge (AOS) exemption for build-to-rent (BTR) developments to help establish the sector in Victoria. The Bill also makes amendments to taxation and other laws to maintain the integrity and sustainability of the State’s taxation and water regulatory systems.
Windfall gains tax
When land is rezoned to expand its permitted uses and economic potential, it can result in immediate and significant increases in land value. This increase in land value is a windfall gain that accrues solely to the landowner over and above any regular income or profits earned from the land.
This Bill will implement a new Principal Act to introduce a WGT on the uplift in land value resulting from a planning scheme amendment that changes the zoning of land, applying from 1 July 2023. Taxing windfall gains allows a share of the private economic benefits from rezoning to be captured as a revenue stream, in an efficient and equitable way, so that the benefits of such a windfall can be returned to the community through greater Government investments in services and infrastructure.
The WGT will be paid by landowners and will apply to most rezonings across Victoria that have a value uplift above $100,000. Several rezonings will be excluded from the WGT including rezonings to or from the Urban Growth Zone which are in relation to Growth Areas Infrastructure Contribution (GAIC) land, recognising the GAIC’s similar purpose to the WGT; rezonings to (but not from) a public land zone; and movements between schedules in the same zone. In addition, the Bill provides the Treasurer with the power to declare, by notice published in the Government Gazette, rezonings to specific zones to be an excluded rezoning. I intend to use this power to exclude rezonings to any Rural Zone, other than the Rural Living Zone, prior to the commencement of the tax. This exemption recognises that agricultural land may be rezoned from one Rural Zone to another, but continue to be farmed in the same way.
To ensure landowners and purchasers have time to adjust, rezonings that occur on land that is subject to a contract for consideration or option arrangement entered into by 15 May 2021, where the contract or arrangement is yet to settle at the time of the rezoning, excluding development agreements, will not be subject to the WGT. Similarly, proponent-led rezonings which were well-progressed and had incurred significant costs when the WGT was announced on 15 May 2021 will not be subject to the tax.
The WGT will be calculated on the ‘taxable value uplift’ in land from a rezoning, being the difference in the capital improved value of the land before and after the rezoning takes effect. The pre rezoning value will be drawn from the most recent valuation in force for the land under the Valuation of Land Act 1960 (VLA) while the post-rezoning value will be determined through a supplementary valuation certified by the Valuer-General Victoria.
The WGT will only apply to value uplifts in excess of $100,000. For taxable value uplifts of more than $100,000 but less than $500,000, the WGT payable will be 62.5 per cent of the uplift in excess of $100,000, allowing the effective tax rate to phase in up to $500,000. For uplifts of $500,000 or more, a flat rate of 50 per cent of the taxable value uplift is payable. Grouping and aggregation provisions will apply so that properties owned by the same owner or group of owners and rezoned under the same planning scheme amendment effectively receive the benefit of one threshold. These provisions will operate for related corporations and related trusts on similar terms to grouping for land tax purposes.
Exclusions and waivers will apply for some types of land. Residential land with a residential dwelling, including primary production land, will receive a WGT exemption for up to two hectares of residential landholdings rezoned by the same planning scheme amendment. For residential landholdings of greater than two hectares, the value uplift will be proportionately reduced: for example, if the total residential land area is five hectares, the value uplift will be reduced by two-fifths, or 40 per cent, for the purpose of calculating the WGT. In addition, charitable institutions will be eligible for a waiver of WGT if the relevant land remains owned and occupied by a charity exclusively for charitable purposes for 15 years after the rezoning. There will also be an exemption from the WGT in relation to rezonings to correct obvious or technical errors in the Victoria Planning Provisions or a planning scheme, with provision for deferred or previously paid WGT to be reassessed or refunded as appropriate.
Recognising that some owners will not have the capacity to pay the whole WGT assessment at the time of rezoning, all owners will have the ability to defer payment with interest for up to 30 years, or until the property is sold or transferred, whichever occurs first. The applicable interest rate will be the 10-year Victorian Government bond rate. Certain transactions will not cease the deferral, including transfers from a deceased person to a personal representative, dutiable transactions for no consideration, relevant acquisitions of a further interest in the land and pro-rata increases of all unitholders or shareholders in the land.
The WGT will be administered by the Commissioner of State Revenue (Commissioner) as a taxation law under the Taxation Administration Act 1997 (TAA), enabling the TAA’s general provisions to apply in relation to tax collection, compliance, recovery, objections and other administrative matters. Owners will be able to object to the valuations used to calculate the WGT. Such objections will be determined by the Valuer-General on referral from the SRO.
To provide a robust mechanism for the recovery of tax liabilities, unpaid or deferred WGT will also be made a first charge on the relevant land. The Bill provides for the inclusion of WGT liabilities on property clearance certificates issued to purchasers under the TAA. WGT information will also be incorporated into vendor statements under section 32 of the Sale of Land Act 1962 in a similar manner to how land tax liabilities are reported¬.
Build-to-rent developments
In the 2020–21 Budget, the Government announced that BTR developments would become eligible for a land tax concession and exemption from the AOS from 2022 until 2040 as part of the Big Housing Build package. The Bill amends the Land Tax Act 2005 to expand this key initiative so that the land tax concession and AOS exemption will be provided for a full 30 years for eligible BTR projects that commence operation between 1 January 2021 and 31 December 2031. The concession from land tax will be applied as a 50 per cent reduction in the taxable value of the land, while the AOS exemption will apply to the subject land only (and not to any other landholdings). Both benefits will be available on an apportioned basis for mixed-use developments with a BTR component.
Eligible BTR developments will be new or substantially renovated buildings with at least 50 self-contained dwellings, held within a unified ownership structure and managed by a single entity. Dwellings must be suitable for occupancy on or after 1 January 2021 and before 1 January 2032, as evidenced by the issue of an occupancy permit within the relevant dates. The dwellings must also be available to rent under a range of residential lease terms. Each BTR development will be entitled to benefits for a single continuous period of up to 30 years. The benefits are available on the condition that the development satisfies the eligibility criteria for a continuous period of at least 15 years. If there is a change in circumstances that means the 15-year eligibility requirement is not satisfied, a special liability called BTR special land tax will be triggered, the purpose of which is to impose a financial charge that reflects (but not equals) the year-on-year financial advantage that accrued to the owner because of the BTR tax benefits. The formula for BTR special land tax utilises a variable interest rate based on the Commonwealth Government’s 10-year bond rate and a published corporate BBB credit spread. Changes in circumstances after the 15-year eligibility requirement will not result in a BTR special land tax liability, but will cease the BTR benefits going forward.
Private gender-exclusive and gender-restrictive clubs
In line with the 2021–22 Budget announcement, the Bill amends the Land Tax Act 2005 to remove the land tax exemption for private gender-exclusive and gender-restrictive clubs. Clubs are currently eligible for a land tax exemption if they are not-for-profit clubs which provide for the social, cultural, recreational, literary or education interests of their members. The amendment removes the exemption for gender-exclusive clubs—clubs that exclude persons from membership on the basis of sex or gender identity—while giving the Commissioner discretion to grant an exemption to gender-exclusive clubs that demonstrate a community benefit. If the club removed its membership restrictions on or after 20 May 2021, when the 2021–22 Budget was delivered, it is classified as a gender-restrictive club, and is not eligible for an exemption unless the Commissioner is satisfied the club has genuinely opened membership to all sexes and gender identities.
Keno tax
The Bill amends the Gambling Regulation Act 2003 to reform the taxation of keno games to a point of consumption framework from 15 April 2022, as announced in the 2021–22 Budget. Keno is currently provided in Victoria by a single keno licensee and is taxed at 24.24 per cent of keno revenue per week. In recent years, the popularity of online keno has grown. Victorians are now able to play keno over the Internet with keno operators based intestate. The increase in the prevalence of online keno mirrors trends in the wagering and betting sector that led the government to introduce a point of consumption framework for wagering and betting tax, where operators pay tax on their net wagering revenue from customers located in Victoria at the time of making the bet. The framework ensures all licensed providers of keno products pay their fair share of tax on revenue from Victorian customers, regardless of where the provider is located or licensed. As part of the reforms, the administration of keno tax will be transferred to the SRO. Keno entities will be required to register with the SRO and lodge monthly returns. The rate of tax will be maintained at the existing rate of 24.24 per cent, payable on the monthly net keno revenue from customers located in Victoria at the time of playing the keno game. Consequential amendments to the TAA bring the point of consumption keno tax within the scope of the TAA’s administration and enforcement provisions.
Other taxation amendments
The Bill amends the Duties Act 2000 to enable an exemption from motor vehicle duty to apply to private vehicles converted for wheelchair access within 12 months after registration or transfer of the vehicle. Currently, an exemption from duty applies to private motor vehicles that have been specially converted to provide wheelchair access and are to be used for conveying an incapacitated person. At the moment, the exemption is only available if the conversion occurs prior to the application for registration or transfer of the vehicle, not where the vehicle is purchased first and then converted. The amendment will better reflect the intent of the exemption to provide duty relief to people with a disability, including their families or carers, who need to have motor vehicles specially modified for wheelchair use.
The Bill amends the Land Tax Act 2005 to restrict the land tax exemption for land owned by charitable institutions to land that is both used and occupied by charities exclusively for charitable purposes. The Act currently provides an exemption for land owned and used by a charity exclusively for charitable purposes, and for vacant land owned by a charity and declared to be held for future charitable use. The recent decision of the Supreme Court of Victoria in University of Melbourne v Commissioner of State Revenue [2021] VSC 156 has broadened the intended scope of the exemption for charities. In that case, the leasing of land to a commercial tenant to provide student accommodation was found to be a use by the University exclusively for charitable purposes. To address this unintentional broadening of the exemption, the amendment restricts the exemption to cases where the charity both uses and occupies the land exclusively for charitable purposes, and not any land or part of land owned by the charity but used or occupied by a commercial or business entity. The amendment also provides that eligibility for the exemption on vacant land declared to be held for future charitable use and occupation is subject to a two-year time limit. These amendments do not impact other exemptions from land tax, such as those for Ministerial or Crown land, and it is provided that both exemptions can be apportioned where land owned by a charity has mixed uses.
The Bill further amends the exemption for land leased for sporting, recreational, cultural or similar activities in the Land Tax Act 2005 to require that the land must be owned by a charity to attract the exemption. This is in order to prevent non-charitable landowners from taking advantage of the existing exemption, which only requires the proceeds from the lease to be applied exclusively for charitable purposes. The amendments come into operation on the day after the Bill receives Royal Assent and applies from the 2022 land tax year onwards.
The Bill amends the TAA to confirm that a taxpayer cannot object to an assessment or decision on any ground relating to emergency tax relief measures. In April 2020, the TAA was amended to provide the Commissioner with standing powers to give effect to emergency tax relief measures as directed by the Treasurer. This allows the SRO to deliver urgent and immediate tax relief to the community in response to emergencies such as natural disasters or pandemics. The TAA currently provides that no action lies against the State, the Treasurer or the Commissioner in relation to anything arising out the operation of the emergency tax relief provision. This prevents exploitation of the provisions by those not entitled to tax relief or attempting to pursue disputes over tax liabilities outside of the established objection and refund processes. Nonetheless, the current provision leaves it open to a taxpayer to lodge an objection to an assessment on grounds relating to the denial of emergency tax relief measures. The Bill therefore amends the TAA to confirm that a taxpayer cannot object to an assessment or decision on any ground relating to the emergency tax relief measures, to put the intended effect of the provision beyond doubt.
The Bill further amends the emergency tax relief provisions in the TAA to provide for tax offsets in relation to emergency tax relief measures. Specifically, the amendment empowers the Commissioner to offset a refund, issued because of an emergency tax relief measure, against another tax liability of the applicant. This is a practical and efficient means of administering emergency tax relief measures, including for example where an applicant has failed to provide their banking details and it is not administratively feasible to issue a cheque.
The TAA is also amended to authorise the Commissioner to recover administrative overpayments that are unable to be recovered with existing tax assessment powers. Administrative overpayments occur when the Commissioner makes a payment to a person to which the person is not entitled under a taxation law. The existing TAA contains powers of assessment, reassessment and investigation aimed at the recovery of tax, but there is doubt over whether these provisions allow the Commissioner to recover overpayments of a mistaken or administrative nature. This means the Commissioner only has the option to pursue inefficient and complex common law remedies, which are not available in some instances. The amendment provides that administrative overpayments are debts due to the State and provides a clear statutory basis for their recovery. The amendment also requires interest to be imposed on a failure to repay an amount, in accordance with the applicable rate under the Penalty Interest Rates Act 1983.
The Bill includes minor statute law revisions to the Duties Act 2000 and the Land Tax Act 2005 that update legislative references, headings and definitions for accuracy and currency. The Bill further amends the State Taxation and Mental Health Acts Amendment Act 2021 to rectify errors in certain formulas for calculating the mental health and wellbeing surcharge, which comes into operation on 1 January 2022 and is implemented via that Act as amendments to the Payroll Tax Act 2007.
Water amendments
The Bill amends the Water Industry Act 1994, and consequentially the Essential Services Commissioner Act 2001 and Water Act 1989, to allow price regulation of bulk water services and other water storage, delivery and drainage services in the Murray Darling Basin (Basin) by the Essential Services Commission (ESC) under the Victorian regulatory pricing framework. Currently, the Water Charge Rules 2010 (Cth) apply to rural Victorian Water Corporations operating in the Basin. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) determines Basin charges. The ESC, as Victoria’s independent economic regulator, undertakes and implements pricing determinations of these Basin charges under accreditation arrangements approved by the ACCC. When the Commonwealth undertook significant reform to its rules in 2019, it was intended that regulatory oversight would revert back to regulation under Victorian water legislation. As such, the amendments ensure the appropriate state arrangements are in place so that regulatory oversight of Basin charges in Victoria can continue to be undertaken by the ESC under Victoria’s regulatory pricing framework. Following the conclusion of the current regulatory pricing periods, Victorian laws will govern charges levied by Victorian Water Corporations in the Basin, like all other rural and urban water charges determined by the ESC under Victorian legislation. The amendments ensure that Victoria is continuing to protect the long-term interests of its rural water customers through a consistent and uniform approach to regulation of the Victorian water sector and is consistent with pricing principles established under the National Water Initiative.
Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Victoria
I draw the members’ attention specifically to clauses 74, 78 and 94 of the Bill. These clauses of the Bill propose to limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to ensure that the legislative regime under the TAA applies to the WGT and the keno tax in the same way as it does in relation to any other taxation law, and to the extent that the amendment to the TAA regarding objections to emergency tax relief measures affects the TAA’s existing legislative regime for objections, reviews and appeals. Accordingly, I provide a statement under section 85(5) of the Constitution Act 1975 of the reasons for altering or varying that section by this Bill.
I commend the Bill to the house.
Section 85(5) of the Constitution Act 1975
Mr PALLAS: I wish to make a statement under section 85(5) of the Constitution Act 1975 of the reasons for altering or varying that section of the Windfall Gains Tax and State Taxation and Other Acts Further Amendment Bill 2021 (Bill).
Section 85 of the Constitution Act 1975 vests the judicial power of Victoria in the Supreme Court and requires a statement to be made when legislation that directly or indirectly repeals, alters or varies the court’s jurisdiction is introduced. Clauses 78, 74 and 94 of the Bill inserts a new subsections (9), (10) and (11) into section 135 of the state Taxation Administration Act 1997 to provide that it is the intention of sections 5, 12(4), 18(1), 96(2) and 100(4) of the Taxation Administration Act 1997, as those sections apply after the commencement of those clauses respectively, to alter or vary section 85 of the Constitution Act 1975.
Part 9 of the Bill amends the Gambling Regulation Act 2003 to provide for a new keno tax imposed on a keno entity’s revenue. The Bill provides that the proposed Part 4A of Chapter 6A of the Gambling Regulation Act 2003 and any regulations made under that Act for the purposes of that Part are a taxation law under the Taxation Administration Act 1997. Division 2 of Part 12 of the Bill makes consequential amendments to the Taxation Administration Act 1997 to enable the keno tax to be administered under the Taxation Administration Act 1997 and any regulations made under it.
Parts 1 to 6 of the Bill introduce a new Windfall Gains Tax Act 2021 to provide for a new windfall gains tax imposed on owners of land on the uplift in land value associated with a rezoning of land. The Bill provides that the proposed Windfall Gains Act 2021 and any regulations made under that Act for the purposes of that Part are a taxation law under the Taxation Administration Act 1997. Division 6 of Part 12 of the Bill makes consequential amendments to the Taxation Administration Act 1997 to enable the windfall gains tax to be administered under the Taxation Administration Act 1997 and any regulations made under it.
Division 4 of Part 12 of the Bill amends Part 10 of the Taxation Administration Act 1997 to clarify limitations on the grounds of objection that apply in respect of matters arising out of Part 9A of that Act.
The Supreme Court’s jurisdiction is altered to the extent that the Taxation Administration Act 1997 provides for certain non-reviewable decisions and establishes an exclusive code that prevents proceedings concerning an assessment or refund or recovery of tax being commenced except as provided by it. It is desirable that the legislative regime under the Taxation Administration Act 1997 applies to the keno tax and the windfall gains tax in the same way as it does to other taxes administered under the Taxation Administration Act 1997. Accordingly, in order to ensure that the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is limited in relation to the keno tax and windfall gains tax in the same way as it is in relation to other forms of Victorian taxes, it is necessary to provide that it is the intention of this Bill for the relevant provisions of the Taxation Administration Act 1997 to apply in the administration of the proposed keno tax and windfall gains tax, and for the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to be altered accordingly.
Section 5 of the Taxation Administration Act 1997 defines the meaning of non-reviewable decision in relation to that Act, which will also apply to the keno tax and windfall gains tax. No court, including the Supreme Court, has jurisdiction or power to entertain any question as to the validity or correctness of a non-reviewable decision.
Section 12(4) of the Taxation Administration Act 1997 provides that the making of a compromise assessment is a non-reviewable decision. Similarly, section 100(4) provides that a decision by the Commissioner of State Revenue not to permit an objection to be lodged out of time is a non-reviewable decision. Decisions may be made under section 12(4) or section 100(4) in relation to the collection of the keno tax and the windfall gains tax.
Section 18(1) of the Taxation Administration Act 1997 prevents proceedings being commenced in the Supreme Court for the refund or recovery of a tax except as provided in Part 4 of the Taxation Administration Act 1997. As the keno tax and the windfall gains tax will be taxes for the purposes of section 18(1), proceedings for its refund or recovery will be similarly limited.
Section 96(2) of the Taxation Administration Act 1997 prevents a court (including the Supreme Court) considering any question concerning an assessment of a tax except as provided by Part 10 of the Taxation Administration Act 1997. The Bill amends Part 10 of the Taxation Administration Act 1997 to clarify limitations on the grounds of objection that apply in respect of matters arising out of Part 9A of that Act, which ultimately prevents the Supreme Court from considering any question concerning an assessment of tax or decision amenable to objection that is challenged on grounds pertaining to Part 9A of the Taxation Administration Act 1997. Also, as the keno tax and the windfall gains tax are taxes for the purposes of section 96(2), proceedings in relation to an assessment of keno tax or windfall gains tax are limited in accordance with section 96(2).
In order to ensure that the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is limited in relation to the keno tax and windfall gains tax in the same way as it is in relation to other taxes, it is necessary to provide that it is the intention of sections 5, 12(4), 18(1), 96(2) and 100(4) of the Taxation Administration Act 1997 to alter or vary section 85 of the Constitution Act 1975.
I commend the bill to the house.
Ms STALEY (Ripon) (09:43): I move:
That the debate be adjourned.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.
Ordered that the debate be adjourned for two weeks. Debate adjourned until Wednesday, 27 October.
Health Legislation Amendment (Information Sharing) Bill 2021
Second reading
Debate resumed on motion of Mr PEARSON:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Ms KEALY (Lowan) (09:43): I rise today to speak on the Health Legislation Amendment (Information Sharing) Bill 2021. This is a bill on which I will flag some of my concerns during debate. However, as has been debated earlier today, we have had a truncated period of time that we have been able to consult with the community and seek their views around what their concerns are in how the legislation has been put together and whether there will be any unintended consequences for the Victorian community as a part of this legislation. We have got some feedback to date but, as I moved earlier this day, although leave was not granted, I would like this bill to be referred to the standing Legal and Social Issues Committee for inquiry, consideration and report. While it is very unusual in the Legislative Assembly at this point in time to have bills considered by a standing committee, it is a very important part of democracy and how we ensure that legislation is properly analysed and given scrutiny through inquiry and consideration and that final report, so that we have that additional level of transparency and input when we are formulating what will be an important legal framework that will regulate how our private health information is shared and also accessed by others in the wider community.
While the government have taken steps to put in their statement of compatibility and their second-reading speech, provided by the minister around all the things that they intend for how this legislation will work and what the implications will be, there is nothing like additional sets of eyes to actually probe and provide that inquiry. This is particularly important given we have only had six days to look at this bill. We asked a number of questions at the bill briefing. I appreciate the bill briefing was done in a prompt way—it was10.00 am last Thursday—however, the questions that were raised throughout the briefing have not yet been responded to by the minister’s advisers. In fact a comment at the time was, ‘Well, we haven’t got a lot of time to be able to prepare this’. It greatly concerns me when there are genuine questions around how much this would cost the Victorian taxpayer; whether we can get a data map over where the health information sits in terms of the electronic medical record (EMR) and also the patient administration system (PAS); how we will actually manage access to that information beyond saying there is a penalty involved, which is included in the legislation; how we will actually monitor how people are accessing the data; and how we will protect data from cybersecurity attacks, which seem to be happening more and more frequently, particularly on Australian data and particularly Australian government health data. There are a number of questions that really need to be answered, and it is disappointing that that short time frame did not allow the minister’s advisers an appropriate amount of time to provide that information to all parliamentary members. It is not just for the opposition, but it is for government members in equal amounts. I do ask that that information is still provided.
There will be of course extensive debate in the upper house. They will have an opportunity to probe areas of the bill further to get that additional information. Any information that we can get before it hits the Legislative Council is greatly appreciated and may assist in trying to iron out any of the legislative drafting errors or unintended consequences of the bill as it is before us today. As I said, we have received some limited input, but we know that more information will come over the coming couple of weeks before the bill is heard in the Council. I do still request that the government considers at this point in time that this bill be referred to the Legal and Social Issues Committee for further inquiry, consideration and report, because we simply cannot get this wrong when it comes to health information.
We can look at some comparative legislation in other jurisdictions and also of course commonwealth programs and commonwealth legislation, particularly around My Health Record. My Health Record is a medical record itself, as opposed to a health information sharing system, but it is a very important template for how we can get things right and we can get things wrong. We note now that with My Health Record people could opt in or opt out for a short period of time, which was basically setting forth that there would be a health record for everybody unless you opted out of that. But yet there is still a level of control around what happens to your health information. Still there is an ability to control access to the documents that are held within My Health Record, including restricting access to certain documents, limiting document access by putting access codes and security codes in place for certain information, and also removing a document. In fact you can even put forward a request that your entire record be deleted.
None of those sorts of parameters to give individuals the control and consent to share that health information is incorporated within the Health Legislation Amendment (Information Sharing) Bill that we are debating today, and that has been an area of great concern which has come through to me and Ms Crozier in the other place, who is the Shadow Minister for Health and primarily responsible for the scrutiny of this bill. There are already considerable concerns around the ability for people to opt in or opt out, to restrict certain information, and particularly around providing their own consent that all of their records will be shared across every health service right across Victoria.
Now, this is for very good reasons. Our health information says a lot about us in different ways. We know through the Royal Commission into Family Violence that often people can have certain information used against them and targeted in a way that is quite malicious and can harm people. That can be against particularly women but also children, and people will go to great lengths. So if somebody works in a healthcare setting, while there may be a penalty if they access a health record and find out where a former partner has moved or if they have accessed health care in another place, they may be able to assess where their location is. Now, while a penalty is one situation, it does not take into account that you get a fine, versus that woman having her new address being accessed by somebody, and it might be too late to impose a fine by the time that she has had incredible harm done to her. So we need to ensure that we do have enormous levels of security and, as I said, that ability to opt out of the system to protect people, particularly women and children in those family violence situations.
We also have scenarios where people want to keep their health information private because they are concerned that, if that information is available perhaps to their workplace or perhaps to the wider community or to others that they do not consent to give their information to, it may form a part of discrimination or a level of attack against them. Particularly of course this is around, and there was mention of, the importance of sharing mental health information, and there is no doubt about that. It is far easier to treat someone in an appropriate way if you have their full health picture, and we certainly support that. However, if you have a mental health condition that you have not disclosed to your employer and you have chosen not to and that information is accessed through a health service, because it will be in every single health service across the state, and it is used against that person, then they could end up losing their job or just not be able to get a job in the future. This is information we should have a right to keep to ourselves.
Now, that does not mean that we have to hide issues that are happening to us, particularly around mental health, and I would like to just affirm that above all else at the moment we are talking a lot about mental health. The shadow pandemic of mental health through the coronavirus restrictions has caused enormous harm to a lot of people in Victoria, and I do encourage anyone who is not feeling 100 per cent, that cannot find the light in their day, that is finding it hard to get motivated and to do the things they regularly do in their life, to make sure that they do ask for help. That help might be to talk to a friend or family member. It may be to reach out to your regular health practitioner, your local Headspace if you are a young person or your HeadtoHelp facility, or it might be a GP. Make sure you go and engage with that help, and if things are getting just way too much for you, please call 000 or head to your nearest emergency department. There are people there who care deeply for you and know how to help you. Please reach out for help if you need it.
There were other aspects that we asked about during the bill briefing on this legislation, particularly around why the six days and why we are rushing this through when the actual date for implementation is 17 February 2023. We are 18 months or so away from this legislation actually coming into effect, so it makes no sense to rush this through without an appropriate level of scrutiny where we can make sure that all of those issues that will be raised along the course of debate are appropriately addressed, whether it is through clarification by the minister who is able to provide that response to the parliamentary chamber or whether it is through amendments to the bill before it goes to the Council. These are really important steps that need to be made, so there is really no reason why this is being rushed through. However, it does give some cynicism that there is a reason for that, and I hope that there are not things in here that will be detected after this bill, which I assume will pass, that have not been detected because of this shortened and truncated ability to consult with our community and for our community members to provide valuable input into how this legislation is formed.
I have referred to the security of information, and that is an element which is really important to a lot of people, and it is certainly an area, as more people become aware of some of the specific clauses of this legislation, that is a key thing that people are really concerned about. I know that there have been so many data breaches that we have seen over recent years, over the last couple of years in fact, and they have had significant and terrible consequences for the people who have been victims of those data breaches. In 2016 we saw multiple breaches of personal data of children in foster care, which actually ended up with somebody inappropriately and without authority accessing children inside the vulnerable children’s database to actually reach out to those vulnerable children to groom them and actually meet with them.
This is the way that data can be inappropriately used, and even if you have a fine system, a penalty system, in place, it certainly does not preclude anybody from going and targeting certain individuals in our system. And a fine is not a significant enough deterrent for people to stop them from doing that when their impulses are strong, particularly, of course, in this instance around paedophilia and assaulting young children. We simply cannot afford to just open the doors and just trust that people will see that a fine is going to be too scary for them to neglect their impulses. Sometimes the risk is far too great, and this is why we need to make sure we have full ability to control data. Once it is out into a space where we might be able to track which people can access the data, if we cannot stop the ability of people to actually control and manage their own data, then it is really out there for anybody who wants to utilise that data until they are picked up in court, which may or may not happen. So that is very, very important.
In 2017 there was a review into the child protection breaches, and then there were further breaches identified. So in this instance we knew there were breaches. It was investigated. They made some changes, and then there were more breaches later on. It is very, very hard to control who accesses information once it is out there, which is why, again, that consent and the ability for people to opt out, whether it is all of their health information or specific elements of health information and documents—as the federal government’s My Health Record allows you to do—are important elements for people to trust the health system. And that is a really important part of this debate because we need to have people having full trust in the health system and the mental health system.
If somebody thinks that if they access the mental health system that information could be accessed by somebody and used against them, then they are less likely to come forward and speak up. We need to make sure there is confidence in the system—and particularly as well, as I mentioned earlier, for victims of family violence. If there are victims of family violence who do not want to engage with the health system because they are concerned that that will lead to them being identified in the community, them potentially being vulnerable or that information being used against them, then it is less likely that they will reach out for support, and this is for a cohort of, as I said, largely women who are already limited in their confidence and access to the supports around them. We do not want to put another barrier in place for people to not access the health care, the mental health care and the support that they need at that point in time because they are concerned that their health information may be used against them.
It is very important that we do receive some clarity from the government as well around compatibility of the health information system, which I understand has not even been designed yet, and that we get an understanding of how that will be compatible with the services that have been outlined in the government’s second-reading speech, which is around pathology companies and sharing, say, pathology results, maybe COVID-19 results, and other discrete sectors of the health system, but we also need to make sure it is compatible with the federal government’s My Health Record. We do not want to be setting up multiple systems which duplicate what is already there, and I realise that it may be the case that this is a health information system that may feed information into My Health Record and that the My Health Record feeds information into the HIS and into the electronic health records of individual health services; however, as I stated earlier, that information and that data map have not been provided by the ministerial advisers. It has not been provided by the government. So we are unable to see whether it is a fully compatible system or whether there will be some duplication—so people will think that their full health record is accessible by the hospital when they present, however, there is key information that is missing from the story—and that is almost as dangerous as knowing that you have not got the full health picture.
I have seen firsthand—I worked in health care for a long period of time before I entered Parliament—how difficult it is to share health information, particularly when someone presents to hospital. You might be able to gather some information about what doctor they usually see, perhaps if they have had treatment in the past and what medications they are on that might have contradictions or complications with the medication that they are going to receive in hospital through the current stay. There is no doubt there is a way that we can improve the ability for healthcare workers to do their job well, to do it most effectively and have access to as much health information as possible, but we need to make sure that people are consenting to provide that information as well and there are not unintended consequences of sharing that information right across Victoria’s healthcare system.
We do have concerns around the open-ended powers that have been afforded to the secretary within this legislation. It puts a lot of power with one individual who is a government employee, and we have significant concerns around that. There is also no business case around this. It is curious that while this legislation is seemingly being rushed through with the limited, six-day period that we had to scrutinise this bill, there is no funding in the budget at this point in time. When we were given the bill briefing there were discussions that this would be rolled out early next financial year, and I have concerns that if we are not appropriately funding and designing a health information system that meets the requirements being flagged today but also of course the requirements of healthcare systems to have reliable information in a compatible format that works with all of the EMRs and PASs in our hospital networks, then we might not actually be able to achieve what is being set out.
That is something that we have seen in past years. In 2003 we had HealthSMART being announced by the Bracks Labor government. That initially was budgeted to be $323 million and to take four years to implement, so be implemented by 2007. Having worked in the hospital system when HealthSMART was being rolled out, I know that there were an enormous amount of issues with that—it was a fabulous debacle, amongst anything else. In July 2010 it was reported that since it had been established there had been another $37 million pumped into the HealthSMART program, but it was not finished—and it still had time to go but also had had an amount of money that needed to be allocated. In 2011 the Victorian Ombudsman reported the project would cost another $243 million to complete. Now, this was not just four years after the due date, but it was another $240-odd million above what it originally was going to cost. In fact it was $280 million more because there was the additional $37 million pumped into the program to roll it out—and it still was not in place. It was a lot of money, it was a white elephant and it never really worked to provide that standardised platform for health information systems across the state, and particularly the electronic medical record. So it was scrapped eventually in 2012.
This is why we have got concerns around a totally unfunded program that is only within what is in the statement of compatibility, the second-reading speech of the Minister for Health and then of course the amendments that we have got in the legislation before us. When we cannot even be provided with a data map or a business case or a broad overview of consent—or that basically it will be just no consent; just all your information is automatically provided—we have got every right to have concerns, and so does every single Victorian who has any health information within the system.
Of course, as I have mentioned, there are supporters of how we share our health information more effectively in the community, and we have received feedback from the AMA. The AMA have actually said, ‘The health information needs to include a level of compatibility with general practice’. General practitioners are that first port of call. They have often got long-term, longstanding health information on an individual which goes beyond why people are presenting at a hospital. It includes chronic health information, it may include other situational healthcare needs and short-term needs as well and it can include mental health records and vaccination records—all of those things can be included within the GP record. So we need to make sure that GPs are included, and that is information going to GPs with consent, because when people are discharged from hospital we have that stepped care program where people do have to go back into their community and will need a follow-up doctors appointment or ongoing clinical care from their regular GP. This bill does not cover off on those elements of how the information the Victorian government has is shared with the wider GP community and private practice. So it needs to be a two-way street; that is what the AMA are basically saying. Again, we urge the government to take some of that feedback on board.
As with any of the points that I make, if anyone from the government would like to receive further information about that, I am always happy to share that information so that the government are given the best possible opportunity to amend the bill before it is considered by the Legislative Council to ensure that we get the right legislation through, or get it as good as we possibly can, because we simply cannot afford to have mistakes, and there is no reason to have mistakes in this bill given that it does not come into effect until February 2023.
I would also just like to go to specific elements or clauses of the bill regarding consent again, and this is just to make it clear. New section 134ZL makes it clear that everybody is in—no exclusions. There is no attempt to de-identify; all patient data, including the identifiers for each clinic, is included. Now, given this will cover children as well, I think this needs to be reviewed. We need to make sure that there is an opt-out clause, whether it is for specific information, whether that is, as I have pointed out, family violence or mental health issues. It could be that somebody has had a sex change and they do not want to have that disclosed. They should have the ability to remove either single documents or single pieces of information or to opt out of the system altogether.
While we understand that there is a misuse penalty of 240 penalty units or four years imprisonment, that is more for a targeted program and it would be unlikely if it was just casual misuse in a clinic. But it is still an important breach of confidential and private patient data to look up somebody’s past history and medical appointments and see whether there is anything in there. Some information can be misinterpreted as well, and as I said, it is at risk of being used inappropriately.
We also know that it is just ridiculous that this is being brought through so quickly. In fact this is from somebody who chooses to be anonymous—they call the speed of the major reform ‘outlandish’. And there has not been a call for feedback from key public interest groups, which is really important. This has obviously been drawn up through a very defined group, probably people who are going to benefit from this. But there has to be full scrutiny, and that is why six days is simply not long enough for the wider Victorian community to give input.
