Wednesday, 27 October 2021

The PRESIDENT (Hon. N Elasmar) took the chair at 9.36 am and read the prayer.

Announcements

Acknowledgement of country

The PRESIDENT (09:36): On behalf of the Victorian state Parliament I acknowledge the Aboriginal peoples, the traditional custodians of this land which has served as a significant meeting place of the First People of Victoria. I acknowledge and pay respect to the elders of the Aboriginal nations in Victoria past, present and emerging and welcome any elders and members of the Aboriginal communities who may visit or participate in the events or proceedings of the Parliament.

Petitions

Following petitions presented to house:

COVID-19

The Petition of certain citizens of the State of Victoria draws to the attention of the Legislative Council that health experts have stated that children are a low-risk group for the COVID-19 Delta variant, yet there is a mask mandate for Victorian schoolchildren, Year 3 and above.

The National Centre for Immunisation Research and Surveillance (NCIRS) reports that data collected from 16 June to 31 July 2021 found that most children in New South Wales who were diagnosed with the COVID-19 Delta variant experienced mild or no symptoms and only two per cent of children required hospitalisation.

On 8 September 2021, the University of Sydney reported that Professor Kristine Macartney, Director of the NCIRS, had presented the finding that children do not often become severely ill and that ‘most children in the study had no or only mild symptoms’. The report included the finding from Dr Archana Koirala, a paediatric infectious disease specialist at the University of Sydney, ‘that full participation in education is essential for children to learn and develop socially, but also for family and societal functioning’.

Also on 8 September 2021, the Chair of the Australian and New Zealand Paediatric Infectious Diseases group, Professor Asha Bowen, said it was important to note that not all of the children admitted to hospital with COVID-19 were severely unwell.

In addition, Victoria’s Chief Health Officer, Dr Brett Sutton, stated on 8 September 2021, that Victoria is nearing the peak of its COVID-19 outbreak and cases will start to decline.

The petitioners therefore request that the Legislative Council call on the Government to remove the mask mandate for children and make it a voluntary decision, as there is no evidence that mask wearing for children will reduce the transmission of the COVID-19 Delta variant.

By Dr CUMMING (Western Metropolitan) (2208 signatures).

Laid on table.

Sanitary products rollout

The Petition of certain citizens of the State of Victoria draws to the attention of the Legislative Council that on 10 October 2020, the Premier of Victoria, the Hon Daniel Andrews MP, announced that Victorian school students would be able to access free pads and tampons from school.

Tampons have a polyester veil and are composed of approximately six per cent plastic. Sanitary pads are made up of 90 per cent plastic. Having plastic so close to such an intimate part of a young women’s body is not good for their health and not good for the environment.

As well as their contribution to plastic pollution, a year’s worth of typical menstrual products impacts the climate too, with a carbon footprint of 5.3 kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalent per individual.

The average woman who menstruates, throws away 200 kilograms of menstrual products in their lifetime. Unfortunately, some period products enter the sewage system. Over time, their plastic content breaks down into smaller pieces, known as micro-plastics and fibres. This poses a further threat to vital eco-systems, where they can enter the food chain from the bottom, up.

Young women should be able to make their own decision about how they wish to manage their period. Giving them this option will help encourage Victorian school-aged women to manage their periods in a sustainable way and keep huge amounts of waste out of landfill. This option could be offered to girls when they enter school at Year 7. This would also compliment the Victorian curriculum relating to health education in Year 7. All of the negative impacts mentioned could be prevented through sensible and progressive investment.

The petitioners therefore request that the Legislative Council call on the Minister for Education to provide young Victorian women with the option of choosing eco-friendly period products such as menstrual cups, period underwear or washable pads.

By Dr RATNAM (Northern Metropolitan) (1035 signatures).

Laid on table.

Papers

Parliamentary departments

Reports 2020–21

Ms LOVELL (Northern Victoria) (09:39): I move, by leave:

That there be laid before this house a copy of the:

(1) Department of the Legislative Council 2020–21 report; and

(2) Department of Parliamentary Services 2020–21 report.

Motion agreed to.

Papers

Tabled by Clerk:

Audit Act 1994—Financial audit of the Victorian Auditor-General’s Office, year ended 30 June 2021, under section 81(4) of the Act.

Auditor-General’s Report on Management of Spending in Response to COVID-19, October 2021 (Ordered to be published).

Planning and Environment Act 1987—Notice of Approval of the Victorian Planning Provisions—Amendment VC173.

Business of the house

Notices

Notices of motion given.

Ms SYMES having given notice:

Mr Davis: On a point of order, President, we are not opposed to giving leave on this and dealing with this matter, but has the shadow been briefed on this?

Ms Symes: Now.

Mr Davis: Now. Literally now? Sorry, I am at a disadvantage in that respect.

Further notices given.

Notices of intention to make a statement given.

Members statements

VCE exams

Ms SHING (Eastern Victoria) (09:46): I rise today to wish every single Victorian VCE student the very best of luck as exams get underway. After such a tumultuous VCE period where learning has been amended and where assistance has been delivered in other ways, I want to say to them that their resilience and stamina in the face of such challenges has been nothing short of extraordinary.

I also want to congratulate and thank the teachers, staff and school communities all over Victoria who have worked so hard to provide support to students in VCE and at all levels to get through the school year. English is the first exam; it is by no means the last. I cannot wait to see the happy faces of students as they get their results and as they, more importantly, celebrate the end of the exam period and look forward to Christmas and a summer with family, friends and a good deal of well-earned relaxation.

Teachers

Ms SHING: On another matter, I rise today to congratulate the teachers across Victoria, but in particular Eastern Victoria, who have been recognised for their exemplary assistance to the school community through outreach to ongoing support and pastoral care for students. I cannot wait to see them recognised in their own school communities and for well-deserved celebrations to get underway for their contributions without expectation of recognition or reward—it is here anyway.