There are other elements of this bill, particularly in regard to freedom of information requests. This does exempt the new system from freedom of information requests. It also introduces new offences related to unauthorised access, use or disclosure of information contained in the system, but again there is concern that that benchmark may be too high to appropriately deter people from inappropriately accessing people’s medical records and history. It permits authorised persons at health services and certain other persons to access the health information system in order to disclose certain information to the Secretary of the Department of Health and for purposes pertaining to information security and data management, including establishing, maintaining and operating the system and ensuring the system operates securely and effectively. It permits authorised persons at a health service to access health information systems in order to provide treatment to patients, but there are also wider permissions in there for people who are responsible for cybersecurity and IT professionals to be able to access that data.
It provides that the Secretary of the Department of Health is responsible for establishing and maintaining the new information-sharing system and that the secretary is empowered to specify the health information required to be contained in the system, direct health services to provide prescribed information to the secretary and disclose specified patient health information for the purposes of the new system without requiring the consent of patients to whom the information relates. I have not seen in here an ability for this information to be used in research, and I would seek some clarity as well from the government over whether that will be utilised or not and again whether that will be formulated as part of the new health information system or whether consent will be required to participate in that research. We do need to make sure with this legislation that we do get it right. There are considerable concerns in the community.
There have been some theories as well that this is foreshadowing forced amalgamations of health services across the state into those bigger health networks, which would be reflective of our health regions, as they are disaggregated at the moment. That is certainly something that we are seeing in my electorate of Lowan. We have also seen it flagged in other areas—that there will be large-scale megamergers of hospitals. I do not support megamergers of hospitals. I can see that it will just centralise decision-making, centralise money and funding of hospitals. When there is a shortage of staffing, the people who will miss out are the ones who will have to have the increased travel time. It is not seen as productive hours; it is not funded appropriately for specialists to have to travel out to our rural areas.
In my view it is simply too far to have Ballarat Health Services, as the lead agency for Grampians health, managing people who have their health care at somewhere like Edenhope District Memorial Hospital. It is about 3, 3½ hours away. That is a full day’s travel just for someone to come out and deliver health services if they are on site. Or the government is proposing that it will all be done by telehealth, which is completely inappropriate; otherwise I am not sure how they are going to possibly balance the cost of increased travel time versus the amount of time that people have to actually see whoever it might be—it might be an allied health professional, it might be a visiting geriatrician. There are really some fabulous services that have always been delivered at Edenhope. I would like to see that continue. I do not like the idea that you will not be able to buy services from over the border anymore; it will have to be within the group by large-scale group contracting. I think that this will end up with a serious decline in health services in regional Victoria.
So I raise my concerns around the information-sharing bill. As I have put, I would like to see some response from the government, particularly around the concerns and queries that have been raised. I would particularly like to see the data map. I know this sounds like a small element, but it is really important we see how information will be fed in and how it will be fed out but also whether there is any consideration for how private health information will be managed and controlled. Will there be an opportunity for an opt-out system? Will there be a level of consent? If there is an opt-out system, will it apply to individual documents or will it apply large scale to all of your health information not being included and not being incorporated through the health information sharing system? We need to make sure that everybody has the right to manage their own health information and of course that there is compatibility with other jurisdictions, whether it is a federal jurisdiction or our neighbouring states.
Mr CARBINES (Ivanhoe) (10:13): I am pleased to follow on from the opposition’s lead speaker, the member for Lowan. Certainly as Parliamentary Secretary for Health I know that at this time it is a bit limited as to who is in the chamber, although thanks to technology, which is part of what we are talking about today, I know that there will be staff and some of our team listening this morning, and I will follow up on some of those requests and queries with the health office with regard to the matters raised by the opposition’s lead speaker on the data map and other matters.
On the Health Legislation Amendment (Information Sharing) Bill 2021, a key thing to note of course is the purpose of the bill. It will allow information sharing between specified Victorian public health services through a centralised platform operated and managed by the Department of Health, and it will support clinicians working in the Victorian public healthcare system to access information in certain situations while continuing to recognise the patient’s right to confidentiality.
A couple of other matters I think are important in relation to these issues, and we have been down this path many times previously. I know when I worked for past health ministers on the HealthSMART program—it is perhaps ironic; I am going back a fair way now, into the early 2000s—perhaps the largest item on capital budget programs, ICT programs, was HealthSMART. It could have been up to $300 million at the time. And of course for any government and any department, ICT programs are always fraught and always have high risk. There are always elements like where you get the specialist expertise and then the accountability around the way in which they are implemented so the taxpayers are getting value and accountability for the expenditure of HealthSMART and other related significant ICT programs. Ultranet is another one across education that comes to mind, which I have broad familiarity with from past roles. They are always challenging, because there is a determination to deliver these projects, to get the job done, but at the same time you are not always dealing with people who have super expertise, those that you rely on, so it can be challenging, delivering on those projects.
In relation to some of these projects I know that Austin Health in my electorate, when Professor Brendan Murphy was the CEO there for a decade, were always one of the prototypes and sites that were used to roll out, as trial sites, a lot of the IT programs. A lot that was done around Austin Health, thanks to Brendan’s leadership, about bringing on those ICT programs and moving patient health records to ICT from paper based. While a lot of CEOs ducked and weaved at that work, Austin really took that up in the first instance and is far better advanced in that work.
Then how it relates of course, as we have seen across ambulance services, is we take for granted these days the use of tablets by our paramedics. By the time you are getting to a health service for your care and treatment, when you have been collected and picked up by paramedics for treatment on site and then been conveyed to a health service, already that health service has got that information, in many cases, prepared and ready for your arrival, knowing what is required for you because of the capacity for diagnostics on board the ambulance and the mobility of being able to use tablets on an ambulance service for paramedics to be able to relay that to the hospital and the health service to give our health workers the very best opportunity and the most precise and accurate information to give you the best care that you need at the time you arrive. All of these elements have made such a huge difference not just to our responsiveness in punching a card when you arrive at someone’s house or at an incident and when you then punch back on at a health service but to the transformation and the transport and the sharing of that information, which provides critical health data so that life-and-death decisions can be made and interventions can take place.
I know too across the Ivanhoe electorate we are very fortunate to have not just Austin Health but the Mercy Hospital for Women, the Warringal Private Hospital and Banyule Community Health service, and our Heidelberg Repatriation Hospital is another campus of Austin Health. All of these elements have a very close affiliation and work effectively as a medical precinct. And it certainly has much to do with it rivalling anything at Parkville in terms of the number of people, when you look at flooring and other elements, that are in the medical precinct at Heidelberg, where my electorate office is. They are huge research and also medical treatment facilities and services for people not just across the northern suburbs but right across Melbourne.
I want to pick up on some of what we need to do for everyone who has been unfortunately—or fortunately at times—through their own health journey, where they have relied on health services, from their GP to primary and community health to allied health services to acute services in our hospital settings. And potentially when you have then got to move around Victoria or interstate, that patient care journey takes you to different public hospitals over the course of an illness or a trauma or a procedure, and there can be fragmented information. There is a risk to the quality of care and safety that can arise when a patient’s information really has to find a way to travel with them or they are relying on others to do that work. We all know what happens when information goes missing, and for many people when they have got either a chronic or a long-term illness not only potentially the bills that might have been compiled and piled up over time but just their medical health records and the copies of those can often be overwhelming for individuals. You can imagine that on the massive scale that we are talking about across the state and how that information moves around and is available—how you can go to your GP and they are able to look up your online medical imaging that you might have had done somewhere else, or you might have had that done up at the Austin—and the fact that you can sit there and they can drag in all that information. These are some of the changes. Even at Austin Health, going back some time now, you can be at the local GP and they can access that information online. These changes do provide a lot of benefits for patients and for their medical practitioners.
I want to touch on too what this means for our cross-border communities and the introduction of those centralised health information sharing platforms, bringing Victoria into line with New South Wales. They introduced the HealtheNet platform in 2015, and Queensland introduced their The Viewer program in 2017. I know cross-border health issues too; I had a lot of engagement with that many years ago, when former New South Wales member Morris Iemma was health minister and we had a lot of cross-border health agreements to work through around the really critical issues of understanding the challenges that were faced not only in treatment and access but again around health information. I am pleased the bill addresses and acknowledges those issues so that we can see that transition for many of our MPs here who advocate and relate on matters relating to cross-border issues.
The other element, too, is these electronic systems that are more complex to implement. There are some 63 per cent of public hospital beds in Victoria that are now supported by electronic medical records—those EMRs. So there is more to do to roll those opportunities out further, and very much our investment in public health service capital provides opportunities across rural and regional Victoria to strengthen and advance those systems too. Clearly there is a lot of work that has been done across metropolitan and satellite regional cities, and what I want to also make sure is happening through our greater investment in health services across the state is that we see those opportunities for the technological innovations and developments not fall behind but be at the forefront. Just as important as modern medical settings in terms of wards and research and those aspects, you also need to make sure that it is in the infrastructure in the health ICT.
I also just want to lastly touch on some work that relates to the Targeting Zero recommendations. That was work done by Professor Stephen Duckett back in 2016, who I know well and have worked with many times. He has been a past constituent in the Ivanhoe electorate and a great health advocate over very many years—and an administrator. Of course many of the reforms come out of that Targeting Zero report. These relate to the discovery of avoidable perinatal deaths at Djerriwarrh Health Services, and that review has detailed and extensive analysis about how the department oversees and supports quality and safety of care across the Victorian hospital system. So there is some really important work that is linked in there from that Targeting Zero work by Professor Duckett.
Ultimately when you are at your most vulnerable, when you rely on the great services of our health workers and the services in which they work, what is also important is that we make sure that it is not just the care and skills of our practitioners but that they have the tools they need to do the job and to manage people’s health records in a way that gives them every opportunity to recover well from their medical emergencies and incidents and give them confidence that the very best support is available to them.
Ms BRITNELL (South-West Coast) (10:23): I rise to speak on the Health Legislation Amendment (Information Sharing) Bill 2021. Whilst we do not oppose this bill, I will take some time to raise some of the concerns I have. In saying that, clearly as a nurse who experienced people coming into accident and emergency and wanting to access their medical details quickly so you could treat them, I am not opposed to the concept at all, but I would have thought the motion put forward this morning by the member for Lowan to send this to the Legal and Social Issues Committee should be supported, given that it is such an important bill to get right and we do not want breaches occurring. Given that it is not going to be implemented until 2023, I am very disappointed that the government have chosen to rush this bill through in a six-day time frame, given the due diligence it needs and so we can consult with our communities. Clearly, as I said, we do want to see information sharing across hospitals and different health platforms in a safe and secure way.
There would be nothing better than having that information when someone comes in and they are bleeding and you want to know what the crossmatch results are pretty urgently so you can get some blood straight up—so I understand the importance of this concept. But what worries me is that, like I said, the bill was introduced into the Parliament with a six-day time frame, which is very short and not usual. At the bill briefing, which the department were very, very good to be able to do at such short notice, they even noted that it was a very short time frame and so were unable to give us information that was imperative for us to be able to do our role here and scrutinise legislation. It was most concerning to hear that the project, the program, has no budget that they could talk to us about, because there is not one available; that no business case had been undertaken; and that there were issues such as what the implications would be for border communities, for example—like my area of South-West Coast, where people use ambulances to go from one side to the other when they have had an accident on the border, for example, and the hospital is on the other side of the arbitrary line that runs around my part of the world between South Australia and South-West Coast. The department had not actually thought through how that would work. Now, that does not surprise me, because it is a very common statement in my part of the world that: this current government only governs for Melbourne. So the fact that they had not thought about the far-reaching areas of Victoria and the state borders does not actually surprise me. But when you see that other states such as New South Wales and Queensland have already implemented this platform-sharing process, it is really hard to understand why the government cannot understand those questions, specifically when other jurisdictions have done that homework and would be able to be used as a resource to work out what they needed to iron out in Victoria to get right.
But why this is so worrying, and why I am so concerned about this, is that this is not a new concept. Let us just remember this government has pretty much been in office for the last two decades. Now, technology advancements have been extraordinary in the last 20 years, and they have been in government for 17 or 18 of the last 20, 21 years. Now, in 2003—this is why I am most concerned that we could not get a budget, that there was no business case and no access to the information that I would have thought this government would have had access to, which shocks me so much—under the Bracks government they launched a program called HealthSMART, which was to do exactly this: actually provide access across health platforms and health organisations. The price tag, at that time, they put on it was a budget of $323 million. That project was due to be completed in 2007—all in the time the government was in charge. So in 2010 it was reported that another $37 million had already been pumped into the project, and the due date was extended for that project to be delivered.
In 2011 the Victorian Ombudsman reported that the project would cost a further $243 million to complete. So clearly they had spent, from 2003 to 2010, and had not delivered the project. They had blown the project cost out by nearly the same amount as they had already injected into it and had not delivered anything. And that is what worries me: this government has that experience and still does not have any understanding. There are no learnings from that. There is no information that they have taken from that. In two decades they have not done the job that clearly needed to be done, and they have not got the preparation necessary to be able to give the confidence that they are ready to do it. Now we are in the middle of a pandemic, so wouldn’t you have thought a government that was the least resourced—they had the least resourced health department of any of the jurisdictions, any of the states of Australia—knew this was a job to be done and at the start of the pandemic would have been concerned? But here we are, nearly two years into the pandemic, and they rush this bill through with no detail and no understanding of how they are going to run the program.
Now, the reason I am also very concerned is this government has a very poor history, not only with the HealthSMART information system, which they started nearly two decades ago, but even in the last two years—when you look at the multiple breaches of information and data that have happened under this government’s watch. In 2016 there were multiple breaches relating to personal data of children in foster care. Now, that is extraordinarily worrying. This was a situation where a person was able to use information that should have been under the government’s program of security, protecting children, and children were actually being groomed from that breach. In 2017, after the review into the child protection breaches, further breaches were identified. There were 15 million individual data breaches by Myki to a third party between 2015 and 2018. A 2019–20 Office of the Victorian Information Commissioner report shows data breach notifications received to 2019–20 had increased year on year since the Andrews government came to power, including a 16 per cent increase in 2019–20 alone. This is a government who now wants to quickly throw together something as important as people’s health data. Clearly I am worried—I am very worried—due to that shocking history this government has.
And now, when I think about the promises they make, and it is all about looking good rather than actually delivering an outcome, I think about the 4000 ICU beds that we were promised as a community, which gave us the reassurance we were preparing and getting ready for people needing to have respiratory support during a pandemic of a respiratory nature. And here we are 18 months later and we find out that that was actually not true, that there were not 4000 beds delivered, and the $1.3 billion that was promised in that—we do not know where that has gone. Here is a government who spend a lot of time telling us they are helping, telling us they are looking after us, but when you dig deep—and I keep saying this in this Parliament—if you scratch the surface, you can very much see smoke and mirrors and not much substance.
Even the cybersecurity aspect of this—the government said they had it sorted. It was pointed out by the Auditor-General that there was obviously the possibility for breaches in the IT system in the health service. He actually hacked it himself to prove how simple it would be. The government ignored that, and sure enough we had a hack situation that put South West Healthcare and the South West Healthcare hospitals out of action for many months. It was absolutely catastrophic. I am very concerned about this government taking on board a centralised system, particularly in the middle of a pandemic when they are already not coping, and trying to implement and deliver this.
We have got systems now that clearly are not working. The contact-tracing system, which is centralised—in my part of the world right now people are literally inundating the office this week, saying ‘I’ve been to a tier 1 site. I found out from a friend. It’s not up on the website. No-one’s contacted me. I’ve done the right thing, but how come no-one’s actually ringing me or giving me the information?’. Literally all week that has been happening. Now, our community are doing a great job of managing the pandemic outbreak that is going on in South-West Coast at the moment in both Portland and Warrnambool—Portland in the last couple of days. I have every faith in the community and congratulate South West Healthcare, Terang and Mortlake Health Service and Portland District Health for the work they do and the community members who are isolating.
I had a young woman ring me on the weekend. Her daughter had been highlighted as having been at a tier 1 site. She was at school. The school were trying to figure out why. This child had not been to a tier 1 site. That family isolated for days on end because the Department of Health could not give them any information, and it is not good enough. A centralised system needs to be effective. This government’s history of that is simply poor, and I am very worried about their ability.
Mr PEARSON (Essendon—Assistant Treasurer, Minister for Regulatory Reform, Minister for Government Services, Minister for Creative Industries) (10:33): I am delighted to make a contribution on the Health Legislation Amendment (Information Sharing) Bill 2021. Moments of crisis call for leadership, and listening to the contributions from those opposite this morning, they are not interested in leading. What they want to do with this bill is just to shove it off to a committee and get the committee to sort of look at it, ideate around that and think about doing something maybe at some point in time, and I am not surprised. I am not surprised as a consequence of their history.
The member for South-West Coast I think referred to the fact that this government has been in power for basically 20 years. The member seemed to gloss over the contribution her predecessor made as a Premier of this state and seemed to gloss over the four years that they had in power. The member was critical of the contribution that this government has made in responding to the global health pandemic. I would remind the member, who has left the chamber, that those opposite in the 2010 election promised 200 beds—200 beds Mr Davis promised as shadow health minister. Those 200 beds—I do not think anyone has ever found them. So we are not going to have lectures from those opposite about track record when it comes to their failure, their manifest failure, to deliver. Indeed they were the worst government that this state has seen since 1955. That is the only explanation you can have for a government that gets shown the door after four years. The electorate kind of woke up in 2011 and said ‘Yeah, nah’, and that was played on repeat until 2014.
Similarly, the member for South-West Coast has talked about cybersecurity fears and concerns, and they are legitimate concerns no doubt. What did those opposite do when they were in power for four years? Nothing. The first cybersecurity strategy was launched by the former Special Minister of State the Honourable Gavin Jennings back in 2017, and we have recently launched another iteration of that strategy. So we are not going to have lectures from those opposite about how to govern the state or how to look at having good protections in place around cybersecurity, when at every opportunity they just want to kick the can down the road, and they do not want to lead. They are not interested in playing that leadership role. It is just a case of kicking it down the road and ‘We’re not interested’ and ‘We’re not focusing on the issues at hand’.
Now, the reality is that data for the 21st century will be what oil was to the 20th century. That is just the reality, and if you think about government as an organisation, we collect a lot of data. In every step of government’s engagement with its citizens it collects a lot of data. Now, that is really important, because you can start to look at using data to refine public administration and to refine your response. It is an opportunity to try and look at continual improvement, constant improvement. I am mindful of the terrific book I just read recently, The Toyota Way, and about how Toyota use the concept of kaizen, which is continual improvement—a singular focus in terms of their work but that constant focus on improvement: ‘How can we do better? How can we be better?’. Going right back to after the Second World War, Toyota recognised the fact that they had limitations. They did not have the big scale of American manufacturing. They did not have the capacity to produce a large number of models over a large number of factories. What they had to do was they had to be nimble, and they were like a startup. They had to recognise the fact that ‘We will just produce short runs of models, and we will make sure our factories have the ability to go from producing one model to another quickly. We cannot compete with the vast volumes that America is producing, but what we can do is continually improve what we are doing, we can refine what we are doing and we can make constant improvements’.
Now, as a consequence of that singular granular focus on improvement and performance, they have been the most profitable car company in the world. In all of Toyota’s years they have had one year where they made a loss. I think that over the course of the last 10 or 15 years the profitability of Toyota has been greater than the sum profitability of General Motors, Ford and Volkswagen. So they are a really successful company. Now, why is that relevant to this? This is about making sure that we can collect data to look at continual improvement. It is about trying to understand how you can try and drive those levels of efficiencies and reforms, peering into individual hospitals or individual departments or looking at their performance: what does that show, and what can we learn from that?
There is a hospital, I understand, in India, and I do not know the name of the hospital, but their expertise is in hip replacements. That is all they do, and as a consequence of their efficiency and their laser-like focus on one particular procedure, they are the best in the world, both in terms of cost per procedure but also more broadly in relation to outcomes. Now, of course India has got that scale, that size, that ability to do that, to push that volume through and have that focus, and we do not have that. But can we use data in a way that informs our efficiency? Can we use it to be better? Can we look at trying to drive those levels of efficiencies and reforms? A bill like this is really important, because we can start to then pick trends, we can start to try and identify what is occurring.
I have said this in the house before. If you look at the trajectory of a citizen, the government collects the most data on a citizen, from the moment of prenatal care, that first appointment when a mother goes to see a medical professional to say ‘Look, I’m pregnant’ and ‘How am I going? How am I tracking?’. From that moment until the child walks into the school gate for the first time, there are multiple data sources that are generated in relation to the life of that individual over those first five years. That is really important because we can start to get a sense in terms of what is occurring in those households and with those individuals. And we can start to look at—and again I have used this term before—the positive deviance, that sense of someone who might have had an adverse childhood experience. They might live in a household of family violence, there might be trauma, there might be alcohol and drug abuse in that family, they may have been the victim of a crime. Looking at the way in which that child then progresses throughout their life and the ones who lead well-adjusted lives, meaningful lives, fulfilled lives—they might go to university, they might raise a family themselves that is calm and that is peaceful and that is safe—if you think about that, they might be the rarity, right? And that is fine. You might say, ‘Well, that’s a one-in-1000 case’. Indeed, that might be the case. But if you look at it over a population of 6 million people and then if you start to look at it from a longitudinal perspective, where you start to collect that data not just as a moment in time but progressively over years or decades, you can start to understand well what it is about that person and what it is about those cohorts that we can learn from. So the health record forms a really important part of that because that goes to a lot of those early discussions, those early engagements.
It also is important from the point of view of how we try and make the public hospital system and health more broadly operate as efficiently as we can. The Department of Health would by far and away be the biggest spending department of all the departments in government, as it should be—because you have got an enormous amount of demand, particularly in this moment in a pandemic. Using data, you can start to look at finding ways of what is working better, what is working well in a particular department within a hospital or what is working well for a particular hospital, what can we learn from some of the smaller regional and rural hospitals and are there learnings and lessons. The member for South-West Coast was talking about some of her health services. Is there something that we can learn from a service in her electorate that we could apply and roll out across the state?
It is about information sharing. I come back to Toyota. If everybody is working in a silo—you are in your cubicle, the sides are up, you do not talk to anyone, you do not engage with anyone, you do not share—how on earth do you know what is going on? How do you know who is doing innovative work and exciting work? The thing about Toyota was what they would do is they would encourage their management to get out of their offices and get down on the factory floor and look and observe. There was a graduate and one of the first things he does—he came on board in the 1950s—is he rocks up the first day in the plant, stands there for 8 hours and watches. Then, at the end of the 8-hour shift, ‘I’m going to ask you: what did you see, what did you learn? Observe and look. Look at the way in which the machines are working, look at the way in which the workers are working, look at how they’re changing the parts of the machinery to make sure that they can offer and produce different models. Watch and learn’. You cannot watch, you cannot learn if you do not share. I commend the bill to the house.
Mr D O’BRIEN (Gippsland South) (10:44): It is never a shock to hear the member for Essendon get a little bit carried away when he is talking about data. I know it excites him like the 1989 grand final. Anything to do with data, he is going to get up and talk about it.
Mr Pearson interjected.
Mr D O’BRIEN: No, we do not talk about 1990. I cannot believe the member for Essendon barracks for Collingwood. I still cannot get over that.
It behoves me again to say, and I have said it a few times in recent weeks, the government’s attitude and arrogant attitude is that whatever it presents is 100 per cent right and everyone should just accept it. For the member for Essendon to get up and say, ‘Well, you’re not showing leadership because you’re suggesting that we should have a bit more of a look at this bill through investigation via a committee’ just highlights that problem.
We have already said we are not opposing this legislation and we are certainly supporting it in principle. But our concern is that there are questions unanswered that both the member for Lowan and the member for South-West Coast went to and that there is history, there is form, when it comes to the Labor Party and introducing information technology situations such as this. Whether it is data, whether it is tech, whether it is HealthSMART—which has been canvassed by previous speakers—whether it is Myki, we see these things become problematic from go to whoa under the Labor Party. I wondered when I first actually saw this Health Legislation Amendment (Information Sharing) Bill 2021 whether what it means is that every hospital gets a new fax machine, because we have seen in the past 18 months that as far as the Victorian health system under the Labor Party has been during COVID it is woefully underprepared for information sharing and for getting correct information out.
The member for South-West Coast mentioned it as well, and I have had my own experiences even in the last week or so in my electorate with COVID. Clearly the numbers of COVID cases have got beyond the department, and I am not critical of the contact tracers in that respect. Once you get above 200 or 300 cases a day, it is going to be almost impossible to keep up. But we have certainly seen a paring back of the information that is available to the community. Whether it is tier 2 sites, whether it is information for secondary close contacts, all of those things have been wound back. I had some people last week who had had contact with their son. He had subsequently tested positive. They had done the right thing; they had tested and isolated as soon as they heard from him. But five days later they still had not heard from the department. When I raised a query with the department as to whether someone could please contact them, I was told they may not have been deemed to be close contacts so that was why they had not been contacted. And I thought, ‘Fair enough’. But literally hours later those constituents came back to me and said, ‘We’ve finally got a text message from the department, and yes, we have to keep isolating’. Luckily they had done the right thing for the six days they had been waiting to hear from anyone, because the department certainly had not been in contact.
Communication, information sharing—all of that process is critically important in the health sphere. But we have genuine concerns, and I think quite reasonable concerns, about the government’s ability to actually deal with this. In a circumstance where we have had literally six days to consider the legislation and where questions about process, questions about funding, questions about the technology to be used and questions about privacy of information have not been answered satisfactorily, I think it is fair that we refer this legislation off to the Legal and Social Issues Committee because we do need to get into it a bit more. As I said, the principle of this is very sound. It is important from a health perspective that we do share information to ensure that mistakes are not made. And we have seen that we have got better in that as a community over recent years, including in the pharmaceutical space, where we are trying to make sure that people are not doctor shopping for drugs and also that people that go to different doctors or different health services are not getting combinations of drugs that could cause them issues. That is important.
The principle of having the information at hand is good, and the My Health Record federal system has been mentioned. I note, for example, that one of the key things with My Health Record is you being in control, which is critically important. On the My Health Record website it notes that you can add personal notes about your allergies, you can set access controls to restrict who can and cannot see your health information, you can review your own health information and you can set up SMS and email notifications and do many other things. I just logged in myself actually to have a look to see what is there and was surprised how healthy I am. It is quite straightforward, but you are in control. These are the things that we need to prosecute with this legislation and this new system to make sure that it is sound and that people’s privacy is protected of course.
But I do know the issues with sharing health information. In recent times I have had unfortunately more to do with the health system, but like most people, in my younger days I did not. It was not until I had newborns, and very sick newborns, that I had the experience of going to hospitals, in my case to a neonatal intensive care unit. That was one thing, but then we went back subsequently to hospitals with further problems, having to tell our story 100 times, particularly while our baby was really sick and we really wanted to be focused on them—and it literally was like that. I mean, once we went to emergency when the baby had stopped breathing and I think I had to tell his history three times really to different doctors and nurses as we went through the process. Now, I am not saying that this sort of information will necessarily fix that. When you can go to your own doctor or a health facility that has been treating you it is certainly much easier because they know your history, and that is critically important. I am one of those people that likes to be informed about what is going on around me, I like to take control of my finances and my planning and all that sort of thing, but I have to confess I am pretty ordinary when it comes to my own health records and history. I am taking four tablets at the moment and will be forever after having a heart attack a couple of years ago. I could not tell you what those four tablets are called without going back and checking the boxes, so we are not necessarily good at that. In the situation of an emergency obviously it is important that health services have access to information that could be life saving and could certainly help with treatment.
The member for South-West Coast talked about rural health services, and I just want to touch on that a little bit because in my own experience in my electorate many of those small towns have the sort of connection and information sharing between facilities that is absolutely crucial to ensuring people get good health service, and it is done probably on a more informal basis. I am not talking about sharing of confidential information, but one example that I think of is Foster, where the South Gippsland Hospital is right next to the Foster Medical Centre and right next to the aged-care facility, and they have a great relationship. Many of the GPs work at the hospital as well and there is fantastic cooperation between those facilities, and it works really well. Likewise in Yarram we have the YDHS, the Yarram and District Health Service, which runs the hospital, some aged care and its own clinic—which we got the money for a couple of years ago; $4 million to build a new clinic. I might add we are now needing some new assistance for Crossley House, one of the aged-care facilities there, which just last week received money for planning for a redevelopment, and that is really good. I certainly encourage the Minister for Health to keep an eye on that one. We will need some further funds to upgrade Crossley House in the coming year or two because they have just managed to scrape in with their accreditations and the physical state of the building certainly needs work. But those rural communities I think can lead the way, and it was good to hear the member for Essendon acknowledge that we can learn from many of those rural health services in terms of this issue of health information sharing, and certainly we have some good examples in Gippsland South.
Certainly we do not oppose this legislation. In fact, we are supportive of the principle, but there are many questions, whether it is in respect to the funding for it, whether it is in respect to what the actual technology might be, how privacy will be protected or how cybersecurity will be delivered. These are important questions, and that is why I support referring this legislation to the Legal and Social Issues Committee for further investigation before it goes through this chamber.
Ms SETTLE (Buninyong) (10:54): I am delighted to rise to speak on the Health Legislation Amendment (Information Sharing) Bill 2021. I think that everyone would agree that the last couple of years have really shone a light on our extraordinary health system. The tireless work by nurses, doctors, paramedics and allied health professionals has really kept all Victorians safe. What I am really aware of is that we have these absolutely world-class practitioners, and it is beholden on us to create a world-class system that supports them. As well as shining a light on their extraordinary works, COVID also made very clear the issues surrounding health information sharing practices. As I understand it, some of those barriers were really exposed through the testing capacity—clinicians in our hospitals could only access COVID test results where that test was done by their own pathology service. It really sort of highlighted that there is an issue in that information space. So creating an easier, safer and more secure way of sharing health information between health services will ensure that clinicians have the best support but of course we, as patients or users of that system, will have the very best outcomes.
This government have shown again and again and again their commitment to improving our healthcare system and really putting their money where their mouth is in terms of that support. I know in my hometown of Ballarat work has begun on the $500 million upgrade of Ballarat Base Hospital. The Base, as we colloquially know it, has provided absolutely outstanding care for people in my region for many years, and this upgrade is going to make it fit for purpose for many years to come. I have had a very personal experience there at the hospital, and like my good friend and neighbour the member for Gippsland South, I also spent quite a bit of time with my second son in the ICU ward there. Young Sam was born six weeks prematurely. We had absolutely first-class care while we were there, and we were discharged after two weeks—but of course at that stage I was living in Ararat. We took our little baby home to Ararat and then of course needed to meet with our local GP, and it is interesting because going back there and trying to recount to our GP everything that we had been through was pretty difficult. I mean, anybody who has had a newborn will know that those first two weeks are pretty blurry, and so trying to recount to the GP all of the treatment he had received in ICU was a little nerve-racking for me—the fear that perhaps I had not got it right.
So the Health Legislation Amendment (Information Sharing) Bill 2021 is another example of how this government, the Andrews Labor government, is committed to improving the quality and safety of Victoria’s health system. I worked at Ballarat Community Health before I came into Parliament, and I can genuinely remember being astounded at the range of platforms—Ballarat Community Health is a wonderful organisation that provides everything from GPs through to dental care for homeless children, so a really broad range of services—and how many different systems sit behind those services. Most of us are going to visit more than one health service, so it is incredibly important that this legislation supports us to share that information across those different services. The bill will apply to public hospitals, multipurpose services, denominational hospitals, metropolitan hospitals, prescribed health services, registered community health centres, the ambulance service and the Victorian Institute of Forensic Mental Health. So that is really bringing in a wide range of services.
One of the things that I am incredibly proud of in being part of this government has been the world-first royal commission into mental health. It was really quite an extraordinary process to watch unfold, and this government has been absolutely clear that we will implement absolutely every one of those recommendations. They were very wideranging, and I was personally really pleased to see an emphasis on peer support workers. While I was at Ballarat Community Health I had the absolute pleasure of working with Rick Corney. He was their first peer support mental health worker and made an enormous contribution to the Royal Commission into Victoria’s Mental Health System, and he has quite rightly been recognised for his many contributions.
But of course another recommendation that came out of that, which was incredibly important, was around suggesting the Victorian government develop, fund and implement a mental health information and data exchange, so information use and sharing was featured as a priority for the future mental health system. The royal commission’s final report noted that:
Information use and sharing: understanding of and practice alignment with new expectations in information collection, use and sharing and practice, including approaches to support and respond to consumer consent to share information with other service providers, family—
The SPEAKER: I might interrupt the member at that point because the time has come for me to interrupt business for the grievance debate.
Business interrupted under resolution of house of 7 October.
Grievance debate
Victoria Police
Mr BATTIN (Gembrook) (11:01): Recently I have seen media and social media and been walking around the streets and speaking to people in my electorate, and I can guarantee most in this house and probably including you, Speaker, are getting emails from people in relation to Victoria Police. And today whilst I am speaking on this grievance it is partly to let people know who Victoria Police are. The Victoria Police are the men and women that go out and protect us, but they are you and me—and yes, I have got experience because I was a Victorian police officer. But I am going to go through and name a few of Victoria Police’s finest, who are out on our streets continuously protecting us or have protected us in the past. They are names of people who I recognise, names of people who helped me in my career and names of people who just do everything they can, because they are just simply good people.
Justin Polwarth, or ‘Polly’, was a detective out in Dandenong, an amazing copper and probably one of the worst dancers I ever saw. He decided one day on a job to get a torch out so we could spin one of those disco wheels that was in the middle of a place that had had a burglary, and he thought no-one was watching while standing in the middle of a centre having a bit of a laugh at himself. He is one of our finest in Victoria Police.
There is Nigel McGuire White, or Two Dads, as he is known, who I worked with at Prahran—one of the fittest coppers that I knew. He used to go across to the government housing; it was a great place to train. He used to run up and down the stairs, and I used to ask him why he went across to the stairwell and he said, ‘Because most people don’t use the stairwell there when they’ve got lifts, so you know no-one’s in there’. And he could just run up and down those stairs to keep fit. But he did so much for the community and continues to deliver for the communities of Melbourne.
Brett Hore is a fine officer up at Emerald. I went through the academy with Brett, and he was someone that I admired in the way he worked with the local community. He just continued to give back, and he suited that style of policing at Emerald where you really got engaged in local community.
Steve Bull, or Bully, had some challenges getting in, through the academy, but once he got out of the academy he was one of the most remarkable police officers. I caught up with him just this week, because as we recognised it has been 20 years since I went through the academy with him originally. He is still delivering, and at the moment he is working for hotel quarantine to protect Victorians.
I will not forget Emily Squires, because I went to Prahran police station and on my second shift I worked with Emily and found out she was a Geelong supporter, so of course that was a big advantage. When you go to a new station it can be difficult. You do not know people. It is like starting a new school for a kid. You go in there, and you are a bit nervous. And Emily turned around and said, ‘Well, I’m going to the footy tonight, so if you’d like to join me and my family’—and that is what the policing was all about.
Carolyn Tabone is still working in the job; I think she might be on maternity leave right now. But again, she is an amazing copper I worked with at Dandenong who was so passionate about her role and continues to be—and to watch her on social media, the passion she talks with and gives to the role that she plays in Victoria to keep Victorians safe.
Shane Smith and Ian Gillespie, a sergeant and a senior sergeant at Dandenong, are both amazing coppers that I worked with who were very passionate in the program Operation Newstart, which we started out in Dandenong to give young people a second chance at life. Coppers are not out there all the time just to arrest and lock them up and throw away the key; they actually want to work proactively with people like that.
There was Leo van Tol, Sergeant Leo van Tol from Dandenong—I think he might be retired now. Leo was one of the best sergeants I ever worked with, including on a day I will not forget because I went out to an incident and it was the first time that I ever saw a child who had passed away. It was only a baby, and at the time my wife was pregnant. It was the hardest day in Victoria Police that I ever had, and still today it sticks with me. But when I got back to the station, to have Leo take me aside and have a discussion with me about what I had seen and debrief with him meant so much to me.
Russell Barrett is still there—Rusty—and very senior in the police force now. I worked with him in liquor licensing. Again, he guided me when I was working in liquor licensing through Melbourne. The Stows—Paul and Glenn Stow, the Stowie brothers: one is out of the job now, but both of them have given so much, whether as a detective or a dog trainer, through Victoria Police. And Paul Topham, who I know is a senior sergeant—I think he is still in Melbourne. I worked with him out in Dandenong as well.
These are the names of the men and women who are out there at the moment protecting Victorians and have always been there. I have had the pleasure of working with so many of them, not just those—and I am not going to go through the names of all the others that I have worked with over time—I wish I could. But the reality is that is not what we are going to be talking about—men and women.
So when somebody gets on my website, posts something on my social media or sends me an email and they want to tell me that ‘All Victoria Police are scum’ or ‘All Victoria Police are dirtbags’ or whatever words they want to use, I will continue to reply with ‘Get stuffed’, because Victoria Police each and every day go out and protect Victorians. Each and every day they put their lives on the line to protect us, and they do not want to be doing some of the things they are doing at the moment. So to anyone who tells me that police want to be out there and trying to find you when you are out at 5 past 9 at night because of the ridiculous curfew that there is no reason for having in this state, do not blame the police officers. They do not want to be there. Blame the Premier and his ministers. Focus your hate on having a curfew in the state when there is no need for it.
There is no need for it. The chief health officer cannot give us any justification for why we have a curfew here. No-one in our state has been able to come out and give us the reasons we have got a curfew. Then they said the reason New South Wales had a spread was that they did not have a curfew. Well, that has not helped down here at all. So people should change where they are focusing, put that focus on those that are making the decisions.
The 15-kilometre limit: if anyone thinks the police think it is fantastic to pull someone over because they are 15.1 kilometres from their home to give them a fine, they are kidding themselves. Again, the focus should go back to who is putting in these restrictions, and those restrictions are put in place by the Victorian Labor government. So do not focus on the copper who is out there doing his job; focus on those that are bringing in these ridiculous rules.
We want to make sure as we go through COVID that we have put plans in place for things like opening up schools safely. I note today we are talking about gyms, we are talking about businesses. I had an example today where someone has contacted me from a business. They were visited by occupational health and safety, and they did not have a COVID-safe plan. He got called in to do a review in the premises, and he got a $10 000-plus fine. We know $10 000 for any business, any day of the week, is a lot of money, but his business has been shut since lockdown 5. He has not had staff in there. He has been called in by occupational health and safety to do the review with WorkSafe Victoria, and he has got in trouble for not having a plan at the workplace for what they are going to do during COVID. He has not been there since lockdown 5. Why would you have a plan for a locked-up office? It simply does not make sense. Again, do not blame the WorkSafe adviser, do not blame those out there; blame those that are bringing in these ridiculous rules that these people have to comply with when they are small businesses.
Continuing on what is happening around our community, I turn to mental health. I know that many people in this house—and I will actually say every person in this house—would have had at some stage an email from someone in relation to mental health. I went down and visited a local psychology centre with Michael Tomek, who is at Lakeside Psychology. He spoke about the increase in numbers and the impact on our community at the moment—waitlists of over 500 people in one psychology centre. He rang around between Warragul and the city to try and find a spot for one person on that list. Do you know how many positions were available for someone taking a new patient on that day between Warragul and the city? One. There was one spot in Hawthorn available, and that was it. No other service was offering to take new clients; they were all put on a waitlist. So bad is the waitlist that they have had to amend the way they do the waitlist now to ensure that people can try and continue to get treatment. And he asked me the question—and I cannot answer it; I hope someone in government can answer it when they get up and speak—‘How do you tell a 12-year-old who’s in deep depression that we can help you in eight months time? How do you say to an eight-year-old who’s suffering mental health issues, “We can help you, but it’s in six months time”?’ It is too long, and we have not acted on it. The reality now is what we are seeing is that the impact on mental health is rife through communities, with the lockdowns and the pressure from the curfews. Again, the curfew is one of those things that just plays on your mind. It is something that does not need to happen, and it does not need to happen in this state.
For businesses throughout my community, the one thing they will say is they do not want support. They actually want to be trading. That is what they want—they want to be trading. The businesses throughout my electorate that I visit regularly or speak to or stay in contact with want to be open and they want to trade. Do you know how frustrated they were when they heard that the government was considering having 10 000 people at the Melbourne Cup? Now, I am not anti having the 10 000 at the Melbourne Cup, but I am anti having 10 000 at the Melbourne Cup before you can have businesses back open and trading again. I am anti having 10 000 at the Melbourne Cup before you can open up schools and get kids back to school. I am anti—
Mr Dimopoulos: Like two days before.
Mr BATTIN: I will just clarify that. The member for Oakleigh just said ‘Two days before’. It is 251 days today they have been locked down, member for Oakleigh, and I want to let everyone in my electorate know the Labor member for Oakleigh said ‘It’s two days more’. I will just clarify: the gyms in my area have been closed for longer than that 251 days. I will invite you, member for Oakleigh, to come out and meet Tiffany White, who is at our Pilates classes down in Beaconsfield. You come out and say to her ‘It’s only two days’. Why don’t you come out and tell her—
Mr Dimopoulos: On a point of order, Speaker, I said before Melbourne Cup, not two days more.
The SPEAKER: That is not a point of order, but I would ask members not to interject while the member is speaking. I ask the member speaking to direct his comments through the Chair.
Mr BATTIN: Thank you very much, Speaker, and I wish you had the power to then force the member for Oakleigh to come down and meet those businesses. I am looking forward now. All of a sudden you have made this contribution go from good to great, because now I can go out to my community and remind them that every single person of the Labor Party who has now decided to interject is supporting your position—and I note the Leader of the House at the table is the one staying silent, because obviously they do not.
Mr T Smith: Have you run a business?
Mr BATTIN: A good question. I will not take up interjections, but maybe the member for Kew could ask me: ‘Have you run a business?’. I ran a Bakers Delight. I employed staff.
Mr Dimopoulos: So did I.
Mr BATTIN: You ran a Bakers Delight? Congratulations. Well done. I think the Leader of the House is asking you to quieten down. But I have run a business. I have actually worked within Victoria Police. I have worked in prisons. I have actually had life experience outside of here, and I understand the impacts of each and every decision you are making. So when a person says ‘It’s only two days longer that a business has to stay shut’, you have no idea of what is happening out in our community—none whatsoever.
Mr Dimopoulos interjected.
Mr BATTIN: I would not dig a hole any deeper than you have got right now. For every single business, every single day they are not trading is a job lost. Every time you walk around Melbourne it is a new ‘For lease’ sign on a business here in the city. Every time you go past a pub it is another person going through university who cannot get a part-time job. Every single time you walk past a school at the moment it is schoolkids that have not got the opportunity to go in and learn. There is so much that we are missing out on, and for any person in this house to turn around and go, ‘It’s only two days’ is an absolute disgrace.
Victorians are struggling. I went through the mental health statistics. Victorians at the moment are stuck inside their homes. Yes, we will talk about the chief health officer’s rules, but you are going to have to start talking about the fact that a government must make decisions based on all the advice that it can get. At the moment we have heard too often from the Premier it is all based on the chief health officer’s advice. It is not often I agree with Waleed Aly, but let me tell you he came out and said that the responsibility of the government is to take the advice from the chief health officer, the advice from businesses, the advice in relation to mental health and the advice from experts in education and to put that together to make a decision on what they are going to deliver as far as policies or they are going to deliver and base their decisions on. Then it is up to the government to make those decisions based on all the advice. It is a sad day in Victoria when all of the decisions are being made around one thing, and we are seeing the impact through our businesses. Now today at the end of this the one thing we will see for every person in Victoria is the member for Oakleigh joining his colleagues and saying, ‘It doesn’t matter. You’re closed for two more days’.
Suburban Rail Loop
Ms ALLAN (Bendigo East—Leader of the House, Minister for Transport Infrastructure, Minister for the Suburban Rail Loop) (11:16): I am pleased to make my grievance contribution today on the Suburban Rail Loop project. I must say the grievance is that this is a project that is subject to ongoing undermining—an important transformative rail project that is going to support bringing jobs and services closer to where people live—by the Liberal-National opposition.
But I will come back to more on that in a moment, because I do want to say it has been a big few months for the Suburban Rail Loop project. Just a couple of months ago we released the business and investment case for this project. And you know what? That business and investment case shows that this project well and truly stacks up. In fact it lays out how it would cost the Victorian community and the Victorian economy not to build this vital project. That is because this is a project that is going to transform the way people move around our city and state, making it easier to get those direct connections to hospitals, to schools, to universities and TAFEs, to shopping precincts and to recreation facilities whilst at the same time providing jobs in and around these precincts and jobs during construction.
I will share with you a couple of statistics from the business and investment case. It found that the Suburban Rail Loop between Cheltenham and Melbourne Airport—that part of the rail project—will carry more than 430 000 passengers a day when it is completed, and at the same time it will take 600 000 cars off local roads. This is important because this change, this mode shift, if you like, from road to rail and this easing of congestion on our local road network and providing a mass transit heavy rail option for people to move around the city, is significant, because it is going to come at a time when the state is going to experience ongoing population growth. We know that this is already a challenge for many people in the suburbs. Around 70 per cent of the jobs right now in Melbourne are found in the suburbs, and we also know that around 55 per cent of people every day already are making orbital movements for work, travelling around those suburbs, and they do not have a heavy rail option; they do not have a mass transit option.
Then you think about the population growth that is going to come along. Despite the challenges of COVID the federal government’s 2021 Intergenerational Report, which was released a couple of months ago, shows that it is expected. Federal Treasury have these settings; our Treasury have these settings as well. It is expected that population growth will come back, and we will see that Victoria will be a state of around 11 million people by the late 2050s. To support that population our public transport network would need to cope with an extra 11.8 million trips every single day, and we would see an 80 per cent increase in private vehicle traffic on our local road network. That is why we need to get our skates on today and start building the Suburban Rail Loop, because we know that already we need to provide those rail services for the way people move around the city. We know we need a mechanism to help shift cars off our roads, and we need to start moving today, because we know these will only be problems that will get worse if we sit back and do nothing.
Also, as I mentioned, this is a project that is going to support jobs. It is going to create a pipeline of construction jobs, but also it is going to support more job activity around the precincts that will be supported by the new underground stations as part of the Suburban Rail Loop.
I have been really pleased since we have released the business and investment case to work with many of my colleagues to talk with a number of communities along the Suburban Rail Loop alignment, whether it is councils, local businesses, institutions like universities or other peak bodies, about this project. We have established six precinct reference groups that will provide direct and regular feedback into the project delivery team, getting the views on the ground, whether they be of councils, local community organisations or traders associations, about how we can help deliver and make the most of this vital project. This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to plan for this and to get it right, and that is why we are committed to working with those communities through this consultation process. All of this is in addition to the statutory processes that will follow, with the environment effects statement process to kick off later this year.
Just going back to what this project means, I have mentioned some of the transport benefits to our city and state—a growing city and state—of having this game-changing project come into our transport network. It will also provide significant travel saving times, and we have all experienced being stuck in traffic or being in a train carriage that is perhaps a little bit more congested and crowded than we would like. Well, the Suburban Rail Loop, as I said, provides that additional boost to our train network, and also it provides for direct connections. Just consider the Suburban Rail Loop east part of the project. The rail network between Cheltenham and Box Hill will mean a 22-minute train ride from Cheltenham to Box Hill, but also it will provide for those direct connections into the heart of Monash University, into the heart of Deakin University at Burwood, into the heart of Clayton, which means that with those direct connections—it does not matter what part of the city you are coming from or what part of the state you are coming from, and I will come to some of the regional benefits in a moment—people can save significant travel time. On average the business and investment case shows that that is expected to be up to 40 minutes for a one-way journey in the morning peak. That is what we want to achieve as well with the delivery of the Suburban Rail Loop project.
Also I mentioned the precincts opportunities, and we are seeing this. Global cities around the world are understanding and seizing the opportunities that come from making sure that at the same time as you are investing and delivering in transformative transport infrastructure you are doing the careful work on what goes on around that infrastructure—understanding. There is case study after case study, evidence after evidence, that shows good transport links are like a magnet. They are a magnet for jobs, they are a magnet for people wanting to live close to those transport links and they also give us the opportunity to support and create the precincts around those train stations. That is why, at the same time as we are investing in the rail infrastructure, we are getting cracking with the planning and delivery of what is going to go on around those precincts around the new train stations.
I mentioned regional benefits. The design of the Suburban Rail Loop is done in a way to support that orbital movement around our city but also to make sure that our regional communities have those direct connections into the network. That is why the super-hubs at Sunshine, Broadmeadows and Clayton are particularly important. I will give you a quick case study—
A member interjected.
Ms ALLAN: Not Broadmeadows. I will give you the Clayton case study. I had the great pleasure a couple of weeks ago to have an online briefing with a range of Gippsland representatives—the Committee for Gippsland, the Gippsland Local Government Network and other representatives. I do not think it is too much of an understatement to say that they are pretty excited about what the opportunities the Suburban Rail Loop brings for their project, because what it means is that you can travel from Gippsland directly into Monash University. There will be those direct connections that will be made. Many people from Gippsland would travel to Box Hill Hospital. They now have the opportunity to do that via the Suburban Rail Loop and save at least 30 minutes on that travel by having that direct connection during the peak period.
I want to use the time remaining just to touch a little bit more on the legislation that is the enabling framework for the establishment of the Suburban Rail Loop Authority. As we have said since this project was first announced, this is a big project. It is a game-changing project. It is the project that is needed to support a growing population and to address the way people are wanting to move around the city now, where they are going to move into the future and how we provide the jobs and services closer to where people live.
To deliver this project, it will be done over multiple decades. We have acknowledged that straight up-front. It will succeed many governments. It will succeed many parliaments. That is why we needed to put in place a robust legislative framework to support the work of the Suburban Rail Loop Authority, which is doing that twin task of delivering complex rail infrastructure and at the same time doing the detailed precinct planning. Again, this is not new. This is experienced in cities around the world, but it is a newer approach for us here in Victoria.
Importantly too it is what Victorians want us to do. We committed in 2018 to delivering the Suburban Rail Loop. Victorians overwhelmingly supported that project and expect us to get on and get cracking with this project. That is why I was a bit disappointed to see that the Liberal-National opposition in the other place did put forward a series of amendments that was consistent with their ongoing commitment to scrap the Suburban Rail Loop. They have never been lovers of the Suburban Rail Loop, and their amendments that they put forward in the upper house demonstrated that. Thankfully the majority of members in the other place saw some sense, understood what those amendments were all about and overwhelmingly voted in that place to support the legislation.
The reason why this is important and the reason why this deserves attention and the spotlight shone on it is that, as I said before, this is a project that, if it is to be delivered, needs to be delivered over many decades. It needs to survive elections, parliaments and the passage of time. It needs certainty. The alignment that it runs through covers many local government areas, it covers many different communities. It needs certainty in the planning and the delivery of the project. That is why the amendments put forward by the Liberal Party were a combination of unworkable, ill considered, unnecessary and over the top, but most seriously they would have unnecessarily delayed the delivery of this project. The requirements in their amendments for, for example, each and every one of the councillors in each and every one of the 11 local government areas that this project passes through to be in wholesome agreement with the project—otherwise it would come to a screeching halt.
Let me quote for you what the Leader of the Opposition in the other place said on this matter in his second-reading contribution. The member for Southern Metropolitan Region, David Davis, in terms of referring to councils, said ‘They have no ability to stop this’. That is the heart of his amendments. He wants this project stopped. The Liberal Party want this project stopped. They cannot understand that this is a project that is so critically important for the future development of our state to make sure that our kids can have access to good quality tertiary education, be it university or TAFE; that people in country Victoria can more easily access those vital health services on the train and leave the car at home; and that there is affordable housing for our key workers to live closer to where their jobs are without having to live further and further away from the job centres are around our state. Those are the benefits that the Suburban Rail Loop delivers, and those are the benefits that the Liberal-National party in the opposition want to stop.
I must say I was even more disappointed to see that they had the wholesome support of the Greens political party. Now, again I must say in our nearly seven years the Greens and the Liberal and National parties have been on a unity ticket when it comes to trying to stop and block the delivery of major projects in this state. It is a trend. My friend, the Minister for Housing, is here. He has seen the Greens vote against social housing projects. We have seen the Greens vote against accessible tram stops. We expect this from the Liberal Party. We have seen this from the Liberal Party. We also see it from the Greens political party as well.
This is a project that, as I said, we took to the 2018 election. Victorians overwhelmingly voted for it, and we are determined to get on and deliver this project. Because consider the alternative. The alternative, to not build the Suburban Rail Loop, would lead to a situation where we are saying to Victorians, ‘You stay on those congested roads. You get stuck on those crowded trains. We’re not providing that alternative that a growing city and state needs’. To sit back and do nothing, to let our population growth overwhelm us, says to people in the outer suburbs, ‘We’re not providing an alternative to those longer commutes that you experience’. It results in reduced economic productivity. I have mentioned the key workers who will end up living closer. The cleaners who clean our hospitals, the retail workers who serve us in the supermarket—they deserve more choice in where they live and how close they live to their workplaces.
But also it is saying to Victorians that without the Suburban Rail Loop we will reduce equity of access to our hospitals, universities and TAFEs. Whether you are coming from regional Victoria, outer suburban Melbourne or inner or middle Melbourne, having a heavy-rail, mass-transit network that delivers you to the heart of the Monash University and research precinct, the hospital precincts at Clayton and at Box Hill, the university at Deakin, the TAFE at Box Hill—these are examples of the way people in the future will be able to directly access those services, and in turn it will make for a fairer, more equitable community that we live in. That is why this government is so determined to get on and deliver the Suburban Rail Loop. We will reject each and every attempt by the Liberal Party to try to stop and stall this project, because this is a project that Victoria needs, and only the Andrews Labor government will get on and deliver it.
COVID-19 vaccinations
Mr D O’BRIEN (Gippsland South) (11:31): I rise today to grieve on behalf of the businesses and workers that have been left high and dry by this Andrews Labor government in the past couple of weeks when it comes to its authorised worker vaccine mandate. This government has made panicked decision after panicked decision throughout this whole pandemic, and this is the latest one. Whether on the basis of health advice or not, it has created absolute chaos across our communities and the government has simply washed its hands and walked away. I am sure—
Members interjecting.
The SPEAKER: Order! Members on my right.
Mr D O’BRIEN: I am sure that those opposite are all there patting themselves on the back about a project that will not be finished for 50 years, but they are not even remotely focused on the issues that are affecting our business community, our workers, our employers and families throughout the state right here and now because of their decisions.
Now, I want to say from the outset that I 110 per cent support vaccination. I am double vaccinated. All of my colleagues are. We are also encouraging everyone to get vaccinated. It is absolutely our way out of this process. But we do not support the mandating of vaccinations for authorised workers, which the government announced nearly two weeks ago with no notice and with very little notice before it was to be implemented. We certainly support it for aged-care workers, healthcare workers and those who are dealing with vulnerable people, but the wider mandate, I believe, is a massive overreach, and it is more particularly the consequences of that that are playing out right now and that will play out more significantly over the next couple of weeks as those first-dose dates come up on 15 October, which is next Friday, and 22 October and then 26 November, at which point every worker on the authorised worker list will have to be double vaccinated.
I repeat again: I am absolutely encouraging everyone to go and do that. But we all know there is a cohort, and there always has been a cohort, that will resist—some of them for spurious reasons, some of them have genuine concerns, some of them are just unsure and need reassurance. However, this is having huge impacts across the community and particularly across the business community, where businesses and workers do not know where they stand. And this government has done nothing to assist those communities, to assist those businesses—those small businesses in particular—to understand what the law is, to understand what the consequences are and to understand what their rights and the rights of their workers are when it comes to being vaccinated.
I can go a little to the government’s lack of focus on these issues. In the other place last week the Minister for Employment, Minister for Innovation, Medical Research and the Digital Economy and Minister for Small Business was asked a question:
What are you advising employers to do if staff refuse to either be vaccinated or hand over their private medical details?
There was first of course a whack for the questioner about his position. Eventually the minister did get towards answering it, and she said, I quote:
I would encourage those businesses to talk to their staff about the importance of vaccination and its relationship to that business’s ability to trade and participate in a busier and more active economy.
Again, those people who are resisting are not going to be convinced by the importance of the business’s ability to trade. She suggested that businesses should look at whether it is in their capacity to offer time off for workers to go and get a vaccination. Well, that is not the issue that is stopping them doing it—whether they have got time off or not. And then she said:
… and I would encourage them to reach out to their peak organisations for support and advice …
So this is a government that has made this enormous decision, a massive decision—
Members interjecting.
The SPEAKER: Order! There is too much audible conversation on my right. I think some people are speaking louder than they perhaps realise or are understanding. Some people have naturally loud voices, so I will just ask members to tone it down.
Mr D O’BRIEN: Thank you, Speaker, I appreciate that. The government has basically said, ‘Look, we’ve made this rule, but if you want to know what the consequences of it are for the relationship between you and your employees, you’d better go and talk to your peak organisation’. Now, many small businesses of course are not members of peak organisations, and they are struggling. And they are coming to members here—I am sure to government members as well. They are being inundated with ‘What do I do?’. For the government to just simply say it is a tiny percentage of the community, as the minister said, and that they should talk to their peak organisation is simply not good enough. The minister went on to say that she would:
… encourage them to familiarise themselves with the supports that are available through the Jobs Victoria program that I administer …
Well, the issue, Minister, is not the lack of programs for workers, it is the lack of workers. And this is a problem that was present long before the pandemic. It has gotten worse through the pandemic in part because of the caps on immigration and temporary workers, and it is certainly going to be worse because of this mandate that came in with almost no notice and with very little support from the government.
I can go through a few examples just from my Nationals colleagues. The member for Gippsland East told me of a farming enterprise where three of six workers have said, ‘We will not get the jab’. A major food producer has got 20 staff, out of nearly 500 admittedly, who are saying, ‘We simply won’t do it’. A food shop in Wangaratta has got seven out of eight employees who are refusing to get vaccinated. That business is going to have to shut down. What else can they do? Let us hope that those people see the light and it changes.
I know a Gippsland health food shop where the entire staff, including the owners, have said, ‘We will not get vaccinated; we’ll have to close the doors’. I know of farm contractors where that is certainly an issue as well. I have had dairy farmers from my own electorate call and say, ‘How do we impose this on a contractor visiting our farm?’, and I said, ‘Well, it’s the law’. They said, ‘Okay, that’s fine, but this guy’s a contractor and he’s the only one in our district, in Gippsland, who can do this work’. So there are huge issues in that respect.
The member for Lowan has told me of a school in the Western District which only has six full-time teachers, three of whom are saying they will not get vaccinated. So this is not just going to be about the school and the employees; this is about the kids as well, the students who will miss out. Let us again hope that those people change their minds—but three out of six full-time teachers. There is also a cafe in the Wimmera where four out of seven staff are refusing to get vaccinated.
I am aware, too, it is not necessarily the numbers of staff in a small business. But, for example, if you think of a restaurant—and I did hear this example the other day—that employs 10 or a dozen people, where the head chef refuses to get vaccinated, what happens then? Because that puts those other people’s jobs at risk too. We have heard nothing from this government by way of support or by way of assistance for the business sector to actually deal with this.
I might just go briefly, on the question of whether this mandate was a good idea or not, to the actual advice from the Australian Health Protection Principal Committee, the AHPPC, which issued advice on 1 October. It goes into quite a bit of detail about mandating vaccines, but it does say towards the bottom:
AHPPC notes that mandating vaccination for this cohort—
and it is referring to the health sector in this instance—
could have unintended consequences, including on the availability of the workforce.
Now, it does go on to say, for full disclosure:
However, the benefits of a highly vaccinated workforce will ensure minimal transmission in healthcare settings and minimise the need to quarantine and furlough staff.
We agree. We agree with that, but what the government has not done is it has not considered this health advice for the broader worker sector. Yes, the benefits of potentially losing staff are outweighed in healthcare settings, but are they really outweighed in agriculture, for example, where you might have people sitting on a header through the harvest season in a paddock on their own, hundreds of miles from anyone else? You have to consider whether the benefits of that outweigh the risks of not having all those people vaccinated. There is already a massive shortage of workers, particularly in the agricultural sector, but more broadly across rural and regional Victoria.
Again, I am not saying that people should not be vaccinated—I strongly recommend that people do get vaccinated, and I hope all those businesses right across the state are able to convince their workers or that their workers will understand that that is what they should be doing—but there are alternatives. We have been on this side calling on the government for months and months and months to introduce more availability of rapid testing, whether it is at schools; whether it is at hospitals, where it already happens; or whether it is in the hotel quarantine system, where it already happens. But if it could be used for those workers who are refusing to get vaccinated, it would solve huge numbers of problems. Now, I am not suggesting that this is an easy way out for people, but the government really should have been looking at these options to allow businesses to protect themselves, their customers and their employees without actually having to severely compromise the businesses themselves.
Rapid testing is being used around the world. There are people in the UK who take a rapid test every day before they go to work. Because it was the opposition that raised this and said it should be happening more in Victoria, I think we saw the Premier and his government dig in and say ‘Well, we’re just going to put that on the backburner’. Now it is slowly being introduced. Now they are slowly starting to look at it because they do not want for a second to give up a political advantage, which is a poor reflection on this government.
I would say too that what concerns me is the level of debate on this decision. So there has been no consideration, no answers from the Premier or any of the ministers, as to how this will be dealt with by employers and small businesses throughout the state. There has been no debate in this Parliament. For all of this, for this massive change on the authorised worker mandate to be introduced just under the public health orders is wrong. I think it should have been debated here in this chamber. Look, we may well have all supported it, but it certainly should have been debated, because this is a significant step that is going to have massive economic consequences for our region.
The other questions that many of us are getting and I am sure every member of the chamber is getting are: ‘How can we get around this? These people are saying they don’t want to get vaccinated. I’ve seen that the state of emergency ends in December, so does that mean it’s going to be over?’. Well, the government should be giving us some clarity on these questions. I believe the government have said that they are not going to extend the state of emergency under the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 by legislation but they are actually going to introduce COVID-specific legislation. Well, where is it? We are into the middle of October now. There are only a couple of sitting weeks left between now and December. Where is this government legislation to actually do that? What is it going to entail? And how long will this last? We heard from New South Wales. They have said 1 December basically is pretty much freedom day. There will be no difference between vaccinated and unvaccinated in New South Wales from 1 December.
People are asking us the question, ‘How long is it going to last?’, and I am saying to them, ‘Under this government, don’t assume that it will stop, because who knows?’. We are not getting any clarity on that question, and I think the government should be providing that. It should be telling us where this COVID-specific legislation is, what it is going to cover and how long these mandates will stay in place, but more particularly to my key point, the government should be providing support and advice to businesses and to their employees to ensure they understand.
I have another question. This goes to schools as well. I look at the operations guide that was issued to Victorian government schools on 2 October. It says on page 12, towards the bottom, about authorised worker permits for onsite supervision:
On the advice of our public health team, all workers—in Melbourne and regional Victoria—on the Authorised Worker list will require their first COVID-19 vaccine dose by 18 October in order to continue working onsite, and for their children to be eligible for on-site supervision.
Now, that is for onsite supervision, presumably at a time when we still have remote learning. What the government needs to answer is: is that going to be extended when schools go back? Are kids going to be denied the opportunity to actually go to school if their parents are unvaccinated? Now, that would be a significant step far greater than anything we have done in this place or federally with respect to no jab, no pay and no jab, no play. The government needs to answer those questions.
I reiterate I am very keen to emphasise to people that they should get the vaccine. It is safe, it is effective. It is the way out. But the way the government has gone about this, issuing decrees from on high with very little notice—and I might add, it took nearly a week for the government to actually get formal directions up. We had businesses left, right and centre calling, saying, ‘How do we know how to implement this when we haven’t seen the actual regulations?’. The government has provided no support and assistance to workers and no support and assistance to businesses as to how to deal with this, and it will have significant economic consequences throughout our state, not to mention the rending of the relationships between workers and their bosses over the next couple of weeks. The government stands condemned for its failure on this issue.
Mental health reform
Mr DIMOPOULOS (Oakleigh) (11:46): It is with somewhat of a heavy heart that I get up to grieve for the people of Victoria, who prior to this government did not have any government or political party who was particularly interested in mental health—a very, very entrenched problem and issue for decades in this state. But since the election of our government at the 2018 election we have moved at extraordinary pace and with extraordinary power to address the decades of failure in mental health.
It is an interesting journey when you think about it. The mental health system was talked about by not just those consumers who used it or their families or their loved ones but many, many people for years—about how awful it was, how it did not work, how broken it was and how the staff were stretched. The system just did not work. It may sound harsh, but effectively governments to that point tinkered with the system. They managed waiting lists within a system that was effectively not working well. In fact many people who shared their stories through the Royal Commission into Victoria’s Mental Health System said that system retraumatised people. They had the initial trauma of mental illness, and then that system itself retraumatised them. It took multiple phone calls to get to a waiting list, effectively. Family members would be in the dark about their loved one’s progression or access to support and services. There was a whole litany of broken lives effectively, because the entire concept of the system was: you get treated if you are ill enough. Now, if you were ill enough generally a treatment took a lot longer and recovery was less certain. So even the entire premise of the system was flawed. It had no hope. Despite the hard work, dedication and ethics of the workforce and the hard work, dedication and love of family and loved ones, it just did not work for a lot of people.
That is a problem. In a political contest people talk about problems, but big problems like that are rarely addressed by governments or political players. This government, the Andrews Labor government, said ‘No, this is not good enough’. I remember the then Minister for Mental Health, the member for Albert Park. I also remember my inaugural speech almost seven years ago, where I spent I reckon 50 per cent of that speech talking about mental health. Little did I know that I would have the great honour—I get goosebumps saying this—of serving in this role as Parliamentary Secretary for Mental Health six years later. But I only got that honour because of the commitment and the leadership of the Premier and the Minister for Mental Health, then and now, in establishing the royal commission, in making this a significant issue. It is not about me. We probably did not have a parliamentary secretary for mental health previously. I do not know; we may have previous to our government coming into power. If you think about that journey—we got elected in 2014. I remember the then minister approached me after the inaugural speech and said, ‘I’d love you to do some work in mental health’.
Mr Wynne interjected.
Mr DIMOPOULOS: Thank you, Minister. I remember that he set up what he called the ‘expert task force’ to advise the government on mental health. There were Pat McGorry, Georgie Harman from Beyond Blue and 25 excellent providers, and he gave me the honour of chairing that group for a couple of years. We put together a 10-year strategy on mental health. That was, we thought then, architectonic—a 10-year mental health plan—particularly given what we had just inherited, which was a system that, at its best, I think under Ms Lovell in the other place, was a recommissioning of mental health services which decreased the amount of access people had to community services in mental health by 30 per cent. They were tinkering, but in the worst possible fashion. With that background, we came in, we set up a 10-year plan, we set up an expert task force and we got a backbencher to chair it who was interested in this space. We thought we were doing good work, but we realised in that period that this was far bigger than what we thought—far bigger, as I described earlier. A 10-year plan and an extra budget commitment and a group of dedicated people across the task force was not going to cut it.
That was the proudest moment, when I heard the Premier and the then minister were going to the member for Macedon’s electorate. A few of us were there, and to hear from that father who had that lived experience was just an absolutely breathtaking moment in public policy, where we threw down the gauntlet and said, ‘You know what? The system is broken’. We had been in government for four years, and we still admitted that the system was broken. That goes against every political instinct, doesn’t it? But it was so critically important we did not care about the politics of it, in fact. This was far too important to be about politics. So we said, ‘We’re going to call for a royal commission into mental health’. Who ever thought that before? Not a royal commission into a scandal, but a royal commission into one of the biggest public policy issues facing Victorians not just for this year but for the last 50 years. It was the Premier and the now Minister for Health who did that at that point in time.
We went from that and then we had a two-year royal commission. The biggest ever contribution from the public of Victoria to any public inquiry was at this royal commission—imagine that, in 150 years of Victorian political history: 61 sessions, 21 locations, 12 500 contributions, 3000 people surveyed, 100 working groups and eight formal panel hearings. There were eminent people heading this royal commission and an eminent group of advisers to that eminent group. This was the scope of that commission. I say this for a reason, and I am getting to why this is important: you do not question that level of work, not just because of the eminence of the people on it but because of the depth of engagement of the Victorian community. You do not question it. That is why we said we would accept every single one of the 74 recommendations of that royal commission—every single one. We effectively wrote a blank cheque, but we also wrote a blank political opportunity effectively, because we had every faith in that group to rewrite the system for the community and for us. We had enormous trust.
How did we respond? We responded in the very first budget, before the final report, with in excess of $800 million just to start implementing the interim report. Remember, the interim report had nine recommendations. The final report released on 2 March this year had 65 additional recommendations. So there was over $800 million in last year’s budget to start implementation, and of course $3.8 billion in this year’s budget presented on 20 May—the biggest investment. And, as the Premier often says in relation to family violence, you add up all the contributions of every state and the commonwealth in this country on family violence and you do not equal the investment of the Victorian Labor government. The exact same can be said about mental health. This federal government has done more, I have got to say, than previous federal governments in recent history, but nowhere near enough. Our investment absolutely dwarfs not only theirs but the entire country’s, and we are doing a lot of good work.
We are setting up two parallel systems. First, Pat McGorry, an eminent theorist and practitioner in mental health—
Mr Wynne: Clinician.
Mr DIMOPOULOS: A clinician—thank you, Minister—tells us it is one of the only jurisdictions in the world to set up two parallel systems for mental health, one for infants, children and young people and one for adults, let alone the work we are doing in emergency departments across Melbourne to triage mental health presentations differently to physical health presentations. We are setting up 60 new local mental health and wellbeing services for adults—not just like the excellent work of Headspace youth centres; there will be those centres and deeper multidisciplinary teams for adults and older adults.
The system for infants, children and young people will include 13 area services across Victoria and eight regional boards, because the needs of Bairnsdale are not the needs of Carnegie, because the needs of Gippsland are not the needs of South Yarra. So we are setting up a system where there will be eight regional boards that absolutely have to serve their community. They will procure, they will commission, mental health services for their community—so a more devolved model. We are setting up eight family- and carer-led centres. We are setting up a bunch of state centres of excellence—for example, for trauma, drugs and alcohol—so there is a point of escalation from primary care right through to tertiary-level care in those more difficult elements of the service delivery spectrum of mental health.
And of course we have not just waited for this. The Minister for Transport Infrastructure said in relation to the Suburban Rail Loop that it is an iconic project that is going to take many years; well, so is this reform. You cannot reform a system like this overnight. We have accepted up-front it is going to be a 10-year reform journey, but we are doing work, as I said, not just in a budgetary sense but in a legislative sense, to bridge the gap between now and the panacea of having these recommendations all implemented, including adding to the effectively overrun support lines that have been doing excellent work and the other services that have been doing excellent work during the pandemic to deal with what has been an escalation in need by the community—$220 million in excess of the figures I have talked about just to supplement the support services for Victorians during the pandemic.
Now, I know it is rich coming from a member of the government, but that is a record to be proud of. That is an investment that is absolutely tied to our values. We do not say one thing and do another at all. In this space we are absolutely in sync—as we are in many others—with our values. And there is another alternative, one that we do not want to focus on, because it is a very, very unfortunate alternative. Do you know, it only takes one term to make a profound decision to change the lives of Victorians. It does not take two or three—mind you, if you have two or three, you do more. But we have done the royal commission in only one term, and we are not even over that term yet—three years into the term. So before the other side say, ‘Well, we only had four years before you came in’—four years is plenty. Four years is plenty, and that is the alternative that I speak of. What they did was they spent $609 million in four years on mental health and did a process of commissioning which left providers and consumers worse off—a reduction of 30 per cent in access for consumers in community care—
Mr Wynne: And frontline services.
Mr DIMOPOULOS: and frontline services, as the Minister says. Our investment, granted, has been over seven years, not four. Well, we invested more in one year than they did in four, but the better statistic, for me, is that in seven years our commitment is almost eightfold theirs—in seven years almost eightfold theirs. But they did worse than that: they played politics with mental health. If there was any opportunity to show leadership, this is the opportunity. The Shadow Minister for Mental Health and the then Leader of the Opposition got up at the Royal Exhibition Building for the most iconic and symbolically powerful handing down of the commission’s report and basically politicised the event. It was awful. Stakeholders even talked about how awful their contributions were.
They basically said, ‘Oh well, you know, we support it; it’s a bit late coming’. A bit late coming? I beg your pardon? We announced it in 2018 and we delivered it this year. How is that late coming? But they also said something worse: ‘We are not going to take the eminent professionals and the contributions of all Victorians, the biggest ever public contribution by any inquiry in Victoria’s history, at full value. We’re going to discount one of the recommendations, because we reckon we’re better than they are in understanding’. Do you know what that recommendation was? It was the mental health levy. They said no to the mental health levy. And they said no because, ‘Oh, it’s so important, it should be funded under consolidated revenue’.
Now, if you were us, you could reasonably say that, because we funded eight times what they did. But when you funded a measly 13 per cent of what we did, why would you then use the consolidated revenue argument? Surely you would be the proponents of having a guaranteed income stream for mental health reform through this levy, affecting only 5 per cent of businesses. They squibbed the most iconic opportunity to ensure mental health reform into the ages. They squibbed it. And for that they should be consistently condemned. They are not serious about mental health reform. Only this government is.
Biodiversity protection
Ms SANDELL (Melbourne) (12:01): Today in my grievance debate I would like to talk about the loss of biodiversity unfolding here in Victoria and what we might be able to do about it. As we know, functioning ecosystems provide the essentials we all need simply to stay alive—clean air, water, shelter and food. They also provide what we need to thrive. Nature is important for our wellbeing—our mental health as well as our physical health. We must care for the environment simply because our own future depends upon it.
In Victoria in 2018 the Victorian Government Response to the State of the Environment was released, the latest information that we have. It is Victoria’s scorecard for how we are faring when it comes to the health of Victoria’s environment. Unfortunately that report, the latest one we have, was pretty alarming. When it comes to biodiversity, the health of ecosystems and threatened species, it shows we are going backwards. Not one single biodiversity indicator in Victoria was rated as good. Most were rated as poor or unknown and not improving. And as we know, Victoria is the state with the most cleared native vegetation in the country.
In response to this 2018 state of the environment report the Greens established a parliamentary inquiry into Victoria’s ecosystem decline. We did so because we wanted to get the experts in a room to really tease out what is going wrong and how we might be able to turn things around and to make sure all the evidence was on the table for all political parties, but especially the government, to look at. This inquiry has just wrapped up and will shortly deliver its final report, and it demonstrated unequivocally that Victoria’s ecosystems are unfortunately in dire straits. It highlighted some of the problems that we have in Victoria but also potentially some of the exciting solutions, which I would like to talk about today.
The inquiry heard evidence from experts, researchers, scientists and academics as well as people in industry, local councils and volunteers working on the ground in conservation across Victoria—metro, regional and rural. It heard that we now have 2000 species and ecological communities listed as threatened, facing extinction—2000—and that is up from just over 600 the last time they were counted. Some of these species, like the grey-headed flying foxes, are collapsing at quite an alarming rate. In the 2019–20 heatwaves a third of the population of this species—a third—died in a single heatwave event. This is a species that plays a vital role as a pollinator, critical to the survival of our forests.
The evidence provided to the inquiry showed that the reasons for loss of biodiversity in Victoria are sometimes complex of course but sometimes they are actually quite simple. The inquiry heard that two things are fundamentally driving biodiversity decline in Victoria. The first is government-approved action that directly contributes to decline, and the second is where government action fails to respond adequately to decline—where the government has the power to change things for the better but does not use this power. Now, we could talk a long time about the failures of the federal government, and there are many. But here we are talking about action at a state government level in Victoria.
I would like to step the Parliament through what the inquiry heard about what the key drivers of ecosystem decline in Victoria are and how we might be able to address them. Firstly, what are the government activities that are contributing directly to ecosystem decline in Victoria? It would be no surprise to members of this chamber that the number one threat to Victorian biodiversity is of course the climate crisis, and it is a global problem, but unfortunately it is accelerated by governments at both state and federal levels who are still approving new fossil fuel projects—coal at a federal level and gas drilling here in Victoria. Government-approved logging and burning of native forests, the inquiry heard, is also putting ecosystems and threatened species at risk. Water policy that hands over unsustainable amounts of water to industrial agriculture at the expense of our native species and environment, both in the northern and southern basin, is also putting ecosystems at risk, and the Victorian government is not blameless here. Government-sanctioned killing of native wildlife has an effect. Victoria is one of the last remaining states to allow duck hunting, and the government also hands out huge numbers of permits for killing native wildlife on private land. Finally, the Victorian government itself is actually the single biggest driver of native vegetation loss. Projects like the Western Highway duplication and the north-east link have seen huge amounts of the last remaining bits of native habitat lost in key areas of our state.
Now, a lot of these decisions are highly politically contentious. They are things that are hard to get a government, especially this Labor government, to change because they are either quite embedded in Labor’s DNA or they include vested interests that are quite close to government, like logging or toll roads or fossil fuel industries. But actually the inquiry identified a list of things the government could do that are much less politically contentious. This gives me real hope, because there are a bunch of things the government could simply do right now.
For example, we have some good nature laws like the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 here in Victoria, which were tweaked recently by this government, but they are not really being enforced or implemented. It would not take much to step that up. We also have a biodiversity strategy called Biodiversity 2037 that has some really great goals in it. The only problem is, as the inquiry was told time and again by experts, it is getting but a tiny fraction of the funding that it needs to make a difference. The inquiry also heard time and again that the agencies within government who are tasked with protecting the environment, like Parks Victoria, are not given nearly enough resources to do their job, they are not given enough clout to do their job properly and the department in charge, the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP), has some serious shortcomings.
Today the Victorian Auditor-General also released a report that says very similar things to what the inquiry found. It says that much of the data used by DELWP to make decisions about environmental management is ‘old and likely outdated’. It says that their approach misses endangered species at extreme risk of extinction, that DELWP has ‘no transparent risk-based process’ to actually prioritise which species need help, that they do not use the legislative tools available to them to protect threatened species and that funding is inadequate. The Auditor-General said that in 2017 DELWP received less than half of what they requested and that for the Biodiversity 2037 strategy, the upcoming funding, they are likely to receive a third of what they requested and what is needed for that strategy. But often this is because their budget bids are not presented well. They are not presented with enough evidence to actually get them over the line because of the lack of resources, clout and expertise within DELWP. The Auditor-General also said that:
… DELWP has not provided detailed, evidence-based advice to the government about the costs and benefits of protecting … threatened species …
and investing more money in their protection, and that DELWP:
… lacks performance indicators … to demonstrate the impact of its—
work—
… on halting the decline of threatened species.
And what is more, they have known about these issues for the last, at least, 13 years, but they have not improved. Really what this says, what is at the core of this issue, highlighted through the inquiry but also through today’s report, is that protection and restoration of our landscapes and threatened species needs to be better prioritised within government. A lack of prioritisation of an issue in government means less money. It means it is harder to retain good staff. It means DELWP does not foster a healthy culture of excellence in this important area and the department does not seem to advocate strongly for threatened species to other government agencies and departments, as evidenced through the budget bidding process.
Unfortunately in recent times here in Victoria if there is a conflict between the environment and some other use—say, a commercial use that benefits a certain industry—the environment is too often the one that loses out. An example of this is the endangered grasslands west of Melbourne. When property developers wanted to turn these grasslands into a housing development, the government said they would have to contribute to a fund to purchase an equivalent area to turn into a protected grassland reserve. It sounded okay, but when push came to shove, as always seems to be the case, the development went ahead, the land for the grassland reserve was never bought by the government and now they are scrambling to figure out what to do.
Often when roads need to be built through endangered habitat, the road is the thing that is prioritised. Our forests are allowed to be logged, even if threatened species are found nearby. Promoting more recreational fishing or oil and gas drilling is put above the need to protect our marine ecosystems and our marine life. Now, sometimes these are tough decisions. I get it. But when there is a pattern of the environment losing out so often, we have to look at how we are prioritising this within the government, how we are prioritising the thing that actually sustains our life. Over the last seven years this Labor government found $400 million for biodiversity, yet at the same time it found billions, an order of magnitude more, for roads like toll roads, enriching companies like Transurban.
But now, as the inquiry is on the verge of delivering its final report, our government here in Victoria has a choice, and fortunately there is still time to turn things around. The department and the government need a significant culture shift when it comes to threatened species and biodiversity, and while this shift in prioritisation will not happen overnight, there are other solutions the government could get started on right away. These are things that are backed up by evidence from scientists, from researchers in the inquiry, and we have all heard so much from this government over the last two years about how much we should be trusting our scientists.
The inquiry heard that Victoria could fund a dedicated threatened species program. There is one already in New South Wales, which the Auditor-General says has actually much better reporting and transparency. Their one is called Saving our Species. It was initially funded to the tune of $100 million. Victoria could immediately expand public funding for proven private land conservation programs like Landcare or Trust for Nature. Trust for Nature has a fund which buys covenants and then sells on land to private landholders, therefore protecting it in perpetuity but costing the government very little. All they need is $50 million for their revolving fund and they could significantly step up their efforts. It seems like it would be money extremely well spent. The Victorian government could finally fulfil its promise to purchase the entirety of the western grassland reserve in Melbourne’s west and grassy woodlands to the east. And last but not least we have such an important responsibility to listen to the First People of this land and expand Indigenous land management, which can also start now and which was talked about a lot through the inquiry.
This week the UN conference on biodiversity is meeting. It is likely that the Morrison Liberal government will fail to commit to protect our precious plants, animals and ecosystems. That is not surprising; it is a government that has tried to water down our national nature laws and is now gutting national efforts to protect threatened species. A lot of people will find this quite devastating, as do I, but it is also an opportunity for Victoria to step up and fill this void and show that when our federal government fails, progressive state governments step up. So I would love to see the Victorian Labor government take on the depth of evidence through the ecosystem inquiry, look seriously at today’s Auditor-General’s report and commit itself to substantial reform, to new funding and initiatives and to better prioritisation of our precious environment within government. It is not just essential for our health and wellbeing, it also underpins our economy. It also has huge potential to create new green jobs and industries for our future. I see it only as a win-win-win. It just needs the government to better prioritise our nature and our environment, so let us get on with it.
Education funding
Ms KILKENNY (Carrum) (12:15): I rise today to speak about education. As you know, Acting Speaker Carbines, education is something I am pretty passionate about and pretty focused on. We know that education changes lives. We know that education addresses inequality. We know that education is about fairness and education is about opportunity. Victorians know that one of the most effective, powerful and compelling investments any government can make is an investment in and a long-term commitment to education. We all know that societies with higher rates of education are healthier and have higher rates of economic stability and productivity. There is lower crime, and there is greater equality.
We know that investing in education is not just the right thing to do or the fair thing to do or the equitable thing to do; investing in education and our kids’ future is the smart thing to do. Investment—and it needs to be proper, sustained investment—in education sets our kids up for the future. It delivers Victoria the workforce of tomorrow, and it really propels our state economy on a national and global scale. An investment in education is a smart investment. It is an investment in our future.
When it comes to education and when it comes to investing in education and supporting our kids to get the best education, we know that Victorians look to Labor governments. That is because Victorians know that Labor governments prioritise our kids’ education. Victorians know that only Labor governments support our kids wherever they are from, whatever their postcode and whatever their ability or creativity. It is only under Labor governments that Victorian children will have access to great local schools. It is only under Labor governments that lifelong learning is pursued and elevated. It is only under Labor governments that kids at secondary school will have access to high-quality vocational and applied learning which gives them more pathways to get the skills that they need and that will meet the jobs and demands of our future. It is only under Labor governments that TAFE will be prioritised and supported. We have seen recently, in the overwhelming response to free TAFE in Victoria, just how important that alternative pathway is for so many thousands of Victorians.
It is only under Labor—this Labor government, the Andrews Labor government—that from next year, it is next year now, every single Victorian child is going to have access to two years of funded play-based learning before school. This is the single biggest reform in early childhood education in this state’s history as we now roll out funded three-year-old kinder right across the state, something I am so, so very proud of. It will quite literally change lives and change the future of so many Victorians. Of course in rolling out three-year-old kindergarten now there is obviously a massive demand and need for more infrastructure, more facilities. It is creating its own construction boom. An additional 6000 teachers and early childhood educators are going to be required to meet the demand. Free TAFE is being offered to support new educators and there are scholarships to support more qualified teachers. Victorians are in no doubt whatsoever that it is only this Labor government that is building the Education State. It is this Labor government, the Andrews Labor government, that is investing in education like no other. We are making sure that every single Victorian child has the opportunity to reach their full potential.
When it comes to investing in education and when it comes to investing in our young people, their futures and Victoria’s future economic and social prosperity it is really important to set the scene. We know those opposite did not prioritise education. I think it was the member for Kew when he was the Shadow Minister for Education—I am losing track; I know there have been many, many shadow ministers for education in my time here, but I think it was the member for Kew—who said in response to our focus on capital works and school infrastructure and things like building new schools and school upgrades that it was a distraction.
Perhaps that explains why when those opposite, the Liberal-Nationals, were in government that school infrastructure spending was cut to $300 million a year. They slashed it. It might not sound like much, but if you compare that to our record investment in school infrastructure funding—more than $10.9 billion over the past seven years for school capital works—that is an average of $1.6 billion a year. It is extraordinary. We ask ourselves: how many schools did those opposite plan for? We will never forget. In 2016 we were not able to open one new school, and we know that because those opposite were not concerned with building new schools to meet the growing demand. They had not planned for nor had they invested in new schools. I do not know where they thought an additional 90 000 students were going to attend school, but I think the only plan for education those opposite had was a plan to cut the funding for education. It was a deliberate decision to cut education spending, a decision not to invest in our kids’ futures.
In stark contrast we look at the record of the Andrews Labor government. It speaks for itself. How many schools is this Labor government opening? In 2017 we opened 10 new schools, in 2018 we opened 11 new schools, in 2019 we opened 9 new schools, in 2020 we opened 11 new schools and this year 14 new schools were opened. In 2022, 14 new schools will open, including the new secondary school at Fishermans Bend; in 2023, 13 new schools will open; and by 2026 we will have opened 100 new schools. Then of course there are our new school upgrades—1700 of them. So much construction activity, so many construction jobs, so much school pride, because at the end of the day this is about investing in our kids, making them proud of where they go to school, giving them the best facilities to match the incredible talents of our teaching staff—our dedicated and committed teaching staff at all of our schools.
But of course when it comes to cuts to education it seemed that nothing was off limits for the Liberal-Nationals. I remember coming into this place—it was shortly after those opposite cut the education maintenance allowance. That was the payment that directly supported over 200 000 Victorian students across Victoria. That is nearly a quarter of all students. Those opposite just cut it. Not to be outdone, their colleagues in Canberra a few years after that cut the schoolkids bonus. That was the bonus that was paid to families at the start of the year to help families pay for the cost of things like uniforms and books.
It was this government that brought in things like the Camps, Sports and Excursions Fund to make sure that kids did not miss out, to make them feel included and not segregated. It was this Labor government that supported State Schools Relief to help more Victorian families with the costs of uniforms and books. It was this Labor government that introduced that wonderful Glasses for Kids program. We found in rolling out this program so many kids, so many families, did not even know that their children had any eye issues at all. It was a remarkable transformation when kids were able to, for the first time, properly see the board and could more actively participate in class. It was this Labor government that introduced breakfast clubs across government schools throughout Victoria. That now operates out of 1000 schools, an extraordinary number—15 million breakfasts have been served throughout those breakfast clubs since we commenced that program.
And it was this Labor government that put the Smile Squad on the road as the dental vans have rolled out across Victoria. It was this Labor government, the Andrews Labor government, that brought in Doctors in Secondary Schools. We have invested over $70 million to put GPs into 100 secondary schools across Victoria. We know 16 000 students have been supported by this really important program. That is over 46 000 consultations and over 12 000 referrals to secondary services. So it is something really compelling, really important, very practical and providing direct assistance to so many students.
Of course we have introduced Respectful Relationships into the school curriculum, and that arose out of the Royal Commission into Family Violence, which described respectful relationships in our schools as an investment in future generations. It is such an important program. It helps schools to adopt a whole-of-school approach to embed a really sustained approach to combating stereotypes, family violence and gendered violence. And in an Australian first, in 2020–21 we brought in funding to make sure girls could access pads and tampons at all government schools in Victoria to reduce stigma and to really help families that need it.
We heard so powerfully before from the member for Oakleigh in his contribution on mental health. Just on mental health and wellbeing of our kids, we know how important this is. It was, as we know, this Labor government that established the Royal Commission into Victoria’s Mental Health System; it is this Labor government that has undertaken to implement every single one of those recommendations, something sadly that the opposition has failed to support; and it is this government that is making sure that every single Victorian government secondary school will have access to a qualified mental health practitioner by the end of this year. This Labor government has allocated nearly $250 million in new mental health support for schools through the School Mental Health Fund. This is the first of its kind in Australia. We would want those opposite to support this. This is so fundamentally important to the health and wellbeing of our students.
To those opposite, our focus and commitment on education is working. We saw this year’s NAPLAN results show how Victoria is leading the nation. The extraordinary outcome of these results is obviously a combined effort of our fabulous teaching staff, our students, our families and of course this government’s record investment in education, now $22.2 billion to achieve our Education State reforms—something we should all be extremely proud of but something that is just so important to the future prosperity of our state.
Now, as we support children to make the return to face-to-face learning, we need to do everything we can to support them. We have seen the recent announcement by the Minister for Education on the $190 million to fund new ventilation and outdoor learning shade structures. Mask wearing is going to be compulsory for all students in years 3 and above. We are encouraging all students aged 12 and above to get vaccinated, and all teachers and staff must be vaccinated before 18 October. These are important steps. They are necessary steps. We know from evidence overseas that once there is a return of face-to-face learning outbreaks occur, and we know that the incidence can be reduced where there are things in place like mask wearing, better ventilation, shade structures and outdoor learning, so we need to be following that health advice. We need to make sure that the kids’ learning environment is safe. And of course the Minister for Education has announced that extraordinary investment into the tutors program, the tutor learning initiative, which has seen over 6400 tutors engaged to support more than 160 000 students across the state. This is having a direct and positive impact on students in my electorate and across the board.
We know that when the Liberal-Nationals had the opportunity to lead not only did they not prioritise our kids’ education, they absolutely squibbed it. They saw education as a place to cut funding, to cut investment. It was four miserable years, and now, as we try to return to school, we ask those opposite to support the measures that we have in place to ensure a safe return to school for our students. It is the same old opposition—same guy; same baggage; same dogged attachment to an ideology of division, disunity and disharmony—lacking in vision.
COVID-19
Ms McLEISH (Eildon) (12:30): There is so much to grieve about in Victoria. I could spend my time grieving about the member for Carrum’s contribution, but I will go on about some of the other woes in Victoria, the woes that many of us are experiencing, and the woeful government that we have leading us down that path. We hold now the record—the world record—for lockdowns: about nine months, or 277 days. That is unbelievable. It is a record that we do not want to have. We have lost the ‘world’s most livable city’ title for Melbourne. We have gone from the top to number eight. That is again woeful. We are living with a curfew, and we have a Premier who has had absolutely no plan. And the reason that they have had no plan, or one of the reasons, is that they have been too busy trying to fix the mistakes they have made from making policy on the run. Too many policies have been made too quickly, and then the government finds ‘Oh, gosh. We didn’t think about that’ or ‘We didn’t think about this’ and then have to try and fix it. They have no time to plan because they do not understand, and they do not get it.
And now we know that the government is so distracted by what is going on at IBAC that everybody is glued to their screens and listening to hear what is said about them or what is said about one of their staff members. We know that they are watching that so, so carefully. By comparison the Liberal-Nationals are focused on a plan to reopen, recover and rebuild all aspects of Victoria, including schools, hospitality, retail, events and tourism. We are focusing on bringing back jobs and bringing Victoria out of the COVID pandemic.
Now, I want to look at the impacts. What are the impacts? We have children who will start next year in grade 2 who will not have been to school for virtually two years; they have missed the first couple of years. We have young adults robbed of their youth—and a number of people have spoken to me about that. We have young boys at school that are just so disengaged. We have the elderly missing out on vital time. They are getting older, and they are missing out on vital family time.
We have lost major attractions in the city. We have lost the observation wheel—what a loss that is to the city and to Docklands—and we have lost so many events. One of the things that I will say on the events sector is that they are such an important sector—$12 billion they added to our economy every year pre pandemic—and they were left off the road map. In fact if you want to have a look at Victoria’s road map for delivery, you will find out that they have been left out. Compare that to New South Wales. They have a section dedicated to events. It just shows you what the Victorian government thinks of that sector. It is just not good enough. We need to help Melbourne get back to its former glory and to regain its crown as the most livable city, bring back tourism and recreate the bustling, vibrant city it was once, full of stage events, entertainment and hospitality. It was the place people wanted to come to.
I just want to talk about the rollout of the vaccination program and in fact the mandatory vaccinations that the government has put into place. Now, at the moment we have some 20 000 COVID cases in Victoria. And with 86.7 per cent—I think those are yesterday’s stats—single dose for 16 years and over, that is pretty good. We are going to get to 90 per cent, but what will that mean when we do? We are actually not sure what it means. We are going to hit the 70 per cent double-vax target probably earlier. The modelling initially suggested we were going to get to 70 per cent on 26 October. Well, now it looks as though it could be a few days earlier, maybe the 22nd or the 23rd. And the 80 per cent double-vax target was 5 November. In the road map everyone is talking about 5 November, but it could be as early as the 1st or the 2nd. So what does that mean? Are the government actually going to bring the easing of restrictions forward? Probably not. The Minister for Health has said:
We’ve got nothing to add to the roadmap. It’s transparent.
But Paul Guerra from the Victorian Chamber of Commerce and Industry knows what bringing that forward by few days will mean. It means an extra weekend. And I tell you what, for all of those businesses that have been on their knees, an extra weekend would absolutely go down so well. This is what they want and this is what they need, but it looks as though the government are getting cold feet as we get closer to the targets of 70 or 80 per cent. They are getting cold feet because they like the power of keeping us locked down.
The mandatory vaccination that has been announced for authorised workers—well, goodness, talk about picking winners and losers here. Essentially everybody who leaves the house is now going to have to be vaccinated—mandatory vaccination. I am dreadfully concerned for our health sector because this means all the ambulances and the nurses, and there are a lot of them out there, have concerns about this. I will tell you what, we are in no state. Our health system is under so much pressure because of the ongoing botching of the health system by the Premier in his seven years and in his four years as the Minister for Health before that, when Labor were in government under Bracks and Brumby. Now our health system is straining. The ambulance ramping is beyond belief. The paramedics are speaking out. They are coming to talk to us. The nurses are coming to talk to us because they are very worried. What is going to happen to them if they do not get vaccinated, if they do not meet the targets? What is going to happen to them? We cannot afford—the government cannot afford—to lose these people out of our health system.
The police as well—there are also some issues with a number of police who are not wanting to be vaccinated. Well, what is going to happen there? We cannot afford to lose these people out of the system. At a nursing school I understand that the course for nurses has been truncated. They are pushing people through with less student contact hours. We are bringing people in from overseas. Goodness knows, I would have thought a lot of the overseas countries would actually need those people.
The teachers—the advice that has been given from the department to the teachers tells them very clearly what they are to do if employees do not get vaccinated:
Between 18 October and 17 December … employees who do not meet vaccination requirements will not be able to attend work on site and will be not assigned alternative duties.
I am figuring this is a government policy. If DET and the Secretary of the Department of Education and Training have put this out, I imagine that that is the same for all government departments. This puts the schools in a very tricky situation. It puts the Department of Health in a tricky situation about what they are going to do.
There is an opportunity here to deploy rapid testing. I tell you what: the Premier and the government have been rapid testing deniers like you would not believe. We have been putting this on the table for some time. The opposition has seen it work elsewhere. We have in fact ourselves had rapid tests on the front steps of Parliament, but still the government are very, very reluctant for some reason to bring this in. I know that rapid testing would certainly be of assistance in these areas.
I have been contacted by so many people concerned about what this mandatory vaccination for authorised workers is going to mean. The SES, volunteers—I have been advised that volunteers are not even going to be able to do work from home if they are not vaccinated. Radio station presenters—it puts holes in their radio station. I have had people from Woods Point—Woods Point is a very small place way out in the high country, a very small town—desperately worried already about the ambulance service, let alone if the paramedics there have to pull the scale back, because they struggle where they are. They are a long way from Mansfield. They are a long way from Jamieson. It is a dirt road. The ambulance officers sometimes get lost being called out into that vicinity, because if they are not from the area, they do not know it. Farmhands, teachers, nursery workers, bakeries—these are people who are fearful of losing their job.
There are employers who are fearful of what it means for their employees, who are under so much stress, and in fact the employers themselves are under stress about how they make this work. I have heard from Mark Cronin from Mansfield Power Ag; I know that he has had trouble getting skilled workers. He has spoken to me about this in the past. From 15 October he is going to be one skilled staff member down in his business because somebody is not going to be vaccinated. The Victorian Automotive Chamber of Commerce had been waiting to advise members on how to handle this, but they were not getting information readily from the government. Their concern is that if it is compulsory to this degree, they will lose valuable staff members, and then if this gets revoked in a month or two, it will be too late. Now, there are so many industries and so many small businesses that are relying on the staff that they have. They cannot afford to lose them, because they are very, very difficult to replace.
I had a meeting the other night with the Warburton chamber of commerce, and they were worried about a whole bunch of things—how they are going to do this, how they are going to monitor it, how businesses are going to do this, are they going to need security and, if so, what is the cost of that. Is that a full-time person on the door of a hotel? That is something that is going to be very difficult for them to cover. What are the HR compliance implications ongoing? Do you know that one of them suggested—and I thought this was a great idea—‘We want a list of what we can do and what we should do, not what we can’t do. We need assistance and help’. When they need assistance and help, it is not always about money. It is about supporting them through so that they know what they can do. They are sick of finding out the details after the event. Tourists find out about what is needed before the business owners and operators. They want to be in on the game early so that they can answer the inquiries, they can be set up—they can be ready. The staff in these situations are very anxious. They would like a sheet, a laminated sheet or some signage, that they can put up, saying, ‘This is what the government is expecting’—this is not their decision. They want to be kept up to speed.
They are worried that the government has been very slow on the repair of infrastructure—not just in Warburton. There are some huge infrastructure needs in that area and around the state. As tourists come flooding back, as soon as they can, they are going to be out of Melbourne, they are going to be visiting the regions, they are going to be staying the night, they are going to want things to do. The business operators want to be sure that they can meet this need as best as possible, but I tell you it is difficult when they do not get the information early about where places that people want to go are going to be closed because of the demand. Bridges are not going to be safe. There are already trees down and bridges that are closed in and around Warburton because they have not been repaired, ready for opening. They will take a couple of weeks; they will be open and then they will be shut again, because we have had a lot of on-off, opening and closing.
Now, the school camps: the school camp operators have been speaking to me for the last couple of years. They have really been behind the eight ball here, and it looks as though the operating guidelines issued to schools say that there are no school camps again this term. They were very concerned that kids were not going back to school, and every day away from school put further pressure on them. Now they are told that there is nothing for them for this term. They are able, according to the road map, to operate at 80 per cent vaccination, but as I have said, the advice is that there are no camps or overnight trips to be taken—from the department of education advice. They have got camps ready to go on 8 November. They need to bring back staff in the next couple of weeks to prepare. Department of Education and Training? Not a priority for them—‘Speak to the health department’. That is the same run-around as they got last year. The other risk is that they have got disaster payments that will go at 80 per cent, and if they are not open it is going to be very difficult for them to pay their staff. I have had representations from the Outdoor Education Group, Auscamp, Camp Kookaburra in northern Victoria, Grampians Retreat, Allambee Camp and Southern Exposure down on the beach there.
I also have had so many examples of businesses still concerned—landlords concerned that tenants who operate a carpet business cannot work and what it means for this business. We have got driving schools, small family-run businesses, who are dipping into their superannuation. Their savings are gone; they have lost a calendar year’s work. They have had no government support because they are small. They have had to register for GST and re-apply for grants—and they are still waiting. That is the Yarra Valley and eastern driving school. Kalmick Air installs and services air-conditioning commercial equipment—part of the hospitality supply chain. JobKeeper has kept them afloat. They have got two skilled workers who have gone off to find work elsewhere. They were excluded from funding support due to the Australian and New Zealand standard industrial classification code. Amber Lodge at Mount Buller is a registered hostel and school camp. They are in the same boat; their revenue has dropped 75 per cent. This government is woeful.
COVID-19
Mr STAIKOS (Bentleigh) (12:45): Dear oh dear. After that effort I think I grieve for the member for Eildon’s constituents, because she has just told us that she is perfectly comfortable with unvaccinated healthcare workers treating vulnerable patients. She has just told us she is perfectly comfortable—
Members interjecting.
Ms McLeish: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, the member on his feet is required to be factual, and the member not only immediately launched into an attack on me but also misrepresented what I said. Because at no point did I say I was happy with unvaccinated workers. I said you need to have rapid testing.
The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Carbines): There is no point of order.
Mr STAIKOS: The member has said that she is happy with unvaccinated teachers teaching unvaccinated children. I mean, this has been a consistent pattern over the last 20 months. Time and time again those opposite have sought to score petty political points to put their own short-term political gain ahead of the health of Victorians, and I think it has been absolutely disgraceful. In nearly seven years in this place that has been the most disgraceful behaviour I have seen from other members of this Parliament.
I grieve that those opposite have sought to undermine the public health response to this one-in-100-year public health event and in so doing have betrayed our dedicated public health workers. In undermining that health response they have sought to delay our economic and social recovery from this virus. It goes without saying that all Victorians, all Australians—we are fatigued and exhausted by this virus and by the associated lockdowns. It has meant for everybody a number of different things. It has meant for a number of families grieving the loss of loved ones to this deadly virus. It has meant a lot of people, including in our state, are dealing with the effects of long COVID. It has meant small business people and casual workers are struggling to keep their heads above water. Many people’s livelihoods have taken a battering, particularly last year. It has meant people’s mental health has been suffering, and it has meant children have been missing onsite learning at school. For all of these reasons and more these decisions have been very, very tough to make and have no doubt weighed very, very heavily on the decision-makers. But they have been necessary.
Now, some will have Victorians believe that in this global pandemic you can choose between the health of Victorians and the economy. But those of us on this side of the house know that there is no such choice because we do not have a healthy economy if we do not have a healthy population. We do not have a strong economy that creates jobs—and I am going to come to jobs in a moment—if the virus is running out of control and overwhelming our hospital system. We have seen time and time again, including in the UK, those jurisdictions right around the world who chose to prioritise the economy over public health, in the end achieved neither.
While we have been managing this one-in-100-year pandemic this government has stood steadfastly with Victorians to ease the economic impact of these tough but necessary public health measures. If I can take the house back to before this pandemic hit, Victoria led the nation in terms of jobs growth. In Victoria since we were elected in 2014, 520 000 new jobs were created. But of course when COVID hit, employment fell by almost 200 000 persons in two months and the unemployment rate increased from 5.2 per cent in March to a peak of 7.3 per cent in June. However, since September last year our economy has roared back, and Victoria has added almost 290 000 new jobs, which is more than any other state in the country. None of them, no other state in the country, has even come close to that number of jobs. Currently Victoria’s unemployment rate is at a staggeringly low 4.1 per cent, the lowest Victorian unemployment rate since records began in 1978, and that is according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics. It is by far the lowest of any state and a long way below the national unemployment rate of 4.5 per cent. Our participation rate has also reached a new record level of 66.9 per cent, with both male and female participation increasing. In regional Victoria our unemployment rate has also fallen to the lowest rate ever. At 3.2 per cent, it is also by far the lowest of any state and well below the national rate of 4.4 per cent for the three-month average to August. Even more remarkably, the participation rate of 66.9 per cent is the highest since records began.
Clearly the past 18 months have been very, very difficult for our community. But we have rebounded strongly, according to these jobs numbers, from last year’s shutdown, and we can do it again. Victoria’s state final demand grew by a massive 6.8 per cent in the December quarter, the fastest in the nation and more than double the national average. This strong growth has continued in the first half of the year, with Victoria’s state final demand growing by 4 per cent in the six months up to June.
I would now like to turn to the issue of infrastructure. This government has a proud record of investing in the infrastructure that Victorians need now and into the future. Currently we have more than $144 billion in infrastructure projects in planning and delivery, and over the forward estimates government infrastructure investment is set to average $22.5 billion a year. Our annual investment in infrastructure is around four times the 10-year average to 2014–15. I think that is not only something that members on this side of house can be very proud of but also something that we know has meant that we have been able to withstand the worst economic impacts of this global pandemic.
Right now I want to refer to a fairly recent report of August 2021 by the McKell Institute, Victoria, which is titled Bridge over Troubled Water. If I can quote from this report:
… Victoria’s infrastructure pipeline is providing considerable ballast to the state’s economy during an extended period of economic uncertainty.
In fact this report found that during the period between December 2019 and March 2021 state government investment in infrastructure in Victoria grew by a massive 33 per cent—33 per cent! What that meant was that we were able to withstand as a state the worst economic impacts of the coronavirus, and it meant we were able to not only save jobs but also create new jobs. The report also points out that without this level of state government infrastructure investment, Victoria’s growth would have been cut in half. With the sort of infrastructure investment by those opposite before we came to power, our growth during that period would have been cut in half. That is what this report by the McKell Institute states very, very clearly. I would encourage all members to download this report from the McKell Institute’s webpage, because it is a gripping read indeed.
The report also points out that during that period between December 2019 and March 2021 when the infrastructure investment by this government grew by 33 per cent, federal government infrastructure investment in Victoria actually went backwards. During such a huge economic crisis their infrastructure investment in Victoria went backwards, and I think this raises the issue of the substantial gap between the level of national and state public infrastructure investment in Victoria. I also want to point out that private investment in infrastructure has also been going strongly in this state. Victoria is in fact showing the way in private construction as well. Over the last 12 months Victoria has been responsible for about a third of all dwelling approvals across Australia—one third. We are only 25 per cent of the population but responsible for a third of all dwelling approvals across Australia, and we have approved about 10 per cent more dwellings than New South Wales and more than 50 per cent more houses than New South Wales—so more figures for those on this side of the house to be proud of.
There is no doubt that economically some have done it more tough than others during the last 20 months, and I have spent a lot of time not just as the local member for Bentleigh but also in my role as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer talking to many small businesses, talking to their traders’ groups, talking to their local chambers of commerce right around the state about how the government can best support them. This government has of course invested more than $11 billion in support for business and jobs since this pandemic began, and at times we as a government and particularly our Treasurer have had to shame the Morrison government for not contributing to Victoria as willingly and as enthusiastically as they do to New South Wales. Some have taken issue with this, including those opposite, and I refer now to a press release from Beverley McArthur, a member of the Liberal Party in the other house, from 3 June 2021. It is entitled ‘Close the commonwealth chequebook’, and there is a quote in there:
If the Federal Government does cave to the demands of Tim Pallas, after he appallingly attacked and blamed them on Sunday, every single dollar that it costs federal taxpayers should be deducted from Victoria’s GST allocation.
Who would have ever thought such a thing would be uttered from the mouth of somebody elected to this place supposedly to represent the interests of Victorians? It was a shameful thing to read, and of course many in the Liberal Party distanced themselves from those comments. We heard the same old flannel—that she is just one MP and does not reflect the views of the Liberal Party, or, my personal favourite, the Liberal Party is a broad church—but I would hazard a guess that that is a sentiment shared by many on that side of the house.
We as a government have invested heavily in rebuilding this state economically and socially. And in the last couple of minutes I have remaining to me I do want to talk about something that I am particularly proud of, and that is our investment in social housing—$5.3 billion, 12 000 additional social housing dwellings. The first round of these was recently announced by the Minister for Housing—$738 million in 89 projects. That is more than 2300 new homes, some of them in Hampton East, some of them in Brighton East, so around my local community. I am very proud of that, because if you have not got a roof over your head, you cannot have any hope of lifting yourself out of poverty, you cannot have any hope of getting yourself a stable job and enjoying the dignity of work, and you cannot have any hope of getting yourself a TAFE qualification, taking advantage of this government’s historic free TAFE reform. It is something that I am proud of because it is only a Labor government that invests in these life-changing policies—social housing, affordable housing, free TAFE. It is about getting a roof over your head, and it is about making sure that you can then attain the skills that will get you a secure job so you can enjoy the dignity of work.
While I am on TAFE, I want to give a big shout-out to Holmesglen TAFE—Holmesglen TAFE, a leading TAFE institute that has a campus in my electorate over in Moorabbin. Recently I was pleased to announce $2.1 million for Holmesglen TAFE for a new solar system—$2.1 million for a solar system that will go over the Moorabbin campus and the Drummond Street campus and will produce more than 1 million kilowatt-hours of power generation annually. When you consider that your average domestic solar system will only produce, if you are lucky, about 2500 kilowatt-hours per year, that is a lot of kilowatt-hours, and the reason we did it was not only to reduce Holmesglen’s carbon footprint but also to ensure that we support their fantastic training program in terms of training the next generation of solar workers. They are leading the way when it comes to training our solar workers, which has been made possible by this government’s historic Solar Homes program. That is one of many initiatives that shows that this government is working towards Victoria roaring back after this global pandemic event.
Question agreed to.
Business interrupted under resolution of house of 7 October.
Members
Minister for Water
Minister for Crime Prevention
Minister for Prevention of Family Violence
Absence
Mr ANDREWS (Mulgrave—Premier) (13:01): I rise to inform the house that today I will answer questions for the portfolios of water, police; crime prevention, corrections, youth justice, victim support; and prevention of family violence, women and Aboriginal affairs.
Questions without notice and ministers statements
COVID-19 vaccinations
Mr GUY (Bulleen—Leader of the Opposition) (13:01): My question is to the Minister for Health. Victoria is on track to reach its 70 per cent vaccination target earlier than the state government road map forecasts. Is the government taking advice on how it might relax restrictions accordingly earlier?
Mr FOLEY (Albert Park—Minister for Health, Minister for Ambulance Services, Minister for Equality) (13:02): I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question, and that does give me an opportunity to just reflect on the extraordinary efforts of Victorians right across the board to come forward in recent times to power through our vaccination rates as we seek to deliver on the national plan to reopen through the Victorian road map. The Victorian road map indicates indicative dates as to when at the time of the release of that road map we saw the state reaching the 70 and 80 per cent double-dose benchmarks that were set out in the national plan.
Now that we—some 10 months after the launch of the commonwealth’s vaccine program—have enough certainty and availability and points of supply of vaccines across the state, I am confident that the support from the Victorian community will allow us to meet those benchmarks. Many pundits, including those who advise the chief health officer, have indicated that given the extraordinary manner in which Victorians have come forward to get vaccinated there is every prospect that those indicative dates may be improved on. In regard to what that then means, the process that we have in place is careful, measured and sustainable. There are some that would argue that you simply throw the doors open and in so doing you run the risk of crushing our public health system. That is not a position that the Victorian government will follow. The Victorian government will take the public health advice, will deliver the national plan for reopening and will deliver on the road map as set out publicly.
It does also give me the opportunity to just briefly reflect on some announcements that the government made in regard to ensuring that we deliver as fast as we possibly can the road map for the delivery of the national plan to reopen. Today we rolled out further essentially mini pop-ups, reflecting the fact that we are now in a position to drive down to the neighbourhood level vaccination programs in those high-risk communities that are now quite frankly powering towards meeting, if not exceeding, the state average of vaccination programs. Whether it is in their local community, whether it is in their Degani coffee shop, whether it is at Foundation House for asylum seekers and refugees, whether it is at community health centres or whether it is literally at pop-ups in local strip shopping centres, Victorians are backing the plan to get vaccinated.
Mr GUY (Bulleen—Leader of the Opposition) (13:05): On a supplementary question, I ask: if Victorians’ mental and physical health has suffered immensely under the longest lockdowns in the world, will the minister now commit to bringing forward the opening of the fitness and health industry indoors, including gyms, at 70 per cent fully vaccinated, in line with New South Wales?
Mr FOLEY (Albert Park—Minister for Health, Minister for Ambulance Services, Minister for Equality) (13:05): The honourable member drew a comparison with New South Wales at the core of his question. We wish New South Wales every success in their efforts, but that is like comparing apples and oranges in many ways because of course some more than 1 million extra vaccines have been provided to New South Wales, disproportionately Pfizer vaccines, as a result of the active redistribution from Victorian primary care into New South Wales primary care by the commonwealth government. Good luck to New South Wales—they did have that outbreak, starting with that unmasked and unvaccinated limousine and bus driver, which then saw the wave spread throughout New South Wales, throughout the ACT and sadly into Victoria—
A member: And New Zealand.
Mr FOLEY: and of course New Zealand, but of course as a result of that we do not begrudge from our rollout— (Time expired)
Ministers statements: COVID-19 vaccinations
Mr ANDREWS (Mulgrave—Premier) (13:06): I am delighted to rise to update the house today. We are able to report that 38 072 vaccines were administered yesterday in state hubs—that is a very significant day’s work—and beyond that there were obviously tens of thousands of other doses administered in primary care. Community pharmacy has done a fantastic job, and our partnership with the guild is a very, very strong one. On GP practices and our partnership with the college as well as the AMA to provide grants to support both pharmacies and GPs to be open more hours, to employ more staff—to do more of their important work—that is paying dividends as well, because we now have over 4 million total doses out of state-run clinics and a total across Victoria of some 8.2 million doses. We have vaccinated record numbers in record time, and that is something that every Victorian who has been vaccinated and all of those who have been working in that vaccination program—state hubs as well as GP practices and community pharmacy—should be very proud of, the work that they have done. I am certainly very proud of them, and very grateful that we have seen such significant numbers of people vaccinated. 87.1 per cent of the 16-plus population are vaccinated with at least one dose, so we are closing in on 90 per cent single dosed, and 60.9 per cent are fully dosed with two shots.
Over the coming weeks, as the minister just referred to, we will have neighbourhood pop-ups literally going door-to-door, taking the program to the local community, particularly in those areas where the vaccination rate is perhaps not as high as we would like. This program has been a success. We are pleased to have played roughly double the role that we thought we would have to play, roughly double the role that we signed up to. I see questions about New South Wales. To be less than a fortnight behind New South Wales, maybe only nine or 10 or 11 days behind New South Wales, without the inside running on vaccine supply that New South Wales got, is a credit to all Victorians.
COVID-19
Mr WALSH (Murray Plains) (13:08): My question is to the Minister for Health. As of Monday regional Victoria was 7 percentage points above Melbourne’s fully vaccinated rate. Will the government allow regional Victorians their freedoms earlier if they meet the national cabinet targets earlier than metropolitan Melbourne?
Mr FOLEY (Albert Park—Minister for Health, Minister for Ambulance Services, Minister for Equality) (13:09): I thank the Leader of The Nationals for his question. He seemed to predicate his question, I think in good faith, on the basis that it adequately reflects the position of the national plan to reopen. I would refer the honourable member to that national plan, which does not in fact support the contention that he has made. What the national plan talks about, from its earliest iteration, is that states would proceed as an overall group and that the nation would proceed as an overall group. There is no allowance in the national plan for the dividing up of how different arrangements would apply in delivering the national plan. But of course we already have a position in Victoria where large areas of Victoria, particularly in our regions, are under significantly less restrictions than metropolitan Melbourne. Indeed only this morning we announced that Mitchell shire, right on the peri-urban borders of the metropolitan area in the Goulburn catchment, was moving as of 11.59 pm tonight to a lesser restricted area as a result of the great efforts of vaccination and bringing under control their particular current outbreaks.
In regard to the general proposition that the honourable member predicates his question on, I think he needs to refer back to both the national plan, its basis—
Mr Walsh: On a point of order, Speaker, on the issue of relevance—
Members interjecting.
The SPEAKER: Order! Without the assistance of the Leader of the House.
Mr Walsh: On the issue of relevance, Speaker, the question was very clear: will the minister—will the government—allow regional Victoria their 70 per cent freedoms if we meet the target earlier than Melbourne? I would ask you to bring him back to actually answering that issue about regional Victoria getting their freedoms earlier if they meet the targets.
The SPEAKER: Order! The minister is being relevant to the question that has been asked.
Mr FOLEY: Again, I think the honourable member’s point of order just reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of what the national plan says and indeed what the Victorian road map to deliver the national plan says. The National Plan to Transition Australia’s National COVID-19 Response, a very significant document that the Prime Minister launched, is predicated on how states go about delivering the gateways of 70 and 80 per cent double doses, and indeed I suspect states will not stop at an 80 per cent double dose. What the honourable member is inviting Victorians to do is to depart from that national plan, which we will not be doing. But can I also take this opportunity to thank regional Victorians, who have come out in great numbers to be vaccinated.
Mr Andrews: Some of the highest.
Mr FOLEY: Indeed; some of the highest vaccine rates in the country have been achieved by regional Victorians, but they are not uniform and they are not across the board, as the honourable member knows. So that is why we need to as a state and as local government areas to run down all the way to the wire of 70 and 80 per cent double doses and indeed beyond, as we make sure that we look to Christmas and we look to 2022 with a greater sense of optimism.
Mr WALSH (Murray Plains) (13:13): Minister, if the government will not allow regional Victoria to move ahead of metropolitan Melbourne in the road map given their higher vaccination rates, will the minister at least allow regional Victorians to take off their masks outdoors when social distancing can be maintained?
Mr FOLEY (Albert Park—Minister for Health, Minister for Ambulance Services, Minister for Equality) (13:13): I thank the honourable member for his supplementary question, but the honourable member again misrepresents the current position as well as misunderstands both the national plan and the rollout of the state road map to deliver. Regional Victoria is largely in a much better position than metropolitan Melbourne when it comes to levels of restrictions. So the notion that regional Victoria is being held back by metropolitan Melbourne restrictions is one that I refute. As we know, regional Victorians who have worked so hard to protect that status—
Mr Walsh: On a point of order, Speaker, on the issue of relevance, the minister is deliberately misrepresenting me in the question, a very simple question: will the minister at least allow regional Victorians to take their masks off if social distancing can be maintained? And I particularly ask you to bring him back to answering that question on behalf of all the regional Victorians who are just so frustrated with having to wear a mask outdoors.
Members interjecting.
The SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of The Nationals knows it is not an opportunity to make a speech. I do not uphold the point of order. I ask the minister to continue answering the question.
Mr FOLEY: As I was indicating, I would refer the honourable member to the road map to deliver the national plan that the Victorian government has released. That addresses those issues. It seeks to recognise and reward regional Victorians for their hard efforts to date, whilst bringing the state together as a whole.
Ministers statements: Victorian Homebuyer Fund
Mr PALLAS (Werribee—Treasurer, Minister for Economic Development, Minister for Industrial Relations) (13:15): It gives me great pleasure to update the house on how the government is helping more Victorians to buy their own homes, with the launch of the Victorian Homebuyer Fund. This is an outstanding innovation, and it is one that will ensure that many Victorians realise the dream of home ownership. It will ensure that they are able to buy a safe and secure place to call their own.
The Victorian Homebuyer Fund is a shared equity arrangement where the government contributes up to 25 per cent of the purchase price, reducing the deposit requirements for eligible participants down to 3.5 per cent for Aboriginal Victorians and 5 per cent for all other Victorians. The fund also will relieve Victorian homebuyers from that extra financial burden associated with lenders mortgage insurance. This half-a-billion-dollar fund will support more than 3000 Victorians to become home owners, expanding on our successful trial of the HomesVic pilot scheme.
We on this side of the chamber understand how important it is to Victorians that they get support in saving for a home. Unlike those opposite—the member for Brighton, for example, campaigned to close emergency housing—we are doing the hard yards to help Victorians reach their home ownership dreams. I am pleased to say that the eligibility criteria under the fund has been broadened, as has the capacity for properties right across various parts of the state to now be included. As a result, our banking partners are reporting that they are being inundated with inquiries about this fund. This government knows that Victorians want good, safe places to secure as their homes. That is why we have given stamp duty-free purchases to eligible first home owners and first home owner grants. (Time expired)
Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission
Mr T SMITH (Kew) (13:17): My question is to the Premier. Will the Premier rule out taxpayers footing the bill for lawyers to represent Labor members of Parliament and staff who are appearing at the anti-corruption commission?
Mr ANDREWS (Mulgrave—Premier) (13:17): I thank the member for Kew. Yes, the question is in order because it is the same as the one he asked yesterday. The member for Kew may not be aware, but through the Victorian Managed Insurance Authority, the government’s insurer, there have been for many, many decades processes, precedents and practices that would have applied to, well, for instance, planning ministers in the former government, water ministers in the former government, maybe even—
Members interjecting.
Mr ANDREWS: ministers more focused on Perrier water than actual water, or planning ministers probably better referred to as ‘approval ministers’ rather than ‘planning ministers’—
Members interjecting.
The SPEAKER: Order! I ask the Premier to resume his seat. When the house comes to order. The Minister for Regional Development has already been warned.
Members interjecting.
The SPEAKER: The member for Euroa and the Deputy Premier!
Mr T Smith: On a point of order, Speaker, on relevance, it was a very narrow question, and I would ask you to ask the Premier to answer it, please.
The SPEAKER: I ask the Premier to come back to answering the question.
Mr ANDREWS: Thank you very much, Speaker. As I was saying, there have been for many years practices and precedents and indeed a policy of the government’s insurer, and it has been applied across the board to governments of all political persuasions for all manner of different inquiries and all manner of different processes. So that is a matter of process, and I am not here today to announce a change to that process.
Secondly, I would refer the honourable member for Kew to the answer I provided yesterday. I am not privy to who has been called. If you want to know who has been called to IBAC or who has assisted IBAC, those questions are best directed to IBAC.
Mr T SMITH (Kew) (13:19): Is former departmental staff member, then Labor adviser, Ellen Schreiber, who appeared at the anti-corruption commission hearing yesterday, having her legal fees paid by the taxpayer?
Mr ANDREWS (Mulgrave—Premier) (13:20): I have no idea.
Ministers statements: rural and regional employment
Ms THOMAS (Macedon—Minister for Agriculture, Minister for Regional Development) (13:20): Today I rise to update the house on the work of the Andrews Labor government to create jobs across rural and regional Victoria. We continue to get on with it across rural and regional Victoria, and I am proud to report that unemployment in regional Victoria has fallen to a record low of 3.2 per cent. This is, of course, 3.4 per cent lower than when the previous Liberal-National government left office in 2014. So whether it is the Big Housing Build or investing in our schools or our hospitals or building trains in Ballarat, our government is creating jobs and building vital infrastructure in every corner of the state.
Regardless of whether they create 500 jobs or 50, every one of our investments has a huge impact on local communities and businesses. Indeed being fortunate to live in the regions myself, I was able to visit Bright a couple of weeks ago, and if the member for Ovens Valley were here, I am sure he would appreciate our investment in Bright Brewery. Bright Brewery is bringing its canning operations in-house in order to secure its business. Now, this is a business that employs five apprentices, a business that is committed to growing its own staff right there in the beautiful Ovens Valley. In Mildura 150 jobs are being created, thanks to our support for the Cann Group’s medicinal cannabis cultivation and processing facility, while in Portland we are creating 75 jobs while we are revitalising the foreshore. In Lancefield 15 new jobs are being supported by our investment in the Lost Watering Hole, whose trademark is the mythical panther. The member for Murray Plains may well remember the $150 000 he wasted searching for the big black cat. Meanwhile we are getting on with it.
COVID-19
Ms SANDELL (Melbourne) (13:22): My question is to the Premier. Premier, as Victoria opens up in the coming weeks it is likely that checking in via the Service Victoria app with QR codes will continue to be important to keep our COVID numbers low. In fact it will probably become even more important as it is linked to our vaccination status, allowing people to attend events, restaurants et cetera. In Western Australia the Labor government has legislated to ensure data from QR code check-in apps can only be used for contact-tracing purposes and cannot be accessed by the police or for any other purposes. Why have we not legislated to close this loophole here in Victoria?
Mr ANDREWS (Mulgrave—Premier) (13:23): I thank the member for Melbourne for her question and for her interest in these issues of privacy and integrity. It is also a matter of making sure that there is not any barrier whatsoever to people participating in the vaccinated economy as fully vaccinated Victorians. You have to have confidence in the systems that have been built, so I do not disagree that these are important matters, and the government will have more to say in these areas at a time of our choosing.
I would just say in broader terms, though, that I want to commend the Minister for Government Services and Assistant Treasurer, who is working across the aisle and across the Murray with his New South Wales counterpart, Minister Victor Dominello, as well as with Minister Robert representing the national government. There have been nation-leading investments, cooperation, partnership, all sorts of work that has gone on to make sure that we have got a technology solution that hopefully between Victoria and New South Wales can be seamless. Our governments are talking. These are matters that I have been discussing—issues of New South Wales–Victoria partnership and important cooperation—with Premier Perrottet as recently as last Saturday.
On the issue of QR codes and access to data there is currently a process where the only way that data can be accessed is via an application and the order of a court. We believe that that is appropriate. Whether we might go further, I would simply with respect put it to the member for Melbourne that that is a matter for the government to consider. There are many matters that we are currently considering, but I would not want anyone in reading my answer or in listening to my answer to in any way feel that issues of data security and integrity and the safety of this system have not at all times been front of mind. The primary and most important issue for the capturing of this data is for the protection of public health—no other reason. That is why police, for instance, do not get that data as of right. They have to go to a court and demonstrate and satisfy a magistrate—or in fact a judge—that they need that, that it is on a very high test, something that they ought to have access to. Now, can we go further? Can we make further changes? Well, again, I am not here to make those announcements today, but we are considering all sorts of different issues.
But we have built this. Victorians are responding. The trials that are going on I think in 14 different venues and events across regional Victoria are proof positive that this vaccinated economy can work. The work that is going on in New South Wales that we are directly plugged into, again, is evidence that this can work and that it will work. And the Victorians who on millions and millions—perhaps tens of millions—of occasions have checked in are voting with their feet. They are showing their confidence in this system, and they know this is how we will keep ourselves open and safe.
Ms SANDELL (Melbourne) (13:26): I thank the Premier for his answer. The Premier mentioned that confidence in the system is the most important thing, and we know that people in Victoria want to do the right thing, they want to keep checking in to keep each other safe. The people of Victoria have put a lot of trust in their government over the last two years. But people have told me, constituents, that they are worried, that they might stop using the app altogether because they are worried that the police or other agencies might be able to access the data, even if they first have to get a warrant. Now, these are people who have been very compliant with restrictions to date, and that worries me because I think it might be a sentiment that is shared broadly by quite reasonable people. So doesn’t it make sense just to legislate, as WA has done, to ensure QR code data is only for contact-tracing purposes rather than leaving a loophole that could undermine people’s trust in the system?
Mr ANDREWS (Mulgrave—Premier) (13:27): I thank the member for Melbourne for her supplementary question. I would just say that the circumstances in WA and the circumstances in Victoria are very, very different. They are running a COVID-zero strategy. Every check-in is important, do not misunderstand me, but they are in a very different epidemiological position than Victoria is in.
The second point I would make to the honourable member, with the greatest of respect, is it is absolutely appropriate to advocate positions and views, but I would not want to think that anybody in the Greens was essentially trying to undermine the very confidence they are talking about by perhaps scaring people into thinking that it is a warrant. It is not a warrant. As I am advised, you have got to go to court. It is not something done out of session on a tick-and-flick basis. You have got to go to court and make the case that you ought to unlock the box and get that data—
A member: Which they have not done.
Mr ANDREWS: which has not occurred. I would not want to think for a moment that in advocating the issue—one we could agree on more broadly—the Greens are actually sowing and fomenting the very fear and lack of confidence they seem so interested in, at least on face value.
Ministers statements: transport emissions
Mr CARROLL (Niddrie—Minister for Public Transport, Minister for Roads and Road Safety) (13:28): I rise to update the house on how the Andrews Labor government is tackling transport emissions while at the same time creating new jobs, more manufacturing opportunities and more apprenticeships right across Victoria. We know tackling transport emissions is imminent and so vitally important. It is the second-largest source of emissions in our economy and the fastest growing. With my friends the Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change and the Minister for Transport Infrastructure, we are tackling transport emissions head on. We are decarbonising transport with our $100 million investment to drive down emissions.
I was very pleased recently to announce some very significant investments in our bus network. We know buses, coming out of COVID, have been one of the resilient forms of public transport. We also know that buses return $5 to the community for every dollar invested. We also know one bus takes the equivalent of 50 cars off the street. That is why I was very pleased to release the first bus plan in 15 years on behalf of the Andrews Labor government, quickly followed up though by a major $2 billion investment in a third of our network that will see a locally born, thriving company, Kinetic, take one-third of our bus transport system. Most importantly though, with this it really does accelerate our transition to zero emissions. If you do not take my word for it, take what the Electric Vehicle Council of Australia said. They said:
A step in the right direction!
Take what the Public Transport Users Association said. They said:
The shift toward electric buses is very welcome …
Take what Sustainable Cities said. They said the shift is:
… a welcome step in the right direction.
We are tackling transport emissions head on while also creating more jobs, whether it is in Dandenong, whether it is in Ballarat. We are also reforming the bus network from Cranbourne right through the state, right up to Castlemaine. Under this investment we are transforming transport, right through the Big Build, but also tackling transport emissions head on and driving investment and more innovation.
COVID-19
Mr HODGETT (Croydon) (13:30): My question is to the Minister for Education. VCE students are currently sitting their oral and performance exams. What safety measures does the government have in place to stop the spread of COVID between examiners and students in the event of a COVID-positive case?
Mr MERLINO (Monbulk—Minister for Education, Minister for Mental Health, Minister for Disability, Ageing and Carers) (13:30): I thank the Shadow Minister for Education for his question.
Members interjecting.
Mr MERLINO: That is the honourable member’s correct title, member for Ripon, but courtesy of his leader he has no responsibility for students, and that is a fact. I am not sure what the purpose of education is other than supporting students and their growth and their wellbeing.
Mr Guy: On a point of order, Speaker, on relevance, it is a strange segue for the education minister.
Mr Merlino interjected.
The SPEAKER: Order! Without the assistance of the Deputy Premier.
Mr Guy: I think the member for Croydon asked a very straightforward question about the safety of Victorian students during COVID, and I wonder if the minister could be brought back to talk about the specific question, which was the safety of Victorian students.
The SPEAKER: The minister is to come back to answering the question.
Mr MERLINO: I am very happy to answer the question drafted by Dr Bach in the other place, the shadow minister for students. There are a number of mitigation measures that we put in place to protect students and staff. The most important mitigation and our pathway through this pandemic is vaccination, and that is why we had a VCE vaccination blitz—a blitz responded to so well by VCE students and by VCE examiners. The most important mitigation, honourable member, is our vaccination plan and our blitz, and that has delivered results.
Just like the general achievement test, in which 85 000 students participated, the exams will be conducted in a COVID-safe way in terms of social distancing between students as they conduct their exams. We are working very closely with the public health team in terms of providing comfort to students and to families. As the honourable member said, we are currently through oral and performance exams; written exams start on 27 October. We are working closely with public health, and I will have more to say within the next day or so, in terms of what further support and comfort we can provide to parents and students if a student is a primary close contact as a result of a positive case during any of our exams.
As I have said on a number of occasions, there is no way in a pandemic you can get to a zero-risk environment, but we are rolling out air purifiers across all our schools and requiring staff to be vaccinated. I again point out that those opposite had four different positions on the issue of requirement of vaccination for staff, from the Leader of the Opposition opposing it one day to supporting it the next; silence from the Shadow Minister for Education; downright opposition from the member for Brighton; and support, can I say, from the Shadow Minister for Health—four different positions. We follow public health advice, we do not deny transmission in our schools and we have got mitigation measures in place to keep our kids safe.
Mr HODGETT (Croydon) (13:34): Noting the minister said that he will have more to say in a few days, I am wondering whether we might be able to entice some of that out of him sooner rather than later. Minister, will the government commit to using rapid antigen testing (RAT) for all students and examiners to prevent the spread of COVID?
Mr MERLINO (Monbulk—Minister for Education, Minister for Mental Health, Minister for Disability, Ageing and Carers) (13:35): In terms of RAT, as the shadow minister should know, that does not have approval for use from the TGA until 1 November. Exams are already underway. What I have said in regard to rapid antigen testing, what I have said in regard to RAT testing, is that in anticipation of that decision out of the TGA we are conducting a trial—a home-based trial with families and with students, particularly younger kids—in terms of how we can practically implement rapid testing once it is available.
Ministers statements: Solar Homes program
Ms D’AMBROSIO (Mill Park—Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change, Minister for Solar Homes) (13:36): I am absolutely delighted to update the house on the fantastic results being delivered to Victorians thanks to this government’s record $1.3 billion investment in the Solar Homes program. Last week I was absolutely delighted to announce that Victorians can now access a $3500 Solar Homes battery rebate when they bundle their new rooftop solar with battery storage. This means customers no longer have to wait until they have solar panels installed before they can access the rebate for batteries. More than 4000 Victorians have already taken up the battery rebate, and the member for South Barwon will be delighted to know that Torquay residents, for example, are racing ahead with battery rebates, as will the member for Bellarine, with Ocean Grove residents also enjoying their batteries in big numbers. I am sure that the members for Tarneit, Werribee and Bass will be delighted that residents in suburbs such as Hoppers Crossing, Wyndham Vale and Pakenham are also leaders of this pack.
The Solar Homes program has already delivered 170 000 rebates, putting power generation on your roof and batteries and solar hot-water systems in the home. By the time we finish, more than 770 000 Victorians will be absolutely delighted with these systems in their homes, saving them money, growing fantastic jobs—5500 jobs are being delivered through this program—with savings of about $1000, more than we had originally estimated, off power bills each and every year; delivering greater safety through a very rigorous audit program, which is really important and which means that the standards of all solar installations will go up; and absolutely leading the way right across the nation. We have already abated about 820 000 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions alone, and by the time we finish, it will be almost 4 million tonnes. This is about jobs, lower energy prices— (Time expired)
Bills
Health Legislation Amendment (Information Sharing) Bill 2021
Second reading
Debate resumed.
Ms SETTLE (Buninyong) (13:38): I am pleased to rise again to speak on the Health Legislation Amendment (Information Sharing) Bill 2021. As I was discussing earlier, it is an incredibly important bill in that it makes it a much more functional system. All of us have had that experience of visiting a range of healthcare providers, and as I think I mentioned earlier, particularly when you live in a regional area—for example, if I am accessing emergency or any of the departments at Ballarat Base Hospital and my GP is back in Ararat, or it certainly was in those days—this sort of sharing facility is probably even more important for people because we really do access our health services across a wider area.
This reform will also bring Victoria in line with New South Wales, Queensland and other international jurisdictions which have successfully implemented health information sharing platforms. The Victorian government recognises that there is a sensitive nature to health information, and I know for myself, one guards one’s medical record fairly closely and privately. But this government is aware of that, and it understands those issues. The new platform will improve the way data is stored, making it a safer and more secure system than faxes and phone calls. I think the doctors surgery is probably the last place left in the world where faxes are still operational. It will be wonderful to see that just really move ahead and keep up with the times.
I know that people will want to know that their data is safe and secure. As I say, it is a very personal matter, one’s medical data. So just to outline some of the things that will be happening around security, the provisions in the bill will authorise the secretary to both collect and disclose health information for the purposes of the electronic health information sharing platform from and to in-scoped health services through the electronic health information sharing platform, where this information may be required in connection with the treatment of a patient. So the secretary in this role will have that control and that oversight. The platform will not in any way alter clinical information from each health service, so the integrity of that data very much stays there. Patients will have the right to access and correct any personal information collected and stored under the Victorian privacy laws which already exist. Those will of course extend to this data. A privacy management framework will also be implemented to enable restriction of access to more highly sensitive information to designated health service staff who need that information for clinical decision-making. I think that is a very important part of it, to understand that there are some pieces of information that perhaps need that extra level of protection, and that will be provided.
The Australian Cyber Security Centre reported in 2020 that ransomware is currently the most significant cybercrime threat to the Australian health sector. A cybersecurity program to uplift capability and maturity throughout the sector has been underway since 2016. In the most recent budget, the Victorian government has committed $19 million, focused on antivirus protection tools, a security operations centre and disaster recovery for health services. So we are certainly alive to the importance of that information and that data, but really the ability to bring it all together is incredibly important, and I commend this bill to the house.
Dr READ (Brunswick) (13:42): Speaking on the Health Legislation Amendment (Information Sharing) Bill 2021, I would just like to begin by thanking the Department of Health for organising a briefing on this bill. One of the inspirations for this bill was the Targeting Zero report by Duckett, Cuddihy and Newnham in 2016, subtitled ‘Supporting the Victorian hospital system to eliminate avoidable harm and strengthen quality of care’. That is really the purpose of the information-sharing platform that the Department of Health is yet to purchase but which this bill will enable. That report made a couple of recommendations, and I am just going to read the recommendations out. The first is that:
The department invests in modern data management systems by expediting the development of a statewide patient identifier and the transition to electronic patient record systems in hospitals.
The other recommendation is that:
The department should adopt a goal of ensuring that, by 2021, all major hospitals have a fully electronic health record that enables interchange of information with other hospitals.
It is important to go back to why this Targeting Zero report was commissioned, and that was because of an unexpectedly high number of perinatal deaths at Bacchus Marsh hospital. One of the contributing factors to this tragic episode was inadequate sharing of data between health services.
I want to just give an example now. I want you to imagine that you are getting a little short of breath, feeling freezing cold, sweating, and someone takes your temperature and says it is high and you are ushered off to hospital. It is the middle of the night and the young and relatively inexperienced doctor looking at you is trying to figure out what is wrong. You have probably got pneumonia, maybe, and if it was tonight you might even think you have COVID. The necessary tests are ordered and you cannot remember what happens next. Eventually—and it takes a day or two for the diagnosis to be made and that is because a critical piece of information was sitting at another hospital; that piece of information was emailed across the next day, when someone rang up and got it—it turns out that you had an infected heart valve. That would have been obvious if the admitting doctor had known that you had previously had an infected heart valve and you were just treated for the same thing at another hospital, not pneumonia. The antibiotics had changed, a bunch of unnecessary tests were ordered, some money was wasted. Hopefully the delayed diagnosis does not make any difference to your management. But you can see how being able to go online and look up your records—say you are at the Royal Melbourne, get your records from the Alfred and go, ‘Aha, this guy has probably got an infected heart valve rather than pneumonia, and that’s why the chest X-ray doesn’t show much’—having that all worked out at 4.00 am instead of 12 or 24 hours later could make an enormous difference.
The department intends to buy a platform which will allow public hospitals to exchange this kind of information. Critically the information will include medications and allergies. You do not have to think hard to see how an allergy to penicillin—or the fact that someone who thinks they are allergic to penicillin is not, which is a common misconception—can make a huge difference to outcomes. Alerts of any sort, such as ‘Do not treat this patient with X’ or ‘Patient has a tendency to be violent when sedated’—you can see how this kind of information can be critical and make such a difference. Discharge summaries would be the bulk of the information. A discharge summary is a summary of a person’s time in their hospital admission. They might be in hospital for a week. You do not want to read a day-by-day account of how many times they got out of bed, but you do want to read the key tests, the key physical findings, the major diagnoses and the treatments.
Outpatient consultations, which are important to monitor their progress with treating specialists; imaging reports; and laboratory results—you can see how all of this information can speed up diagnoses, as in the example I gave, which was a real example. I was the inexperienced young doctor who failed to make the appropriate diagnosis until someone else got the information later that day—and hopefully there was no particular harm to the patient. You can see how this sort of rapid exchange of information can improve treatment outcomes and at times prevent harm. It is interesting that the ambulance service will have access to this. Ambulance officers—paramedics—administer drugs and give important treatments. Again, alerts perhaps about people’s behaviour or their allergies and so on can make important differences to outcomes, even in the first few minutes of care.
But—and I alluded to this also in the example—it could prevent the duplication of unnecessary tests, or it could prevent the repetition of unsuccessful treatments. Quite often medical conditions are treated with plan A, and when that does not work you go to plan B. So often people are taken back to unsuccessful plan A simply because the treating team has no idea that that was previously used and had failed at some other hospital. As an example, I remember seeing a man who presented with abdominal pain, as people often do in a medical consultation—this was in outpatients—and he had previously seen a GP the week before, with the same pain and had a whole bunch of tests done. But it was impossible for me to get those results, and I had to order the same tests again.
Not only was that inconvenient—it involved drawing a certain amount of blood and getting an ultrasound done and so on—but it probably cost the health department something close to $1000 once you add up the imaging and the pathology and so on. And if you multiply that by the number of times this happens, all because that doctor was not at work that day and I could not get those results, it is extraordinary. So to be able to go online and get that information and save that money so that it can be spent on someone else’s health care in some other way is a no-brainer. That is why this legislation is important, and that is why for all of those reasons the Greens will be supporting this bill. And I hope all of us will be, in this place.
I say that acknowledging the privacy concerns raised by members who have raised these already in the debate. Health privacy is very important and many medical conditions, too many to name, are stigmatising—the many different diagnoses of mental illness, and imagine dementia. Most infections in one circumstance or another can be stigmatising. We always think of HIV and sexually transmitted infections, but even in the wrong circumstances a COVID diagnosis could be stigmatising. In fact we can think of the poor GP who flew back from the United States with symptoms way back early last year, early on in the piece, who was publicly shamed for going to work with COVID when really there had been no publicity about the risk of this in the United States.
None of these medical conditions should be a cause of shame, but in practical terms unfortunately they are, and a health privacy breach can be more damaging to some people than to others. For example, I do not care if people know I have got a dodgy knee, but if I was the star centre half-forward for a football team involved in a trade, my dodgy knee could make an enormous difference to my value to the club and could probably fill several pages of the newspapers if the sportswriters got hold of it. So I think that we might as well assume that virtually all health information is potentially stigmatising and certainly should be kept private—and for all people where possible, though bearing in mind that no-one really cares about my knee.
In the briefing I was told that there will be some identifying and ring fencing of particularly sensitive health information and that that will be defined by a clinical governance group, and I think that that is the appropriate way to do it. In my opinion, though, the hospital that is currently treating the patient—at 4 o’clock in the morning, as always seems to be the case—should have access to all medical information, no matter how sensitive, but there may be ways to protect that by potentially restricting that to senior staff members. Another way to protect it would be to require that two staff members have to request the information within the same time period. For example, it is a little bit like launching a missile—you sometimes need to have two officers turn keys. If someone is snooping for unauthorised medical information, they are likely to be doing it on their own. It is very unlikely that both a doctor and a nurse would be requesting that information at the same time. So there are a number of measures that can be taken to ensure that even sensitive information is available in another hospital in an emergency when needed. The other important protection with electronic data is that all access to the platform is recorded and can be audited. So long as staff know that it will be known if someone using their login has gone into someone’s medical record and that they may have to justify why they have done so, that should be a substantial deterrent.
But just think about the consequences if privacy protections are so strict that they hide vital information from the treating team and that leads to the wrong treatment being given. We need to remember that junior medical staff move around the hospital system every few months—three months at the Western, three months at the Royal Melbourne—and patients are frequently also admitted to different hospitals for different reasons. Right now there are Melbourne patients in the Geelong hospital. So as people get shuffled around, we need to think of it as one system. There is really more in common, frankly, between the orthopaedic ward of one hospital and the orthopaedic ward of another than there is between, say, the orthopaedic ward and the cardiac ward of the same hospital. These are vast organisations, and it is kind of almost a geographic accident that the people on seven west have access to the medical record of a patient on three north. They have got less to do with that patient than, say, some doctors in another hospital. For that matter, if you are in the Alfred network, if you were at Sandringham Hospital, the staff at the Alfred hospital have access to that record but the staff at the Royal Melbourne do not. So it is a decade out of date for us to unite the medical information system as best we can.
There have been concerns raised about the fact that people cannot opt out of this. Well, I think that a connected medical record system is so vital to providing cost-effective and high-quality—indeed best practice—medical care that you should not be able to opt out of it any more than you can opt out of using the hospital’s air-conditioning system. It is part of vital hospital infrastructure that we should be able to reassure patients. Rather than allowing them to opt out, we must reassure them that their health information will be handled sensitively and it will be treated with confidentiality. I think that we need to strengthen the fence around the system rather than divide the information up into separate paddocks. The state is responsible for providing high-quality medical care for all of our patients, and it needs the best infrastructure to do the job. You should not be able to opt out of best practice. You should not be getting your medical team to look after you with one hand tied behind their back.
One case that is burned into my brain is one day when I was working at what is now a health centre in the Cohealth network, and I got a call from Western Hospital about a woman who was unconscious, who they had just admitted. They said, ‘Can you tell us anything about her? We think she might come to your practice’. And sure enough, we had her record and we were able to tell them that this young woman with a brain haemorrhage was on warfarin, a drug that can cause brain haemorrhages. That enabled them to give the vitamin K necessary to reverse the action of warfarin. By sheer fluke, they rang during daylight hours when I was there. If it had been 4.00 am, they would not have had access to that information. If this legislation passes, they will, and that is why I urge all members to support it.
Mr MAAS (Narre Warren South) (13:57): It gives me great pleasure to rise just for a few moments before the house adjourns to make a contribution to the Health Legislation Amendment (Information Sharing) Bill 2021. As the member for Brunswick has in his contribution made very clear, there are excellent reasons, very practical reasons, as to why this bill should be passing this house. But it is yet another example where this government proudly leads, showing that it is really committed to improving the quality and the safety of our health system. The bill does address a number of recommendations, and it does go back to that Targeting Zero report that has been referred to. Of course that report and its commissioning was led by Professor Stephen Duckett in 2016 and commissioned by the former Minister for Health. It was a report about supporting the Victorian hospital system to eliminate avoidable harm and strengthen quality of care.
The bill also supports findings in the final report of the Royal Commission into Victoria’s Mental Health System, which indeed noted a lack of an information-sharing culture, and there was a recommendation that the Victorian government develop, fund and implement a mental health information and data exchange. Evidence does show that the sharing of health information is critical to ensuring the most appropriate treatment is provided to each patient and that the availability of complete and accurate health information at the point of care will in fact save lives. Creating an easier, safer and more secure way of sharing of health information between public health services will ensure that treating clinicians have a complete and integrated picture of a patient’s history.
Before I move to the overall objectives of the bill, it may well be time that the house moves to adjournment, Speaker.
Following speeches incorporated in accordance with resolution of house of 7 October:
Ms COUZENS (Geelong)
I am pleased to contribute to the Health Legislation Amendment (Information Sharing) Bill 2021.
I want to thank the minister for his work on this important bill.
I also want to take the opportunity to acknowledge and thank the hardworking frontline health professionals who are keeping our community safe and caring for those in our hospitals during this global pandemic.
This bill will address several recommendations in the Targeting Zero: Supporting the Victorian Hospital System to Eliminate Avoidable Harm and Strengthen Quality of Care report led by Professor Stephen Duckett in 2016 and commissioned by the former Minister for Health.
The bill also supports findings in the final report of the Royal Commission into Victoria’s Mental Health System which noted a ‘lack of an information sharing culture’, and recommendation 62(1)(c) that the Victorian government develop, fund and implement a mental health information and data exchange.
Evidence shows that the sharing of health information is critical to ensuring the most appropriate treatment is provided to each patient and the availability of complete and accurate health information at the point of care will save lives.
Creating an easier, safer, and more secure way of sharing of health information between public health services will ensure that treating clinicians have a complete and integrated picture of a patient’s history.
In both the bushfire crisis and the COVID-19 pandemic, these situations demonstrated where better health information sharing practices could have been used to support doctors, nurses, and allied health staff with their clinical decision-making, benefitting the whole community.
Enabling information sharing through state-of-the-art technology operated by the department is critical to supporting the reforms under way to modernise and futureproof our health system for the health and wellbeing of all Victorians.
This reform will also bring Victoria into line with New South Wales, Queensland, and other international jurisdictions, which have successfully implemented health information sharing platforms.
Continuity of care is important. We know that the patient journey across the health system may take them to various different hospitals and health services, but their health information may not follow them, which could result in medication errors and the possibility of duplicate testing.
Where a patient’s healthcare journey takes them to different health services, our clinicians rely on patients and their families to disclose which hospitals and health services they have attended. They then source health information from other services, often via phone calls.
Risks to quality and safety of care can arise when only fragmented information is available to our clinical teams, and when the patient has poor recall of an often complex medical history.
By connecting our public health services and creating a centralised, secure platform for clinical teams to view medical charts, prescribed medications and pathology, this will result in better care for all Victorians.
When it comes to the protection and privacy of patient data, this bill introduces new offences and penalty provisions relating to unauthorised access, use or disclosure of information.
The provisions in the bill will authorise the secretary (or delegate) to both collect and disclose health information for the purposes of the electronic health information sharing platform from and to in-scope health services through the electronic health information sharing platform, where this information may be required in connection with the treatment of a patient of that hospital or health service.
Maintaining and protecting patient information has been a key consideration and only clinical staff will be able to access the platform. There is no scenario in which departmental staff can or will access a patient’s health information. The platform will be configured that way and accessions audited regularly.
The platform will not alter the clinical information from each health service. Patients will still have the right to access and correct any personal information collected and stored under Victorian privacy laws.
Furthermore, a health information sharing review board, supported by a clinical governance advisory group, will be established to advise on the implementation and operation of the health information sharing platform.
A privacy management framework will also be implemented to enable restriction of access to more highly sensitive information to designated health service staff who need this information for clinical decision‐making.
It will provide additional protections for vulnerable groups facing issues such as such as family violence, child protection, justice and health. The framework will maintain higher levels of confidentiality for that highly sensitive information, such as that pertaining to sexual health and mental health conditions.
This government has taken significant steps to support Victorian public health services to effectively protect patient data. Over the last five years government has invested approximately $107 million in replacing local vulnerable technology and raising cybersecurity capability across Victoria’s public health sector.
The bill today seeks to amend the Health Services Act 1998 to allow for health information sharing between specified health services via a centralised platform operated by the Department of Health and to amend the Health Records Act 2001 to ensure it operates consistently with the proposed amendments to the Health Services Act.
The bill changes will apply to the following specified entities:
• public hospitals,
• multipurpose services,
• denominational hospitals,
• metropolitan hospitals,
• prescribed health services,
• registered community health centres,
• the ambulance service, and
• the Victorian Institute of Forensic Mental Health.
Five years on from the Targeting Zero report, the Victorian health system has improved on quality and safety monitoring, clinical governance and reporting.
Of the 179 recommendations significant progress has been made on almost every recommendation and well over 70 per cent of these have been 100 per cent completed.
Our hardworking nurses, doctors, paramedics and other healthcare workers provide all Victorians with high quality care, but there is always more that can be done.
The royal commission’s final report includes 65 recommendations in addition to the nine interim report recommendations.
The recommendations set out a 10-year vision for a future mental health system where people can access treatment close to their homes and in their communities.
The Victorian government has committed to implementing all recommendations, including recommendation 62(1)(c), that the Victorian government develop, fund and implement a mental health information and data exchange.
The commission recommends as part of three new ICT components that a new mental health information and data exchange would allow for sharing of information outside of public mental health and wellbeing services, such as GPs and community mental health and wellbeing services, where appropriate. This could happen for one of two purposes: to facilitate service delivery or to enable access to de-identified data for research and administrative purposes.
The mental health information and data exchange should allow interoperability between the recommended electronic mental health and wellbeing record and other major systems such as (but not limited to) hospital electronic medical records, GP practice management systems, specialist psychiatric and psychologist systems and My Health Record.
The mental health information and data exchange would not share every piece of information about a consumer with everyone who has access to it. It should have a ‘clinical viewer’ function that allows each relevant service or worker to view relevant information easily. It should provide the basic information needed for other entities to provide treatment, care and support effectively and in line with consumer preferences.
In the beginning, the mental health information and data exchange should allow for seamless viewing and sharing of information between Victorian-funded mental health and wellbeing services and health entities directly involved in responding to mental health and wellbeing needs, including emergency departments and emergency responders.
This does not mean that every party should have access to every part of a consumer’s record, but they should be able to view the fundamental information they need to deliver their services effectively.
Appropriate privacy and security protections should be applied to the mental health information and data exchange to ensure consumer privacy, safety and trust, and strict delegations should ensure that only authorised personnel can view relevant information about the consumer. Transparent communication about how and when information is used and shared should also be available to consumers and service providers.
While the mental health information and data exchange is being developed, secure messaging capability should be implemented to allow basic information such as discharge summaries and medication lists to be sent to a consumer’s primary and secondary care team, including GPs and private providers. This will allow basic information to be shared quickly and securely while the larger systems are being developed.
This approach should also be used to support electronic referrals between medical practitioners and local mental health and wellbeing services and area mental health and wellbeing services in the interim.
In the immediate term, while the mental health information and data exchange is being established, the Victorian government should also provide Ambulance Victoria with access to the basic information they need from client management interface/operational data store so they can effectively respond to mental health crises in the community.
Sharing information safely and securely is the foundation of a modern health care system.
Through this bill the Victorian government continues to put the health, privacy, and security of Victorians first.
I commend the bill to the house.
Ms CRUGNALE (Bass)
When we conducted the two mental health workshops in Bass electorate in 2019, the same message came through from both groups. People were tired of having to tell their story over and over again. Sometimes they would ask one provider to call another to get information. Sometimes that worked, and at other times because of perceived privacy rights it didn’t. Sometimes the facility didn’t have a fax machine, or the file couldn’t be accessed, or the practitioner wasn’t there.
From a medical perspective, we all know friends or family who have taken, for example, elderly parents to an emergency department on the weekend only to look blankly when asked for current medications or for the most recent medical diagnosis, not sure if that diagnostic test was done, or if it just sounded like that one, not having a clue about the test result.
Scrambling to answer basic and simple questions that could mean quicker treatment. Trying to remember the year of that operation. No-one knowing the allergic status of an unconscious patient who carries identification.
In my electorate of Bass, we’re counting the days until the crowds return to the beach. With that will come the usual holiday accidents, and the local hospitals and clinics along the coast will be inundated with the wounded. Countless hours will be spent by nursing and medical staff—extracting past histories from visitors—who have no other record on the system. Well into the night, with no ability to check out the accuracy of the information.
Not always, but sometimes this leads to tragic outcomes. I spoke about my late sister in this chamber in August this year. It was in reference to the Royal Commission into Victoria’s Mental Health System. I said then, and I will say it now, as part of her long journey she presented at six emergency departments at Victorian hospitals in six months. Not a single flag was raised during that time. I have often reflected on this hollow concept of privacy which possibly hastened her death. There was no information sharing—not for her sake or for mine.
No-one is suggesting for a minute that this legislation breaches an individual’s right to privacy. In fact, this amendment strengthens privacy by ensuring that information is shared safely and securely. Our Andrews Labor government has invested about $107 million in replacing local vulnerable technology and raising cybersecurity across Victoria’s public health sector in the last five years.
I thank the stakeholders who participated in the consultation in 2020, including the Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation, the Law Institute of Victoria, Victorian Legal Aid and the complaints commissioners responsible for health, mental health and disability services. In particular I thank the Minister for Health.
There will be those who complain that this is irresponsible and breaches privacy. On and on they’ll go, forgetting to add that New South Wales introduced their centralised health information sharing platform in 2015 and Queensland followed suit in 2017. They’ll omit the benefits for folk in border areas. For example, Albury Wodonga Health will have access to and use the Victorian system when it is established.
This bill is quite clear that only healthcare providers who are directly involved in your care and treatment can access your medical information, and only for the purpose of providing care. The platform will not alter the clinical information that is held at each service, it will just facilitate sharing. We already share information by phone calls, by fax, by email and scans and probably even by hard copy in the post.
This is not about privacy, this is about ensuring that if you can’t remember all the details of your history, they will be available to make sure that you are cared for properly. The main objectives of the bill are to improve patient safety, decrease avoidable harm and deliver person-centred care.
This bill amends the Health Services Act 1998 by introducing a centralised platform operated by the Department of Health. A health information sharing review board, supported by a clinical governance advisory group, will be established to advise on the implementation and operation of the platform. A privacy management framework will be implemented, ensuring that more highly sensitive information will be restricted. There will be checks and more checks to ensure that privacy is maintained and protected.
This legislation addresses recommendations from the 2016 review of hospital safety and quality assurance in Victoria. I thank the then Minister for Health, the member for Altona, for her commitment and honesty in accepting the 268-page Targeting Zero report.
It also supports findings in the final report of the Royal Commission into Victoria’s Mental Health System. Recommendations 61 and 62 offer valuable advice.
They talk about ‘effective, safe and efficient collection and sharing of mental health and wellbeing information’ and collaborations with consumers to ‘introduce a consent-driven approach to information’. 62(1)(c) in particular recommends ‘a new Mental Health Information and Data Exchange … to support information sharing in real-time within and across services and sectors’.
As with medical information sharing, the mental health information and data exchange will have secure messaging capabilities.
It is important to remember that the amendments made in this bill will not mean that new information is collected about a person. The information has already been collected and is already held by a public hospital or health service. All this bill allows for is the facilitation of transfer of information. A service would have been able to access the same information through requesting it from another service.
If a person changes or amends their medical record, then this will trigger an automatic update to system records. This legislation does not restrict the ability of a person to access their own information or stop them from correcting it.
The penalties for unauthorised access are quite clear and can include two years imprisonment. The work has been done and this bill is compatible with the human rights as set out in the charter.
Mr MORRIS (Mornington)
I am pleased to have the opportunity to make some comments on the Health Legislation Amendment (Information Sharing) Bill 2021.
It is a bill with a relatively benign title, and a bill with laudable aims, unfortunately, though, with precious little detail. We are told that the detail will come in the form of regulations and in the form of guidance from the Secretary of the Department of Health. Given the sensitive nature of the data under discussion, in my view that is nowhere near good enough.
The aims of this bill are laudable: the collection of information is not intended for some aimless purpose; it is to provide additional opportunities for improved care, additional opportunities for improved outcomes. Unfortunately, there is a potential cost: the risk of the disclosure of highly sensitive personal records.
It is beyond doubt that if the data is handled appropriately the potential benefits vastly outweigh the possible risks, nevertheless the implementation must proceed carefully.
Unfortunately, the process is not off to a good start. This is a bill which the government is seeking to progress with undue and unnecessary haste. It was second read barely a week ago, and it goes to the guillotine on Thursday. There is no time for consultation with the medical community, and most importantly there is no time for consultation with those who are directly affected by its implementation, the Victorian community.
How many Victorians know that a bill that will permit the disclosure of their personal health records is being debated? How many Victorians know that anyone who uses a public hospital will soon have their health records collected at one location available to staff at another without their say-so. They don’t know, and they won’t find out before the bill passes the Assembly.
Now we know there have been fierce debates about privacy, going back to the mid-1980s debate on the Australia Card—not one of Bob Hawke’s better ideas. Over 20 years later there was a debate about the expansion of the data attached to a Medicare card—a potential experiment which was prevented by the 2007 election.
And most recently we have had considerable debate about the health record attached to the MyGov website. Because people knew that discussion was occurring, they let their views be known. As a result of that discussion they were given the opportunity to opt out. No such opportunity to opt out is available in this case.
Yet despite the sensitive nature of the information that is being collected, and the lack of public awareness, we are being asked to push through this bill, with very little debate.
Beyond that critical aspect there are other red flags. It is clear from the briefing that the scope of this project is unknown. There is no business case, no funds have yet been allocated in the state budget. We are simply told that scoping is underway, and that the department will have a better idea by the end of year of the cost of the program.
So I ask again: why the rush? Why are we asked to push this bill through with no public input and little debate? It is not appropriate the decisions of this significance are taken with little or no public discussion; it is not appropriate in any way at all.
Is it more important to do it quickly, or to do it right? I say emphatically it is far more important to do it right!
Access to a full health history, access to a history integrated with patient care will deliver the best and the safest sort of care, and I make it clear that I support the aim of this bill, but there are significant concerns, across a range of areas.
The member for Lowan in her contribution indicated the strong preference of the Liberal and National parties that this matter be referred to the Legal and Social Issues Committee of the Assembly. Because of the concerns I have outlined, and because of the concerns I have particularly about the powers that are granted to the Secretary of the Department of Health, I strongly support that referral.
The bill itself is relatively straightforward. A new part 6C will be inserted by part 2 of the bill, which will establish the electronic patient health information sharing system. Part 3 of the bill makes the consequential changes that are required for the Health Records Act 2001, and specifically deals with any conflict that may arise with the health privacy principles.
In general, despite the concerns I have already laid out, I am comfortable with the intentions of this act. During the course of the briefing we received assurances with regard to access to the data, the intended stringent audit trail, and the intended privacy management framework. I would strongly prefer that those things were in the bill; unfortunately, they are not.
What are also not in the bill, and also of significant concern, are those matters that I’ve mentioned already—the lack of a business case, the lack of a budget, the lack of detail on the project beyond the bill that is available that is available to the house. Were that detail available, it would provide some comfort that this scheme would work, and work as claimed by the government. Unfortunately, we simply don’t have that comfort.
As I mentioned earlier, the meat of this bill is the new part 6C of the principal act. There are five divisions in this new part—the first division deals with the definitions—pretty standard; the second with the establishment of the new system; the third contains the provisions around access to data; the fourth proposes a range of offences; and the fifth deals with issues around the Freedom of Information Act 1982. With the exception of division 2, all are standard and non-controversial. There are, however, significant concerns with the second division.
Under this bill, the secretary is almost solely responsible for the establishment and maintenance of the system. Critically, the secretary is entirely responsible for the information that is collected by the system, and there are significant obligations on health services to supply the information required.
At any time, the secretary can vary the information that is collected simply by publishing new requirements in the Government Gazette. So the information collected can be significantly expanded with no parliamentary oversight. The provisions are not contained in an act of Parliament, nor are they contained in regulations that might be disallowable. They are issued at the sole discretion of the secretary.
Now where have we seen a similar arrangement recently? In fact it is the very process we’ve become only too familiar with: a public servant issues a requirement, which must then be observed without debate, without discussion, and effectively without accountability to this Parliament. Of course I am referring to the directions of the chief health officer.
As all members know, there has been much debate, particularly in recent weeks, as to whether there should be some political accountability for the directions of the CHO. We are told the government is considering the matter, and in fact we may well have legislation before Christmas which will actually prescribe those powers, or require the consent of the Minister for Health before these orders take effect.
So why do we have, in this bill, a situation where the secretary has the sole discretion to compulsorily collect, collate, and make available, highly sensitive personal information?
I do not reflect on the current secretary or any of his predecessors (or the CHO for that matter). No matter how high their personal standards, it is simply not appropriate to provide such powers to an individual without the capacity for review. Yet, astoundingly, that is exactly what the government is doing in this case.
To conclude, I strongly support the intent of this bill: improved levels of care for clients of the Victorian public health system. Improved access to information by clinicians can only improve decision-making, and result in even better care than that provided already. Unfortunately, the bill before the house does not provide sufficient safeguards, and the government has not provided sufficient comfort that there will be safeguards on the extensive powers over highly sensitive data which this legislation will grant.
That is why it is critically important that the matter be referred to a parliamentary committee, and that public input be sought before any implementation might proceed. I say again: we have a choice between doing it quickly and doing it right. Let’s do it right!
Mr McGHIE (Melton)
I rise today to contribute to the Health Legislation Amendment (Information Sharing) Bill 2021.
This bill will allow health information sharing between specified Victorian public health services through a centralised platform operated and managed by the Department of Health.
It will support clinicians working in the Victorian public healthcare system to access information in certain situations, while continuing to recognise the patient’s right to confidentiality and privacy.
I just want to take this opportunity to thank all those health professionals during this current pandemic for their help getting us through these trying times. This includes all those nurses, paramedics, clinic transport officers, non-emergency patient transport staff, doctors, allied health, mental health, support services and administration staff. And let’s not forget the great work by our call takers and dispatchers.
It’s been a fantastic team effort by all those people who work in the health system, to protect Victorians during this pandemic.
The bill will also address a number of recommendations in the Targeting Zero: Supporting the Victorian Hospital System to Eliminate Avoidable Harm and Strengthen Quality of Care report led by Professor Stephen Duckett in 2016 and commissioned by the former Minister for Health, the member for Altona.
Furthermore, this bill also supports findings in the final report of the Royal Commission into Victoria’s Mental Health System, which noted ‘A lack of an information sharing culture’, and in recommendation 62(1)(c) that the Victorian government develop, fund and implement a mental health information and data exchange.
The centralised platform will provide a safer and more secure way to share information, replacing the need for some of the current technology being used to connect health information such as faxes and unnecessary phone calls.
In addition, having a platform like this will allow for complete and accurate health information to be accessed at the right place and time, with the potential to save lives.
Having this information available in the one place is essential to providing the best care and treatment for patients across Victoria.
The changes in this bill will apply to the following specified entities:
• public hospitals,
• multipurpose services,
• denominational hospitals,
• metropolitan hospitals,
• prescribed health services,
• registered community health centres,
• the ambulance service, and
• the Victorian Institute of Forensic Mental Health.
If paramedics are transporting a patient to hospital, they can forward on patient details and the provisional diagnosis.
The hospital staff can check the patient’s medical history whilst waiting for the ambulance to arrive.
This will improve the continuity of treatment for the patient, which will deliver safer and better outcomes.
Also, we just can’t assume a patient is coherent or even conscious when they arrive at hospital to provide their medical history.
A patient suffering from a mental health episode may not be in a state to cooperate with doctors and nurses.
It is also possible that a receiving hospital can also assist paramedics with their pre-hospital treatment and diagnosis, with medical history information to paramedics.
Evidence shows that the sharing of health information is critical to ensuring the most appropriate treatment is provided to each patient, and the availability of complete and accurate health information at the point of care will save lives.
A patient’s care journey takes them to different public hospitals over the course of an illness, trauma or procedure. If there is fragmented information, risks to a patient’s quality of care and safety arise.
By connecting health information, treating clinicians will have access to a complete and accurate picture of a patient’s health history. This is essential to providing the best care by clinicians who aren’t familiar with a patient’s medical history.
This improved ability to connect health information across our public hospital system will reduce the burden on patients having to remember and recall their past medical history.
This will allow clinicians to start treatment sooner and reduce medication errors and unnecessary diagnostic tests.
In both the bushfire crisis and the COVID-19 pandemic these situations demonstrated where better health information sharing practices could have been used to support doctors, nurses and allied health staff with their clinical decision-making, benefitting the whole community.
The proposed health information sharing platform will be operated by the Department of Health and contain specific health information for access by clinicians for the provision of care.
The data available on the platform will include a summary of a patient’s visit to a Victorian public health service. Information about that visit includes diagnosis and treatment, medications, test results and any alerts or allergies.
To ensure data is protected, the Victorian government, through the Department of Health, will introduce strict controls, including frequent auditing and security identity and access management capability to regulate who has access to patient information and data.
The bill will also introduce two new criminal offences to specifically deal with unauthorised access to the platform and access to the platform for unauthorised purposes.
These criminal offences will attract a fine of 240 penalty units or a maximum term of imprisonment of two years.
This government has taken significant steps to support Victorian public health services to effectively protect patient data. Over the last five years, the government has invested approximately $107 million in replacing local vulnerable technology and raising cybersecurity capability across Victoria’s public health sector.
The bill specifies that only healthcare providers who are directly involved in a patient’s care and treatment can access their medical information, and only for the purpose of providing care.
Information in the system will not be allowed to be used for service planning, policy development and/or research.
Everyone has the right to feel safe at work. The health, safety and wellbeing of Victorian public healthcare workers is a high priority for the Department of Health.
The department is committed to ensuring the safety of staff and patients in our health services. The centralised health information sharing platform will provide new safeguards for clinicians working in health care to be alerted to a history of occupational violence and aggression from patients.
Our paramedics are often exposed to this risk, and it’s vital not just for the safety of our paramedics and first responders but also for the patient so that the appropriate care and support is available if needed.
Risk assessment and management strategies will be able to be included in the platform, the same way they are included in medical records (both hard copy and electronic) and patient care plans in line with the department’s framework for preventing and managing occupational violence and aggression.
Paramedics are already provided information from their dispatch centre if aggression and violence has previously occurred at the location they are responding to, and this is referred to as a location of interest.
Unfortunately, that information is not patient or person-specific because those individuals could have moved residence or premises.
The dispatch centre would have thousands of locations of interest listed across the state.
This reform will also bring Victoria in line with New South Wales, Queensland and other international jurisdictions, which have successfully implemented health information sharing platforms.
As I mentioned earlier, these amendments developed from the Targeting Zero report that was commissioned by a former Minister for Health, the member for Altona.
I had the great opportunity of working with her then as the ambulance union secretary, delivering safer outcomes for Victorian patients by ensuring our paramedics were properly resourced and able to do their jobs.
We stopped the war against paramedics from those opposite, we delivered good wages and conditions to our hardworking paramedics and we injected $500 million and an additional 450 paramedics.
o Safer Care Victoria will work with health services to monitor and improve the quality and safety of care delivered across our health system, with the goal of achieving zero avoidable patient harm.
o The Victorian Clinical Council will provide clinical expertise to the government, the department and health services on how to make the system safer and provide better care to all Victorians.
o The ministerial board advisory committee will ensure our hospital and health service boards have the right mix of skills, knowledge and experience to strengthen local governance and decision making.
These amendments are also influenced by this government’s commissioning of the Royal Commission into Victoria’s Mental Health System and its final report.
• The royal commission’s final report includes 65 recommendations in addition to the nine interim report recommendations.
• The Victorian government has committed to implementing all recommendations, including recommendation 62(1)(c) that the Victorian government develop, fund and implement a mental health information and data exchange.
Failure to correctly identify patients across health services, match their information and accurately share that information can lead to poor health outcomes for patients.
These include unintended injury, infections, problems with medications, as well as unnecessary duplication of diagnostic tests.
Sharing information safely and securely is the foundation of a modern healthcare system.
Through this bill the Victorian government continues to put the health, privacy and security of Victorians first. I support these measures and I commend the bill to the house.
Business interrupted under resolution of house of 7 October.
The SPEAKER: I can now advise that it is time for me to interrupt business for the house to adjourn. The house will now adjourn until 9.00 am tomorrow.
House adjourned 2.00 pm.
Members statements
Following statements incorporated in accordance with resolution of house of 7 October:
Small business support
Mr WALSH (Murray Plains)
I am raising the frustrations of many of the small businesses in my electorate of Murray Plains who have been left without support after Victorian government financial assistance, for which they qualified, disappeared.
In one instance, the owners of a very successful B & B in Echuca had been receiving payments until suddenly there was nothing.
Despite their best attempts, by phone and email, to find someone, anyone, within the Department of Industry Support and Recovery who could explain what had gone wrong, they were met with silence—no response at all as to why these payments had stopped.
The same happened to several hotels within my electorate, and no doubt this situation of stopped payments would have been replicated across the state.
When this was brought to my office’s attention, we started ringing and emailing ministers and their offices to try and get these payments reinstated, work that would not be necessary if—after 20 months of COVID financial support—this government had actually learnt from its previous failings since the pandemic started and put better systems in place.
It appears the Andrews government is just interested in the headlines for an announcement but doesn’t really care about the actual delivery of support for regional small businesses.
I cannot help but wonder if this government doesn’t care at all about the way regional Victoria’s economy has been crippled by COVID restrictions and hopes people will just give up when they get no response from the departments.
Daylesford hospital
Ms THOMAS (Macedon—Minister for Agriculture, Minister for Regional Development)
• Last week I was delighted to meet with representatives from the Daylesford hospital upgrade committee, including Hepburn shire mayor Lesley Hewitt and Central Highlands Rural Health service board member Kate Redwood, to discuss community ideas for the Daylesford hospital.
• We also discussed the recent announcement that the Daylesford hospital will receive a share in the Victorian government’s Regional Health Infrastructure Fund.
• Under the program, Daylesford hospital has been allocated $4.5 million to upgrade their theatre facilities as part of the Daylesford operating suite redevelopment.
• These funds will make sure that more Daylesford locals can get the care they need close to home.
Laurie Sullivan Reserve pavilion
Ms THOMAS (Macedon—Minister for Agriculture, Minister for Regional Development)
• It was also fantastic to join Hepburn Football Netball Club president Jason Dooley and Hepburn Cricket Club president Lindsay Olver, as well as Hepburn Shire Council, to open the new pavilion at Laurie Sullivan Reserve.
• The Victorian government worked with Hepburn Shire Council and Hepburn Football Netball Club to deliver the new pavilion through our country football and netball program.
• The new building will provide the perfect venue for more players in our local clubs to get involved in sport—especially women and girls keen to participate in local netball, football and cricket.
Willowbank Primary School
Ms THOMAS (Macedon—Minister for Agriculture, Minister for Regional Development)
• Finally, with construction at the new Willowbank Primary School advancing at pace, I was excited to attend an online meeting session hosted by the school’s leadership team, Rynn Anderson and Brett Sinnott.
• Parents had the chance to hear about the exciting curriculum and facilities organised for local students—with specialist subjects like science available in Willowbank’s very own purpose-built labs.
• Like many of our local parents, I look forward to visiting in person early next year with the new school and co-located kinder buzzing with activity.
SALT
Mr HODGETT (Croydon)
I bring to the house’s attention the ongoing terrific work that the SALT team delivers to the many sporting clubs, groups and organisations in our local communities.
SALT stands for Sport and Life Training and is a not-for-profit health promotion organisation that delivers quality education, culture and leadership sessions to sporting clubs, schools and businesses to deal with the issues of drug and alcohol abuse, violence, suicide, discrimination, mental illness, racism and addiction—all issues that pervade our culture.
I have sung the praises of SALT in this Parliament before, and I will continue to do so as I hear, see and witness them delivering cultural change in sporting clubs, where change and real benefits are delivered. SALT’s philosophy is to empower clubs to create a new ‘era’ through education, responsibility and accountability.
Like any organisation, SALT relies on the generous support of people to fund their programs and to continue their brilliant work in sporting clubs, schools and businesses across the state.
I call on the government to get behind SALT and provide significant financial support to enable them to continue their excellent programs.
The Minister for Sport and the Minister for Community Sport should meet with founder David Burt and the amazing SALT team to learn firsthand of the work they do. I guarantee you will be impressed and blown away by the remarkable difference they are making to people’s lives.
Croydon Road
Mr HODGETT (Croydon)
On another matter, I wish to draw a local road issue to the attention of the Minister for Roads. Croydon Road needs attention and should be upgraded, levelled and resurfaced, with proper gutters installed. In addition, the bike path along Croydon Road necessitates some love and attention to the surface. I thank the local residents for bringing both these matters to my attention and I will pursue both these issues through the government and local council.
Moonee Ponds Creek
Mr PEARSON (Essendon—Assistant Treasurer, Minister for Regulatory Reform, Minister for Government Services, Minister for Creative Industries)
I rise to celebrate that the great people of Essendon have voted to transform a 500-metre section of concrete-lined Moonee Ponds Creek into a natural design restoring waterway health and improving recreation.
For those unaware of its history, in the 1950s and 1960s the Moonee Ponds Creek was realigned and concreted from Strathmore to Flemington Road in an attempt to stop periodical flooding. The waterway was effectively turned into a concrete stormwater drain.
I am so proud that over 300 members of my community voted on three design concepts as part of the Victorian government’s $7 million Reimagining Moonee Ponds Creek project at Strathmore and Oak Park.
The pandemic meant that the community consultation process was moved online, but this did not stop the locals showing just how much they care about their local waterway and its revitalisation. And I thank them for that commitment.
We are renewing a section of Moonee Ponds Creek from a concrete channel into a visually appealing inner-city waterway, improving biodiversity and water quality.
The most popular design includes the removal of some 691 tonnes of concrete and the creation of six rock weirs, a new pond and additional community access points and seating. The design also creates separate pedestrian and cyclist paths through some parts of Strathmore.
Led by Melbourne Water, the project brings together a number of agencies and organisations committed to its success, including the Chain of Ponds Collaboration group, Moreland and Moonee Valley city councils, Greater Western Water and DELWP.
The project will partner with the Wurundjeri Woi Wurrung community. The project team are learning about traditional and contemporary cultural values and meanings associated with the creek corridor in order to share culture and stories in the design.
Works will begin in the summer of 2021–22.
Flavafest
Mr RIORDAN (Polwarth)
I am pleased to join a raft of entertainment industry leaders in announcing this week Flavafest.
Flavafest will come to Colac in February 2022 to help my community’s art and festival community to begin its recovery in a post-pandemic world. I would like to acknowledge the work done by Live Nation, Fat Apple Event Co., radio station Mix 106.3 and the Colac Turf Club.
Flavafest is a day-long festival of music, food and fun and will be hosted at the Colac Turf Club. My office will be working with the organisers to promote and support as many local musicians, food vendors and others to be a part of this project. This initiative is designed to help an important part of our community, who have done it very tough over the course of the pandemic and the cancellation of so many gatherings, festivals and opportunities to earn a living and ply their trade.
I would like to thank the creators of this project for their preparedness to identify our community and to have such faith in having regional Victoria help lead the arts community out of lockdown.
COVID-19 vaccinations
Ms HORNE (Williamstown—Minister for Ports and Freight, Minister for Consumer Affairs, Gaming and Liquor Regulation, Minister for Fishing and Boating)
In Williamstown we are proud of our cultural and linguistic diversity. As part of our fight against this pandemic, we have been working hard to ensure that as much information about COVID-19 and the vaccination rollout is accessible to as many communities as possible.
Recently I visited the new interfaith pop-up vaccination clinic at the Australian Islamic Centre in Newport. As part of a community-led approach, the clinic has been established by the Islamic community of Melbourne in partnership with Western Health.
It was wonderful to meet the on-site translators providing Arabic health advice to anyone who needed it. Making sure that public health information is available to a wide range of culturally and linguistically diverse groups is integral to our fight against this pandemic.
This follows the success of other community-led pop-ups across the state in recent months, which have been set up to support Melbourne’s Greek, Hindu and Samoan communities.
I also attended a number of Zoom roundtables with culturally and linguistically diverse community leaders in Williamstown, hearing about the challenges facing their communities. What I heard was that there is a clear need for in-language communications and appropriate and culturally sensitive vaccination settings and a strong focus on community-building projects that will help our diverse communities bounce back.
It doesn’t stop there—I was so pleased to see that Al-Asr Society of Australia in Altona North was a successful recipient of funding under the Victorian government’s $1.4 million program for multicultural organisations delivering food relief. This will allow them to continue their hard work providing culturally appropriate food relief to our multicultural and faith communities in my electorate.
I think a special shout-out is in order for Dr Mukesh Haikerwal, Hobsons Bay City Council Citizen of the Year in 2020. Dr Haikerwal has been integral to the state’s vaccine rollout, setting up Melbourne’s first car-park testing site. He has also dedicated much of his time to making health care accessible to culturally and linguistically diverse communities in Melbourne’s west, and I am so grateful for all of his efforts throughout this pandemic.
To help maximise the capacity of our GP and pharmacy clinics to deliver as many vaccines as possible, the Victorian government is offering grants of $4000 to $10 000, including to clinics in Hobsons Bay, as a priority. It is wonderful to see that clinics in Williamstown will now be able to administer more vaccines as required.
This pandemic has seen many community groups in Williamstown band together to spread the message, keep their communities safe and get as many jabs in arms as possible. I’d like to extend thanks to the Minister for Multicultural Affairs, the Victorian Multicultural Commission, and the Department of Health for all their efforts in supporting CALD groups during this challenging time.
Supporting our CALD communities is so important because we simply can’t do this without them.
Albury Wodonga Health
Mr TILLEY (Benambra)
The border communities have joined forces with the single purpose of not just lobbying for but building a new hospital.
Albury Wodonga Health, the only cross-border service in the nation, was formed in 2009. Since then, it’s expanded to include regional acute and subacute hospital services, ambulatory services, inpatient and community-based mental health services and a range of community and primary health services.
The demand has grown and continues to grow with the twin cities and its current regional catchment of about 280 000 people. By 2040 the forecast is the health services will deal with up to 150 000 emergency presentations, 40 000 surgeries, 3200 intensive care patients and almost 2000 babies each year.
These are big numbers and way beyond the capacity of the two hospital campuses in Albury and Wodonga, which are outdated and overstretched. The medical fraternity would say dangerously so.
A master plan to be released in the coming months is expected to strongly support the need for a new hospital—whether that be on an existing site or a new location. There are merits and challenges with both options.
Notwithstanding, I’m confident the NSW and federal governments are on board for the new hospital whether it be built in Albury or Wodonga.
My concern is whether this Victorian Labor government is too.
Last year, I asked a couple of questions around the breakup of NSW/Victorian patients and the capital spend by this state Labor government at Albury Wodonga Health in the past five years.
I appreciate the advice—about 47 per cent of patients are Victorian.
I also know that you have spent next to nothing on Albury Wodonga Health. The grab bag of excuses for capital investment included wi-fi upgrades, nurse-on-call systems and even solar panels on the West Wodonga Ambulance Station to bulk out your list.
I’m now calling on you to listen to the community, take note of the detailed planning that is both complete and near complete and build the best hospital possible for our community.
With everyone on board you will never build a cheaper hospital.
COVID-19 vaccinations
Ms SPENCE (Yuroke—Minister for Multicultural Affairs, Minister for Community Sport, Minister for Youth)
I am so grateful to the community I represent in this place for coming forward to get the jab in massive numbers over recent weeks, because we know that COVID-19 vaccines are our way to the other side of lockdowns, as well as the best way to protect the health of ourselves and our loves ones and to protect our health system.
The numbers tell the remarkable story and are a testament to our community’s incredible perseverance and dedication. At the start of September, just 40.8 per cent of residents over the age of 15 had received one dose, and 22.4 per cent were fully vaccinated.
These numbers were deeply worrying for us all as they were well short of the state average and the thresholds for opening back up.
Sadly, some of the most vulnerable people in the entire state were the least protected and the very serious consequences of COVID-19 were all too real.
But turning to today, we’re at 86.3 per cent first dose and nearly half with full protection against the virus.
It’s a remarkable turnaround and one that I’m really proud of.
I know we can do even better, and that’s why we’re continuing to roll out pop-up vaccine sites. Just this weekend, hundreds of people were vaccinated at Hume Anglican Grammar in Mickleham and Roxburgh College.
And we’re still going, with Meadow Heights Community Centre operating a vaccine centre right now and more on the way, including Elevation Secondary College in Craigieburn.
A shout-out to our Hume council mayor, Cr Joseph Haweil, who has made this his priority and been an outstanding advocate for our community.
To the locals who have come forward to get tested and the health care workers who have made it possible: thank you.
Everyone in our community has worked so hard to protect each other, and we will all will be safer for it in the weeks and months to come.
COVID-19 vaccinations
Mr ROWSWELL (Sandringham)
I would like to express my deepest appreciation to the many residents in the electorate of Sandringham who have each helped contribute to one of the highest rates of vaccination in Victoria.
Their selflessness and sense of community should not go unnoticed.
However, despite the fact that my electorate has passed 92.9 per cent first dose and 74.3 per cent double dose and Victorians continue to come forward to get the vaccine, we still live in a state full of oppressive and divisive restrictions.
We are still in lockdown after 256 days, the longest record in the world, when this government promised it would only be ‘short’ and ‘sharp’.
For the better part of two years, Victorians have forgone pay cheques, missed quality time with family and friends, lost time in a classroom, sacrificed religious celebrations, postponed weddings and not been allowed to grieve at funerals.
Victoria has some of the harshest restrictions in the world despite having some of the fewest COVID cases.
And the fact is the government continues to expect more and more from Victorians.
When is enough going to be enough?
The community of Sandringham, and all Victorians, are tired of the overreach and division. They are tired of the controlling hand of the Andrews Labor government that dictates every aspect of their lives.
We need hope, we need certainty and we need freedom now.
Bendigo health services
Ms EDWARDS (Bendigo West)
The Andrews Labor government is ensuring people living in the Greater Bendigo and Castlemaine areas have access to the world-class health care they deserve close to home, unveiling major upgrades for local health services.
Almost $16.4 million will be invested in hospital and health service upgrades through the Regional Health Infrastructure Fund (RHIF).
This includes more than $7.1 million for Bendigo and District Aboriginal Co-operative, for a new mixed-use medical facility with 10 consulting rooms, three allied health rooms and six interview rooms along with offices and workspaces.
Bendigo Community Health Services are receiving almost $7.3 million to upgrade their facility in Eaglehawk—improving safety, efficiency, service coordination, sustainability and flexibility.
Almost $2 million is being invested in Heathcote Health to relocate and upgrade the main kitchen and deliver improved staff health and safety and better services.
Bendigo Health are receiving nearly $1.3 million to upgrade medical technology at their Barnard Street site, delivering safer and more effective care.
In addition, Castlemaine Health is receiving more than $770 000 to support their integration with CHIRP Community Health to ensure the future sustainability of health care in the area and strengthen local services.
The investment announced last week builds on the more 380 projects the RHIF has made possible since it was created in 2016. Projects include a new $4.9 million 15-bed residential aged-care wing at the Golden Oaks Nursing Home and more than $380 000 to fit out Bendigo Community Health Services’ premises and reception area.
The Victorian government has now invested $490 million in regional healthcare projects across the state.
These modern health services and facilities will deliver better care for our local communities right where they live and create hundreds of local jobs.
We’re continuing to invest in our local hospitals and health services—and the health of all Victorians.
Mornington Peninsula planning scheme amendment
Mr MORRIS (Mornington)
I rise today to strongly support an amendment to the Mornington Peninsula planning scheme which will set the scene for a total redevelopment of the existing pavilions at Alexandra Park in Mornington.
The shire unanimously adopted the amendment on 13 September, and it is now being transmitted to the department for consideration by the Minister for Planning.
The amendment will facilitate upgraded sports and community amenities, new public toilets and vastly improved player amenities for both male and female participants. Also, in a unique arrangement, it will feature a state-of-the-art health and wellness hub to be operated by The Bays Hospital. Clients of the hospital will be able to access physical rehabilitation and healthy lifestyle programs dedicated to improving their quality of life.
A new integrated two-level building will house home and away change rooms, umpires rooms and public facilities on the ground floor. Level 1 will include the clinical space and a multipurpose social space with kitchen and bar for use by the clubs as well as by other community groups and The Bays as a conference or training facility.
The project brings together funding from the commonwealth ($2.6 million), Mornington Peninsula Shire ($2.0 million), the AFL ($0.1 million) and the Alexandra Park Project group ($0.5 million), in all a $5.2 million project.
A planning scheme amendment is required to permit the occupancy of the hospital in the completed project. The amendment has comfortably cleared all hurdles and been the subject of a full panel process.
My congratulations to all concerned with the development of this truly innovative proposal and particularly to the Alexandra Park Project group for their leadership in the process.
The amendment is now with the minister. The time lines are tight, and I urge him to consider the matter at the earliest opportunity.
COVID-19 vaccinations
Ms RICHARDS (Cranbourne)
I am pleased to update the house on the amazing work that the Cranbourne community has done in getting out there to get vaccinated.
With several pop-up vaccination hubs appearing in Cranbourne and the greater availability of all vaccines, including Moderna, Cranbourne and surrounding parts of the Casey LGA have raised the over-16 vaccination rate to a stunning 90 per cent first dose and 54.2 per cent second dose as of Wednesday, 13 October.
It’s even better to see that rates for second-dose vaccinated people in the City of Casey are growing by up to 7.7 points, which represents some of the highest growth in the state.
I want to give young people an especially loud and boastful shout-out and congratulate them for their massively successful uptake of vaccines. Far from representing a slowdown in the system, including this age group has proven a particularly impressive part of this state’s efforts to get vaccinated.
I want to congratulate every single person in the Casey local government area for their efforts to go out to get vaccinated.
One of the vaccination clinics that I’m most pleased about is at the home of the Casey Demons Football Club in Cranbourne East. The Demons continue to kick goals and make us proud in Melbourne. Coming from a long line of Dees supporters, their contribution to Casey is a matter of great pride.
I’ve said this before, but these restrictions and the pressures that they put on a community like Cranbourne are especially hard. A community built on shared optimism and a neighbourly spirit of endurance and friendliness, I acknowledge how such a reversal of our usual ways of life are a real and tangible sacrifice for many.
We are all so close to meeting our vaccination targets and finally getting back to what we do best. Measures like vaccinated economy trials in both metro and regional Melbourne and the return of education at least part time for all students are important steps towards a greater level of normal for all Victorians.
Last evening I participated in a round table chaired by the Victorian Multicultural Commission and I was delighted—but not really surprised—to see so many of our community leaders. I would like to especially pay credit to Val Motta from the Italian senior citizens and Meha Nanthie from the Tamil senior citizens for their particular generosity in ensuring the communities they care for are best able to access the information they need.
The hard work of Victorians and my own community of Cranbourne is paying off. As it did when we got ourselves out of lockdown last year and earlier this year. It doesn’t go unnoticed and the impacts show in the events of the near future.
COVID-19
Ms CUPPER (Mildura)
I wish to update you all on the great work that’s happening on the ground here in Mildura to contain our COVID-19 outbreak.
Significant public health measures have been taken by our industry leaders to increase surge capacity and get people tested and vaccinated.
Mildura Base Public Hospital is going above and beyond to adjust to the complexities of the outbreak and remain open to the community.
Barratt & Smith, Sunraysia Community Health Services, Mallee District Aboriginal Services, Sunraysia Mallee Ethnic Communities Council, Robinvale District Health Services, Murray Valley Aboriginal Co-operative and Mallee Track Health and Community Service have been leading the testing and vaccination efforts.
In Underbool and Murrayville, the Mallee Track Health and Community Service meantime is hosting vaccine clinics this week.
Our local chemists and GPs are providing another opportunity for people to come forward for a vaccine.
And a new pop-up hub will also come online this Saturday at Chaffey Secondary College, run by Silverline Health Care.
In short, there’s plenty of opportunities to get tested and to get vaccinated.
Support services are also putting in their all to attend to those who’ve tested positive to COVID-19.
The likes of council, MDAS and SMECC have continued their critical services, providing vital outreach support for those in quarantine, including emergency food relief.
All services have received overarching support from the Department of Health and the state government, particularly Minister Martin Foley and his team, whose focus and responsiveness have been exceptional.
Lastly, I wanted to say a huge thankyou to Jeroen Weimar for taking the time to visit and support our community during this recent lockdown, particularly through an online forum.
Mildura has recorded the highest first-dose vaccination rate in Victoria in the last week, and our weekly second-dose vaccination rate is the highest it has ever been.
We are determined to get on top of this outbreak and come out the other side united and strong.
Mental health services
Ms COUZENS (Geelong)
The Victorian government is making sure all Victorians experiencing mental health concerns can get the specialised support they need having accepted all the recommendations resulting from the royal commission into mental health.
As the member for Geelong, I am very proud that we are beginning to see significant work underway to address mental health issues in the Geelong community.
I want to thank and acknowledge the work of the Minister for Mental Health and his determination to implement the royal commission’s recommendations.
The building of the new Geelong acute mental health facility is now underway and will soon be providing the much-needed beds.
We are doing the work to build a reformed mental health and wellbeing system centred around community, giving people access to the support they need, when they need it, close to home.
Expressions of interest are now open for chairs of the eight new mental health and wellbeing interim regional bodies to be established across the state.
The interim regional bodies were a key recommendation of the Royal Commission into Victoria’s Mental Health System.
These interim regional bodies will give a voice to local communities—bringing together people with local knowledge and expertise to advise and guide government on the unique mental health and wellbeing needs of communities across the state.
Every government secondary student in Victoria can now access vital mental health support at school with the rollout of mental health practitioners to every Victorian government secondary and specialist school now complete.
The rollout of the $51.2 million mental health practitioners initiative will be finalised by term 4—a year earlier than originally committed to in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
The support will enable schools to employ a practitioner for up to five days a week with more than 250 suitably qualified and registered mental health practitioners already working across the state’s secondary schools.
I am proud to be a part of the Andrews government that is getting on with delivering what we have promised.
COVID-19 vaccinations
Mr BLACKWOOD (Narracan)
There is an enormous amount of anxiety and concern in my community among frontline health workers, paramedics, construction workers and teachers who are faced with a decision that could ultimately cost them their jobs.
I have been fully vaccinated and encourage people to get vaccinated because at the moment this is the only option the Andrews government is deploying for getting our state back to some sort of normal.
However, I cannot stand by and watch so many of our qualified, dedicated and highly professional health workers, educators and builders lose their jobs.
In the case of the health, education and construction unions, they all need to stand up and start representing their members like good unions do. Put their members first not the demands of a power-hungry Premier.
The stories I have heard about the ambulance union’s attitude to any member that expresses concern about AstraZeneca or Pfizer is an absolute disgrace.
No-one is listening to the concerns of the paramedics, no-one is putting options to the Premier on their behalf.
Instead of kowtowing to the Premier, what about insisting on rapid testing as an option to vaccination.
The Premier must adopt rapid testing instead of being divisive, picking winners and leaving our critical health, education and construction industries with massive worker shortages that will completely compromise the safety of Victorians and destroy the lives and livelihoods of those stood down.
Speaker, there are many young parents working in these industries. They have a mortgage, education expenses and bills to pay just like any family but they are being stood down because their right to choose not to be vaccinated is being trampled by the Andrews government.
The Premier has an option that can uphold their right to choose, keep them in the critical occupations where they are desperately needed and relieve the potential for serious damage to mental health. He must introduce rapid testing immediately.
Mental Health services
Mr HALSE (Ringwood)
October is Mental Health Month. It’s fair to say that most of us are feeling some kind of mental health pressures. Victorians need extra support in managing our mental wellbeing and the Andrews government is not wasting a moment responding to increased demand.
Just recently, Ringwood welcomed a community mental health pop-up clinic which delivers a mix of in-person appointments, telehealth and walk-in sessions. This clinic is made possible by a $22 million investment from the Andrews government.
This investment builds on top of the $225 million that we have already provided to help our mental health system reach more people, more quickly during this pandemic.
Big Housing Build
Mr HALSE (Ringwood)
Sunday, 10 October, was World Homeless Day. Here in Victoria, our government understands building more social housing can and will make a real difference in the lives of some of the most vulnerable people in our community.
We know older women are experiencing increasing levels of homelessness, often as a result of family violence. That’s why the Andrews government provided $2.3 million to support the construction of the Marrageil Baggarrool crisis accommodation facility in Mitcham, which we opened in May.
The $5.3 billion Big Housing Build is also coming to the east. By the end of the year construction will start to build more than 230 new social housing units across Maroondah and Whitehorse. In Mitcham alone we will build 62 new homes through a $20 million investment.
Of course there is more work to be done. But we are getting on the job to provide a secure and safe home for those who need it the most.
COVID-19 vaccinations
Mr TAK (Clarinda)
Thank you to everyone in the Clarinda electorate that continues to come forward to get vaccinated.
I’m extremely proud of the way in which our community has responded to the call for vaccinations, and to the challenges of the pandemic more broadly.
As we know, vaccinations are our ticket out and our ticket back to everything we love and miss.
As of Thursday, 7 October 2021, first dose vaccinations for Clarinda district postcodes were as follows:
3168 Clayton and Notting Hill, 65 per cent–70 per cent
3202 Heatherton, 70 per cent–75 per cent
3169 Clayton South and Clarinda, 75 per cent–80 per cent
3167 Oakleigh South, 80 per cent–85 per cent
3192 Cheltenham, 80 per cent–85 per cent
3165 Bentleigh East, 85 per cent–90 per cent
3171 Springvale, 85 per cent–90 per cent
3172 Dingley Village and Springvale South, 85 per cent–90 per cent
What an amazing effort!
As announced earlier this week, with commonwealth vaccine supply now assured and young Victorians setting an incredible pace getting vaccinated, mRNA vaccines Pfizer and Moderna will be available to people of any age through state-run vaccination centres, not just those under 60.
Further, all Victorians can also walk up without a booking to receive the Moderna mRNA vaccine at many state-run vaccination centres, which includes Sandown Racecourse.
So make a booking or walk in today.
Thank you, Clarinda.
Gerard Stevenson and Vince Pirrottina
Ms THEOPHANOUS (Northcote)
Speaker, today I would like to pay tribute to two extraordinary locals who have recently sadly passed away—Gerard Stevenson and Vince Pirrottina.
It was only a couple of short weeks ago that I met with Gerard to hear about an incredible project he was spearheading with Global Gardens of Peace and award-winning landscape architect Andrew Laidlaw, to create a food forest garden for the residents of VASS in Thornbury.
VASS is a specialist residential facility in Thornbury that supports people who rely on a ventilator to breathe.
A resident of VASS himself, Gerard wanted to create a unique space that would be a source of fresh food and connection to nature—lifting the spirits and supporting the wellbeing of residents, staff and visitors.
Gerard sadly passed before his vision could be brought to fruition. But I know that everyone involved remains committed to the project.
While Gerard may never be able to sit quietly and relax with his family in the garden as he dreamed, his visions, passion and dedication will leave a legacy that will change the lives of VASS residents for decades to come.
Sadly, VASS has lost another member of their close community in the passing of Vince Pirrottina.
Vince was a powerhouse of a man. Those who knew him speak of a man who was gentle, passionate and generous in sharing his knowledge and lived experience. When he spoke, people stopped to listen.
A long-time member of the consumer steering committee at VASS and the Darebin Disability Advisory Committee—Vince has been a leading voice for self-advocacy, contributing to a legacy of tangible change for so many locals living with a disability.
He was also a strong advocate for accessible transport through his roles on the All Aboard network and LINK Community Transport.
This is not to mention his valuable contributions as a community representative on the medical and emergency clinical services—quality safety and risk committee at Austin Hospital and as an advocate for muscular dystrophy awareness, just to name a few.
His life and legacy has been defined by serving others, and a true unwavering commitment to fairness, equality and justice.
My thoughts are with everyone who knew, loved and have been inspired by these two incredible men—I know they will be sorely missed in our community.
Reflecting on the lives of these two men, I am reminded of the saying ‘No-one is actually gone until the ripples they cause in the world die away’.
Achieving real change is slow, difficult work—but the results, and the lives changed, endure.
Vale, Gerard and Vince.
COVID-19 vaccinations
Mr EREN (Lara)
I rise to inform the house about some important work that has been happening in my electorate.
I am proud of the community I represent. The Lara electorate is home to a wonderful community of people, but unfortunately it is also home to serious disadvantage.
Suburbs such as Corio and Norlane have some of the highest levels of disadvantage across the state.
And unfortunately last week’s health data showed us that just 40 to 45 per cent of people in these suburbs that are eligible for vaccination were fully vaccinated.
And only 75 to 80 per cent have had their first dose of vaccination.
This is unfortunately below the state-wide average and also below the Geelong average, which, for first does, is sitting at 93 per cent.
I would like to thank all those people who have gone out and got vaccinated or made an appointment to be vaccinated.
As a local member, I am working hard to hold online community vaccination information sessions.
One of these was a CALD community COVID roundtable.
These sessions have been supported by the many different groups and I would like to thank the Minister for Multicultural Affairs, her staff and the wonderful Victorian Multicultural Affairs Commissioner; the Minister for Health and his staff along with the Department of Health for their fantastic work in facilitating these roundtables.
These roundtables were an excellent opportunity for key community leaders in my community to meet with the minister, VMC and Department of Health officials to discuss the latest public health information and vaccination strategy, as well as have any questions answered.
I also organised, and will continue to host, community information sessions with key leaders across different community groups in my electorate to discuss the latest public health information and vaccination strategy in smaller, targeted groups.
I would like to thank the team at Barwon Health for their support and expertise on this to date and I look forward to continuing these great engagement sessions.
Thank you to all who have attended these meetings. It’s great to hear firsthand from the community in regard to such an important topic and to ensure that up-to-date public health advice is shared firsthand by the experts.
Statements on parliamentary committee reports
Following speeches incorporated in accordance with resolution of house of 7 October:
Public Accounts and Estimates Committee
Inquiry into the Victorian Government’s Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic
Mr McCURDY (Ovens Valley)
I rise to contribute on the committee report. I want to speak today on the Inquiry into the Victorian Government’s Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic.
And while there has been much backslapping by the Victorian government on how well they have handled the pandemic, may I say that self-praise is no praise at all.
In fact if you ask around my communities they will assure you that the Victorian government’s response to the pandemic has been woeful. If we compare ourselves to other states in Australia, Victoria has been the ugly duckling not by a small margin, but absolutely streets ahead in the poor management of the pandemic. We know that over 800 people died as a result of the second wave, which was entirely due to the hotel quarantine disaster. History will show that the Premier who once said ‘the buck stops with me’ also said ‘I take full responsibility for everything that happens under my leadership’. Well, what a lie that has turned out to be.
With the hotel quarantine disaster, the Premier couldn’t recall anything of significance that would point the finger towards him. As for his senior ministers who couldn’t recall, they are simply covering their own backsides from the workplace manslaughter legislation that this very government introduced. What irony that this legislation that this government will use to fine and or jail companies and individuals into the future, has not been used effectively on their own people. This is double standards again. And during this week of all weeks with the IBAC corruption investigation into the government, the ministers of this government still hide behind the lack of recollection. The Coate inquiry was a kangaroo court. Nothing surer. A sitting judge (as opposed to a retired judge) would not have accepted the continual responses of ‘I can’t recall’; a sitting judge would have shown true leadership and found individuals guilty.
But the points I really want to cover in this report are ‘4. Victoria’s economic response’ and the more detailed ’4.2.3 Employment’. I have many employers contacting me regarding the mandatory vaccination rules coming in on Friday. One employer is losing seven out of eight staff because they refuse to bow to Premier Andrews’s demands of being vaccinated. This employer has no idea where she will find another seven employees to open next week. The Nationals have long said that we support mandatory vaccination in limited settings: healthcare workers, aged-care workers and patient-transfer workers. All other industries should be given the choice. The Nationals also support if you choose not to be vaccinated, you must be prepared to be tested far more regularly versus a double-vaccinated person will need.
So rapid antigen testing and regular testing would allow unvaccinated people access to their workplace. It gives people a choice—real choice. I am finding a great percentage of those not wanting to be vaccinated are not anti-vaxxers; they are simply sick and tired of this government telling everybody what they can do and when they can do it. Rapid tests and regular tests can solve this dilemma very easy. So as I conclude my remarks on this committee report, I want to place on record that Victoria used to be a place we could make choices. I have made the choice to be double vaccinated and I encourage all in our communities in the Ovens Valley to do the same. However we are entitled to choice and real choice, not a choice with a metaphoric gun to your head, ‘Get vaxxed or lose your job. Get vaxxed or you can’t go to the shopping centre’, so it’s time this government got back to delivering to Victorians what they continue to boast about but rarely deliver, and that is a community and a society that offers reasonable choices for all, not a one size fits all.
Public Accounts and Estimates Committee
Report on the 2020–21 Budget Estimates
Mr McGUIRE (Broadmeadows)
I refer to the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee’s inquiry into the 2020–21 budget estimates and the contribution from the Minister for Economic Development on how Victoria is trying to strengthen economic performance with a range of mechanisms.
Thinking globally and acting locally is crucial. I want to report to Parliament on initiatives to mitigate the existential threat of climate change and create opportunities vital for our environment and economy.
Timing and action are crucial to forge a global response to the climate emergency. World leaders will soon meet in Glasgow for the 2021 United Nations climate change conference, known as COP26. Every country is treaty-bound to ‘avoid dangerous climate change’ by reducing greenhouse gas emissions globally in an equitable way, under the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
Nations have committed to the legally binding goals of holding global temperature rises to ‘well below’ 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, while ‘pursuing efforts’ to limit heating to 1.5 degrees Celsius, under the landmark 2015 Paris treaty.
The Commonwealth Parliamentary Association’s Pacific region working group on climate change has elected me as the representative from Australia. We are preparing a report calling for climate change action now that will be incorporated in the COP26 deliberations.
I have advocated for an economic, social and environmental analysis of the cost of not acting urgently to address climate change and of the opportunities that can be created. I have also advocated for the Great Barrier Reef to be included as an endangered or threatened world heritage site because reefs are the climate change equivalent of the canary in the coalmine. The Great Barrier Reef is also emblematic of the threat to many of the commonwealth countries in the Pacific region. In a cruel twist of fate, many of these nations have contributed least to climate change but are most exposed to its consequences.
Proposals under consideration for the final report to COP26 concern:
• international agreements on carbon offsetting arrangements;
• natural resource inventory, including the opportunity cost of not acting;
• effect of COVID-19 on reducing greenhouse gases, particularly with travel restrictions;
• climate change refugees;
• promoting Indigenous knowledge in climate change action plans; and
• world heritage sites.
Australia is uniquely placed to create opportunities from adversity through the transition to clean energy. Victoria is leading Australia and stands tall among international climate leaders, including Germany and California. Locally, the Broadmeadows Revitalisation Board 4.0 that I chair has also coordinated a strategy for cleaner, greener, cheaper power and new green-collar jobs.
Locally based company Kingspan has commissioned an innovative approach to water management in Melbourne called the Greater Melbourne Alternative Water Plan which aims to deliver efficient services and employment growth. This is an Irish company that has relocated its headquarters to the suburb of Somerton. This environmentally attuned approach would help create local jobs for local people where they are needed most. The plan has been commissioned by Kingspan Environmental, an international building materials company providing rainwater tanks, wastewater systems and insulation materials in Australia. They also export, using the location in Somerton as their hub for the Asia-Pacific region, completing the local to global connection.
Public Accounts and Estimates Committee
Inquiry into the Victorian Government’s Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic
Mr T BULL (Gippsland East)
My statement on a committee report relates to the Inquiry into the Victorian Government’s Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic by the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee.
I refer to page xviii in the executive summary titled ‘Jobs and industry’ and the many references on this page to various business supports.
And it is business supports I wish to make some comments on and in particular business supports at the current time.
On Friday, 1 October, the Premier announced vaccination mandates will be introduced for authorised workers and industries noted on the Victorian state government’s authorised premises and workers list.
Understanding this mandate would be introduced by the CHO’s public health advice, this statement made waves across both the business sector and workers statewide. Questions remained unanswered beyond the promised ‘earlier next week’ direction release date, leaving employers without any legal framework to inform their employees of the upcoming vaccination mandates.
I want to understand why the government did not, nor have yet, provided clear guidance, instruction, training or education for business owners so that they can understand their legal obligations surrounding the COVID-19 Mandatory Vaccination (Workers) Directions.
Having declared advance intentions to introduce this mandate, why was there not a resource made available to businesses, to advise on how to have this conversation with their employees—and similarly information for employees.
Instead, we have businesses being threatened by employers with litigation, questioning the legality of this direction with advice from Fair Work. There are discrimination and workplace coercion accusations (from employees), testing what was typically an amicable or otherwise perfectly respectful working environment.
Countless employers and employees have contacted my electorate office seeking guidance—confused and scared about their legal obligations. On one hand they will be hit with a hefty fine by the state government if the business does not enforce these mandates, and on the other hand they are being threatened with legal action by employees should they enforce the vaccination mandate.
And it is all because this government has done nothing to clarify the situation to both parties.
I understand the vaccination uptake continues to make positive steps towards the required benchmarks, and many employees are already vaccinated and on their way towards becoming fully vaccinated.
However, in the situations where the employee is not prepared to get vaccinated, where is the support for employers having these difficult conversations with employees, many whom are like family?
Why was there no template released by Business Victoria to support effective communication and information to inform employers and employees of the vaccine requirement?
Why was there no FAQs or explainers uploaded to Business Victoria in preparation to support the influx of questions surrounding the Premier’s announcement?
Employees are questioning the legality of this mandate to continue their employment on site. Where is the information that supports or refutes this claim? There is none.
Bosses are being yelled at (and worse) but remain in the dark about what to do in these challenging situations. Where do they go? Who can they speak to, to get sound advice that isn’t going to cost the earth?
I ask that sound support is extended to business owners and employees. They aren’t lawyers, nor do they have the expendable income to cover costs of seeking out their own legal advice. Government must provide this, as it is government that has introduced it.
Owners can’t continue to roll with these punches. Small business can no longer be the punching bag of the Andrews Labor government.
Public Accounts and Estimates Committee
Report on the 2021–22 Budget Estimates
Inquiry into the Victorian Government’s Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic
Ms KEALY (Lowan)
I refer to the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee’s Report on the 2021–22 Budget Estimates.
In respect of internet coverage in my region, I specifically refer to page 143 which references the Digital Future Now initiative.
Internet coverage in Pomonal and Halls Gap remains extremely limiting for local residents and people trying to run a business, complete their education, connect with friends and family or even complete online banking and access other essential services online.
It is especially frustrating for business owners who are trying to provide great support and services to their community and visitors to the region. Halls Gap and Pomonal heavily rely on access to a strong tourism market to support the reputation of the region as a great tourist experience. It’s really easy to get a bad review because the internet has dropped out again. People can’t access their accommodation booking system to find check-in details—even limitations on the ability of people to do their QR code check in or pay their bill using EFTPOS. It’s not fair for these businesses to be judged and their reputation damaged because there isn’t reliable access to the internet—something completely beyond their control and that is now deemed an essential service for the community.
Lack of access to the internet also limits my region’s ability to promote our region. We all know how popular and powerful social media can be to influence others, but lack of access to a reliable internet service means that people can’t share those Insta-worthy images of selfies with a gorgeous Grampians backdrop to their followers. This impacts on the wider community’s understanding of the significant natural beauty of our region, and on how we tell the story in pictures of why the Grampians should be their next holiday destination.
To be clear, this isn’t just about better mobile internet access, although it is appalling and more towers should be built. But it’s also about the capacity of the fixed infrastructure in the local Telstra exchange, where only ADSL is available, and I’m told the old copper wire system and aged technology often results in connections being regularly ‘booted’ and needing to be manually reset by Telstra technicians on site. This is not only an expensive way to manage and maintain our infrastructure, but it is incredibly time consuming and frustrating for business owners who are trying their best to just run their business and provide the best possible experience for their guests and customers. Days with no internet access can cripple a business. It simply isn’t fair that this region has been left behind while other regions have access to multiple options to access high-speed NBN connections.
I urge the Andrews Labor government to prioritise funding to establish better internet connections to support the local Halls Gap and Pomonal communities, and particularly the businesses operating in this region.
On a separate matter, I refer to the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee’s Inquiry into the Victorian Government’s Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic tabled in February 2021.
Chapter 5 of this report goes into detail on the economic response to COVID-19 restrictions, which have had a devastating impact on our mental health, education of our children, and many businesses across Victoria.
At present our region is still partially locked down. Hospitality caps remain for just 10 customers indoors and 20 outdoors, even for large venues and those with expansive outdoor grounds. Matt and Mary-Ann Humphries of the Halls Gap Hotel have been extremely limited in their ability to support the full return of visitors to the region. They have a beautiful and expansive indoor and outdoor area that could serve hundreds of patrons safely when applying previously imposed rules regarding distancing and maximum density, but they are limited to the standard 10 inside and 20 outside rule applicable to much smaller hospitality venues. It is baffling to them why these caps have been imposed as there simply isn’t any health advice that’s been released that justifies why there has been a shift from density quotients to standard caps which don’t take the size of the venue or number of discrete areas of a venue into account.
In the absence of any supporting health advice, The Nationals are calling for these caps to be scrapped immediately, so our hospitality venues can get their doors reopened and ensure that their business is viable, while operating safely and taking other measures to help minimise the spread of COVID-19.
This is especially important in our region as our vaccination rates are extremely high. This is something we are proud of, but also should get some reward for. We need to open up and get back to business as usual at some stage, but the government’s response has been too slow and does not take the localised environment into account. We need the caps to be lifted as soon as possible to support our businesses to do what they do best and support their local community, support local jobs and the local economy and get back to business.
Schools also must go back immediately—all year levels, every day—and not on a part-time basis, and with no masks for children under 12. Our kids have already lost far too much time out of the classroom, away from the regular routines, their mates and the things they love to do to keep their minds and bodies active. Our region hasn’t had a local case for over a year. We have high vaccination rates, and yet our kids still can’t go back to school on a full-time basis.
The Murdoch Children’s Research Institute has done an enormous amount of research into the impacts of COVID on children and the impact of reducing access to classroom-based learning through school closures. It is all worth reading as it provides specific health advice that our government should be adopting to inform decisions around their restriction regime and promoted so that parents and educators are well aware of the minimal risk of children having lasting health impacts of COVID beyond two months, that symptoms are less severe, and that cases of COVID in children is more reflective of COVID cases in the wider community than schools being environments that are causative of wider spread of COVID into the community. They also highlight that the impact of school closures on vulnerable children will have greater impact.
This is important, and why even the World Health Organization states:
Based on the best available data, COVID-19 appears to have a limited direct burden on children’s health, accounting for about 8.5% of reported cases globally, and very few deaths (see the box Research on COVID-19 in children and in schools on page 8). In contrast, school closures have clear negative impacts on child health, education and development, family income and the overall economy.
So I urge the government to listen to the health advice and get all our kids back to school on a full-time basis as soon as possible. Our kids have already missed out on so much, we can’t afford for them to miss another day.
I would also like to raise a matter in relation to waste and recycling, which is mentioned on page 110 of the PAEC Report on the 2021–22 Budget Estimates mentioned earlier.
Currently the government is reviewing the recycling management framework for Victoria, including consideration to segmenting Victoria into metropolitan regions for recycling collection and management contracts. Regional Victoria would be then added to the metropolitan region. This presents a significant problem for country-based waste management companies seeking to continue to provide recycling waste management in regional Victoria but having no interest in tendering for metropolitan contracts. It also means that rural and regional Victoria is likely to have significantly reduced access to recycling, simply because the metropolitan waste management providers will do their numbers based on condensed waste pick up in high-density areas, rather than making consideration to collection of waste in dispersed populations, or from communities that are hundreds of kilometres away from their processing centre in Melbourne.
We need a localised approach and not simply push our smaller but equally important waste management companies in country Victoria out of competing for local waste management opportunities and out of business. I ask the minister to meet with waste management companies based in regional Victoria to ensure that the best possible framework is implemented, that supports and includes local businesses who are proven to manage waste well, and to ensure the final ‘cut up’ of Victoria allows regional Victoria waste management to be treated as a separate entity to metropolitan regions.
Constituency questions
Following questions incorporated in accordance with resolution of house of 7 October:
Eildon electorate
Ms McLEISH (Eildon) (6066)
My question is to the Minister for Environment and Climate Change which I ask on behalf of the Community Economic Development Association (CEDA) in Warburton.
The Upper Yarra is no different to other parts of Victoria where the businesses and prosperity of the region have taken a huge hit. Being a very popular tourist destination, CEDA knows too well that the easing of restrictions will see a huge and welcome influx of tourists to the area.
What is troubling, though, is the condition of several key facilities which are not in a fit state to handle this inevitable situation.
CEDA fears that these facilities, which should have been repaired when there were no visitors, will have to be closed as the visitors return.
Will the minister ensure that the stunning redwood bridge in Warburton is fully repaired and functional, the damaged trestle bridge on the O’Shannassy Aqueduct Trail is repaired and fallen trees removed, and the works at the Cement Creek Redwood Forest, including installation of promised toilets, are completed so visitors have a great experience, there is minimal disruption and risks to the public are minimised?
Thomastown electorate
Ms HALFPENNY (Thomastown) (6067)
Residents of Thomastown are very interested to find out when the missing link of Edgars Road will be completed by Development Victoria. It is a very important road, urgently needed to allow residents to move around the area and better access services and facilities. My question to the Minister for Transport Infrastructure is: when will Development Victoria advise residents that this missing link of road is under construction?
Euroa electorate
Ms RYAN (Euroa) (6068)
My constituency question is to the Minister for Public Transport.
Why has the government broken its promise to north-east passengers to deliver the first of the six new VLocity trains on track and taking passengers in the second half of 2021?
The long-awaited VLocity trains between Albury and Melbourne reached an exciting milestone last month, when they were spotted on the tracks for testing in line with the Australian Rail Track Corporation and national rail safety regulator requirements. However, with testing expected to take several months, north-east commuters are frustrated that they will not be able to travel on the trains, as promised, before 2022.
The state government has repeatedly claimed that the only thing holding up the delivery of these new trains was the federal government’s $235 million track upgrade—an upgrade which was completed back in March.
The Department of Transport also promised commuters in a flyer dated April 2021 that the first of the six trains would start ‘taking passengers in the second half of 2021 following the completion of the north-east line upgrade’.
The Premier, the Minister for Transport Infrastructure and a member for Northern Victoria are all on the record stating that the trains would be operational after track works were completed.
The government must provide north-east commuters with the exact date trains will be on tracks and in service.
Sunbury electorate
Mr J BULL (Sunbury) (6069)
My question is for the Minister for Education.
Minister, what is the latest information on planning and design for the $10.5 million investment in Sunbury West Primary School in my electorate?
The Andrews Labor government invests in education in record amounts, and I am absolutely delighted that since we came to office this government has made massive and significant investments in local schools within my electorate.
We are of course delivering on our commitment to make Victoria the Education State, and over the past years we have indeed made those huge investments at local schools.
I was absolutely delighted last year to join staff and students online to make this announcement—which was hugely popular.
Once again I ask the minister for the latest information on planning and design for this much-needed upgrade.
Evelyn electorate
Ms VALLENCE (Evelyn) (6070)
My question is to the Premier on behalf of residents in my community who own and operate gyms, fitness centres and dance studios, or are members of a gym, fitness centre or dance studio. Given Victoria is expected to reach 70 per cent COVID-19 vaccination on or around 25 October 2021, and there has been little or no community transmission of COVID-19 in gyms or dance studios, will you revise Victoria’s road map to permit gyms, fitness centres and dance studios to reopen indoor facilities and conduct training sessions under a density quotient of one person per 4 square metres once the Victorian community has reached 70 per cent double vaccination?
It makes no sense that the Andrews government’s current road map restricts gyms to only outdoor training at 70 per cent double vaccination. Not only is this unviable for these businesses, but gyms in NSW are already open and operating since surpassing 70 per cent double vaccination.
Gyms, fitness centres and dance studios have been forced to shut by the Andrews government for a whopping 350 days, which has been devastating for these small businesses and jobs and has diminished the ability for local residents to maintain their physical and mental health.
Permitting gyms, fitness centres and dance studios to reopen safely and conduct indoor training sessions will support thousands of jobs in the fitness industry and allow people the vital opportunity to recover and rebuild their physical and mental wellbeing.
Bass electorate
Ms CRUGNALE (Bass) (6071)
My question is to the Minister for Tourism, Sport and Major Events about state government support to encourage visitors to come and stay in the Bass Coast.
I am very appreciative of the minister’s continued support for our local businesses and tourism and nature-based attraction operators that have had their livelihoods impacted by the COVID pandemic and the work done to support our local economy, the most reliant on the visitor economy in Victoria.
In 2019 we had 2.7 million visitors come to immerse themselves in nature and revel in all things local, from produce, wine and whales to music, adventure sports and a myriad of major events.
These visitors to the Bass Coast spent around $578 million. Tourism accounted for around 4500 direct jobs and supported 1400 indirect jobs totalling 46.8 per cent of the region’s employment.
This sector has been very hard hit also by the cessation of international travel, closure of state borders and our much-loved Melbourne community unable to travel at this time. As the minister well knows, the regional travel vouchers were a great local economy boost and Bass Coast was in the top three of locations visited.
We want to bounce back, take pride in where we live, our offerings and our welcoming hospitality and once again wrap our collective arms around everyone.
My question is: what is the latest information on how the Victorian government is supporting Bass Coast tourism and encouraging visitors to come to enjoy all we have to offer?
Morwell electorate
Mr NORTHE (Morwell) (6072)
My constituency question is directed to the Minister for Planning. Minister, what is the latest information with regard to the former Budgeree School being listed as of heritage significance? By way of background, the Budgeree School was moved to its current site in 1908 from Yinnar. The building was over 30 years old, which makes the school a rare example of a pre-1873 Victorian schoolhouse. The Budgeree School has not been extended, changed or renovated in all that time. The school sits next to the Budgeree Hall (1910) and the schoolteacher’s residence (1913).
In terms of the former school, the education department put the school up for private sale in 1993. The Budgeree Hall committee, who manages many local meetings and events in the neighbouring Budgeree Hall, at the time managed to stop the sale, and subsequently the Budgeree community together with the Shire of Morwell, now Latrobe City Council, purchased the property.
Fast forward to recent years, and an application to list the school with Heritage Victoria was submitted by the local community in May 2016. As I understand, no decision has been made with regard to this request and it’s fair to say the Budgeree and wider community are fearful of what the future holds for this iconic building. In that time Latrobe City Council had proposed to sell the land in 2018, but given strong community sentiment this proposal was abandoned. However, just last week and without warning a cyclone fence was erected around the school, with council deeming the building unsafe. Minister, the former Budgeree School has great significance for our local community and for Victorians. The Budgeree community want to see this iconic building listed with Heritage Victoria, and subsequently be adequately funded to repair and restore the school so current and future generations are able to learn, view and enjoy.
Broadmeadows electorate
Mr McGUIRE (Broadmeadows) (6073)
My question is to the Minister for Ambulance Services. How will Ambulance Victoria’s new medium acuity transport service benefit the electorate of Broadmeadows?
Just recently, a new medium acuity transport service hit the road helping Victorians and providing critical care when they need it most.
The new service is providing world-class care for code 2 and 3 patients with 22 vehicles and 165 dedicated staff, freeing valuable resources to respond to the most urgent and time-critical emergency cases.
The service is also partnering new paramedic recruits with experienced paramedics, providing an opportunity for senior paramedics to impart valuable knowledge gained through years of experience to their new colleagues. This initiative not only creates new jobs but creates new pathways for experienced staff whose vital skills may otherwise have been lost to the workforce.
Up to 15 new crews are operating each day covering the Hume, Casey, Greater Dandenong, Knox, Kingston, Maroondah, Mornington Peninsula and Wyndham LGAs.
The new medium acuity transport service is the first stage of a $266 million government investment in the Victorian budget 2021–22 to improve patient care and drive down response times.
An additional $204 million investment is bolstering Ambulance Victoria’s resources through programs like telehealth, and will deliver ongoing operational improvements across the state.
Harnessing these investments where they are needed most is even more critical in a time of pandemic and would add value to the upgrade of the Broadmeadows Hospital. Such an investment would relieve pressure on the Northern Hospital, already under the highest number of emergency attendances and ambulance drop-offs in Victoria before the pandemic, making it essential now.
Forest Hill electorate
Mr ANGUS (Forest Hill) (6074)
My constituency question is to the Minister for Health.
Minister, why is the Victorian government pushing for children to be given the provisionally approved COVID-19 vaccinations when there is virtually no risk to children from COVID-19?
Several constituents have raised with me their serious concerns regarding the government’s increasing push to have children vaccinated with the COVID-19 provisionally approved vaccination. They have noted that their very clear evidence-based understanding is that children are indeed at an extremely low risk of becoming ill with COVID-19.
I have raised this issue with a range of medical practitioners to seek their informed and expert opinion. They have advised me that the risk to a typically healthy child of contracting COVID-19 is extremely low. Extensive international statistics would appear to totally support this view. In their expert opinions, they would in no way advocate for otherwise healthy children to be given the provisionally approved COVID-19 vaccination. Consequently, the next obvious questions are: where is the health advice to support the government’s enthusiastic approach to getting children vaccinated and why won’t the government release this advice?
Numbers of constituents have contacted my office to express their extreme dismay that their children are about to lose their part-time jobs at various employers due to the imminent deadline for authorised workers to be vaccinated. This has placed these children as well as their parents under enormous stress, arguably for no real reason.
Minister, I note that one of the most important responsibilities of any government is to help protect its citizens. Thus I look forward to receiving your answer so I can convey this to my constituents and others who have contacted me about this developing element of the government’s approach to COVID-19 in Victoria.
Cranbourne electorate
Ms RICHARDS (Cranbourne) (6075)
My question is for the Minister for Transport Infrastructure, and it concerns the ongoing Narre Warren-Cranbourne Road upgrades. What are the safety benefits of the ongoing Narre Warren-Cranbourne Road upgrades to the South Gippsland Highway and Cranbourne town centre?
The road upgrades are planned to improve travel through Cranbourne, making it safer to drive, walk or bike through these intersections. As my constituents are well aware, getting onto the South Gippsland Highway can be quite a lengthy, time-consuming process. It can also get pretty dangerous as there are no safety barriers and no concern for pedestrians or cyclists. Upgrading these roads will mean much safer, accessible travel options for anyone travelling in Cranbourne—and will significantly reduce road accidents and the time needed for essential travel.
The Andrews Labor government is committed to improving roads in the south-east, and as part of the Narre Warren-Cranbourne Road upgrade we will be adding extra lanes, installing traffic lights along the highway, installing and upgrading new intersections at Kingdom Drive, Linsell Boulevard and Rochester Parade, building shared walking and cycling paths and installing safety barriers along the road.
The current Narre Warren-Cranbourne Road upgrades will improve traffic flow and travel time, reduce traffic on the South Gippsland Highway, improve access around the Cranbourne town centre, make it easier to walk and cycle around the local area and lower the risk and severity of crashes, making our community a lot safer and more accessible.
These upgrades will mean a whole lot to my constituents, and we are eagerly waiting for its completion.
What are the further safety benefits to the South Gippsland Highway and Cranbourne town centre?
Adjournment
Following matters incorporated in accordance with resolution of house of 7 October:
COVID-19
Mr SOUTHWICK (Caulfield) (6077)
My adjournment is to the Premier and the action that I seek is for the Premier to apply the Andrews Labor government’s road map out of lockdown equally and fairly across all businesses and events.
Since the COVID pandemic hit, event operators have disproportionately felt the economic impacts and the uncertainty—while having often been excluded from critical financial support. Victoria’s events industry employs about 70 000 people, runs more than 12 000 events a year, and contributes over $12 billion a year to the economy. These events range from local festivals and weddings to major events such as the Australian Open and Melbourne Cup.
I recently heard from constituent Hallely Kimchi, the coordinator of community organisation Habayit in my electorate of Caulfield, which has planned to hold a community concert for the Israeli-Jewish community at Memo Music Hall on 30 October. This concert has already been rescheduled three times.
Hallely Kimchi is seeking to have the same rules applied for her community concert on 30 October—with the 150 people downstairs and 50 upstairs capacity limits—as one planned on the same day at the Sidney Myer Music Bowl, and promoted by the Victorian government, hosting thousands of people.
The Israeli-Jewish community is eagerly awaiting this event, particularly given the enormous cost and effort involved in planning, organising, hosting—and rescheduling—this concert.
All event organisers, whether small or large, community or national, require certainty and consistency—not last-minute shifts in goalposts that serve only to create confusion.
Premier, the government must apply its own rules fairly and equally to all and not choose winners and losers—particularly when the losers always seem to be local communities and small business, who have already sacrificed so much.
Jobs Victoria
Ms SETTLE (Buninyong) (6078)
• My adjournment matter is for the Minister for Employment, Minister for Innovation, Medical Research and the Digital Economy, Minister for Small Business, Jaala Pulford.
• Jobs Victoria does an amazing job of helping people find work.
• A 600-strong force of advocates, mentors and career counsellors have been employed by Jobs Victoria to help Victorians find work.
• This $260 million employment service has been established as part of the $619 million Jobs for Victoria initiative.
• Victorians looking for a new job or a career change can now access free advice and support from advocates, mentors and career counsellors, ensuring no Victorian is left behind in the search for work.
• Mentors help people find a job that suits them and support them in their role for the first six months.
• Advocates will be out in communities throughout Victoria connecting people with the services that are right for them.
• And career counsellors help people understand their career options and goals.
• The action I seek is for the minister to provide an update as to how many Jobs Victoria advocates, mentors and career counsellors are working in the Ballarat, Moorabool and Golden Plains local government areas.
Gippsland rail line
Mr D O’BRIEN (Gippsland South) (6079)
My adjournment matter is to the Minister for Transport Infrastructure.
The action I seek is for the government to investigate the options for and feasibility of a dedicated line for Gippsland trains through Melbourne’s south-east through to the city.
The minister has had a lot to say recently about additional platforms at Pakenham as part of level crossing removal works and about the alleged benefits of the Suburban Rail Loop for Gippsland passengers. However, these projects do not address the fundamental issue affecting reliable and punctual performance of Gippsland trains.
That is, the propensity for our trains to get stuck behind a Metro service once they hit Pakenham and crawl all the way into the city.
This issue is not new and the government has known about it for years. I fear the government’s ultimate aim is to terminate Gippsland trains at Pakenham or Clayton and force Gippslanders onto the Metro system, rather than actually address the root cause of the problem.
I do not suggest what the solution should be, and I’m sure that additional dual tracks all the way from Pakenham to the city are unlikely, but we need some solution, which may be a combination of passing loops, tunnels or improved signalling.
Geelong, Ballarat and Bendigo have dedicated lines through Melbourne’s west. Why isn’t the government delivering the same for Gippsland passengers?
At the very least, the government should be investigating the options before Gippsland is consigned to a permanent second-rate train service.
Bass electorate schools
Ms CRUGNALE (Bass) (6080)
My adjournment matter is for the Minister for Education, and the action I seek is that the minister provide me an update on the works at Pakenham Consolidated School, Koo Wee Rup Primary School and Koo Wee Rup Secondary College in my electorate of Bass.
Our community is growing and it is no surprise our Andrews Labor government has invested significantly in schools across our region—from modernising and upgrades to the actual building of brand new primary and secondary colleges. We have excellent schools led by inspirational principals, with dedicated teachers and support staff as well as wonderful active and community-spirited students eager to learn, be challenged and be their best.
The minister will well know the joy from the Pakenham Consolidated community when we announced they would receive $10 million to upgrade and modernise the school, which includes the creation of a dedicated space for the HOP (Hands on Learning program) and upgrading the junior amenities block.
This 2021 budget saw Koo Wee Rup Primary reach for the stars with their $6.87 million allocation for a new competition-grade gymnasium for community use as well.
Koo Wee Rup Secondary have been very active in participating in the Head Start program as well as supporting students’ mental health and wellbeing through their employment of a dedicated professional. This is an opportunity to hear more and thank the school for all they are doing in this space to keep their students connected and supported. The school has also completed several building upgrades over this term through various programs including our Shared Facilities Fund and Minor Capital Works Fund.
I am proud of our government’s investment, and I look forward to hearing from the Minister for Education on an update on the works at these three fantastic schools.
Brighton Secondary College
Mr NEWBURY (Brighton) (6081)
My adjournment is to the Minister for Education, and the action I seek is for the state Labor government to commit to funding a purpose-built performing arts and culture centre at Brighton Secondary College, in Brighton East.
Brighton Secondary has served the Bayside community for almost 70 years. The school was established in 1955 and currently educates 1200 students. Not only does the school serve local students but it also has a renowned international student program. Brighton Secondary is both inclusive and it is comprehensive.
Currently, there are no modern performing arts spaces for community use in the area. As the school has identified, existing facilities and buildings are old, dating back to the early and mid-20th century. Existing offerings are well out of date with current community needs or expectations.
The school has a vision to solve this problem. Their vision is to build a modern, purpose-built performing arts and culture centre. The centre will be a hub of learning, culture and celebration both for students at the school and for the broader community.
The proposed purpose-built performing arts and cultural centre will include the following: 1400 tiered theatre seats, a stage, curtains, lighting, with theatre-style acoustics and audiovisual facilities; music tutorial rooms with equipment and storage facilities to support; and an accompanying infrastructure foyer area and kitchen facilities.
For the broader community, a performing arts and culture centre will enrich Bayside culture. The school believes a centre will open opportunities for group theatre, dance performances, cinema, guest speakers and lectures, primary school graduations, local school productions, seniors’ events, awards ceremonies, seasonal events and presentations. We in Bayside can see how much these events would enhance our rich cultural tapestry.
Minister, Brighton Secondary has always had to fight for support from the Labor Party. After years of community advocacy, and a Liberal commitment to upgrade the school a decade ago, Labor matched our commitment to fund the Julie Podbury David Marshall Building—a building that was finally completed and opened in August 2019.
The upgrade is a testament to former principal Julie Podbury, former school president David Marshall, and two key advocates, the former member for Brighton, Louise Asher, and now passed Brighton community champion Willis Parton.
Minster, it’s time for Labor to set aside the politics and do the right thing for the Bayside community. Brighton Secondary College’s proposed performing arts and cultural centre will not only benefit the students who attend the school but be an important cultural community space.
I call on the minister to step up and invest in the vision of Brighton Secondary College, a vision which will greatly benefit the broader Bayside community.
TAFE funding
Mr MAAS (Narre Warren South) (6082)
The matter I wish to raise is for the attention of the Minister for Training and Skills regarding the free TAFE program. The action I seek is that the minister provide any information on the expansion of courses provided under free TAFE which will assist my constituents in Narre Warren South.
The Andrews Labor government recognises the importance of education and has been rebuilding TAFE, refurbishing campuses, and supporting disadvantaged students.
The free TAFE initiative has been an incredibly successful program, with enrolments up 83 per cent in January 2021 compared to a year earlier. This builds on the high enrolment numbers since the initiative began in 2019.
People looking to upskill, reskill or pursue a new career are turning to free TAFE as another pathway to employment.
Chisholm Institute has been providing courses locally in areas such as education support, accounting, mental health, nursing, and plumbing.
When it comes to providing a strong and stable future for families, tertiary skills and training are essential for boosting employability, earning potential, self-belief and confidence.
I welcome any further investment and expansion of free TAFE courses that help priority industries gain new workers, reduce barriers to education and help people to get a job.
I would appreciate any further information that the minister could provide on how the expansion of free TAFE courses will benefit my constituents. I look forward to sharing the minister’s response with my community.
Local council swimming pool emissions reduction
Dr READ (Brunswick) (6083)
My adjournment matter is for the Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change. The action I seek is for the state government to provide grants to councils to encourage them to convert their swimming pool heating from gas to electric.
Heating swimming pools consumes a lot of gas, and so produces a lot of carbon emissions. For example, roughly one-third of Moreland City Council’s carbon footprint is due to gas, and most of that is used in their four aquatic centres.
Pool heating allows people to swim through winter and gain the many benefits of this form of exercise. Swimming keeps people fit, it’s great physiotherapy for necks and backs, and it improves sleep, appetite and mood.
But swimmers aren’t so happy about the carbon emissions arising from pool heating. As the minister knows, we face a climate emergency which worsens as we delay action. The recent Canadian heatwave saw a town in the Rockies get to almost 50 degrees and then burn down. Global warming is so severe already that we must move as fast as we can to stop making it worse. And that means getting off fossil gas.
As gas prices rise, much of the initial outlay to install an electric heat pump would be recouped as savings. Many local governments want to switch from gas to electric but just need a little help to make that investment.
Heating pools electrically will also free up gas for other uses, reducing the need to open up new reserves.
Helping councils move from gas to electric pool heating would be a great way to leverage state funds for maximum benefit to our climate.
Victorian Academy of Teaching and Leadership
Mr McGUIRE (Broadmeadows) (6084)
My adjournment request is to the Minister for Education. The action I seek is for the minister to provide an update on how the newly announced Australian-first Victorian Academy of Teaching and Leadership will benefit high-performing teachers in the electorate of Broadmeadows.
This $148.2 million statutory authority will support teachers across the entire state, providing a program of advanced professional learning for high-performing teachers in government, Catholic and independent schools. The academy will begin operations and the delivery of new programs from January 2022.
The Victorian Academy of Teaching and Leadership will also be based in a purpose-designed CBD site, alongside the seven regional academies.
High-performing teachers in my electorate will be able to apply for access to the purpose-designed CBD site when it opens early next year. This provides an unprecedented opportunity for our best teachers to further develop their skills and become recognised as statewide leaders in teaching excellence.
The Australian-first Victorian Academy of Teaching and Leadership program will enhance the social determinants of life through lifelong learning for skills, jobs, and meaning and connect the disconnected to opportunity—which I have advocated for decades.
I look forward to the update from the minister on this important initiative in promoting leadership and excellence and connecting the results in communities that need them the most.
COVID-19
Mr RIORDAN (Polwarth) (6085)
My adjournment matter is for the Minister for Tourism, Sport and Major Events. The action I seek is for the minister to support the Surf Coast, Colac Otway, Corangamite and Moyne shires to provide large-scale outdoor eating options for the communities along the Great Ocean Road.
The long, slow Victorian road map will see ongoing limits on indoor hospitality for hundreds of businesses along the Great Ocean Road and in the smaller hinterland communities. The weekends following the Melbourne Cup are traditionally some of the busiest that coastal tourism businesses rely on for their survival.
After two long years of disruption, nearly all hospitality businesses across the Polwarth electorate will be eagerly awaiting the chance to recoup losses and to make up for time lost. Few businesses will be in a position to pay rent for partially utilised premises and to afford the cost of providing extra outdoor spaces.
As part of its recovery plan, it is essential that the minister provide notice immediately of the resources he will provide these communities to help them meet their expected demand over summer.
If visitors to the Great Ocean Road and Otways region cannot stay and enjoy food and hospitality due to capacity limits, then the needed economic recovery will be severely stalled.
Bus route 788
Mr BRAYNE (Nepean) (6086)
The action I seek is for the Minister for Public Transport to visit Nepean to welcome the rollout of improved bus services that will soon benefit locals and tourists on the Mornington Peninsula—specifically, the improved 788 route.
At the end of last year, I was so excited to inform my community of significant improvements that were being made to the local bus network, which included more frequent services for the 788 bus route, which runs between Frankston and Portsea.
Access to affordable and high-quality public transport is so important for many people in my electorate of Nepean, many of whom have welcomed these upgrades and are looking forward to getting on board this improved route.
So once again I invite the minister to come down to Nepean to check out our improved bus network. I look forward to the minister’s response.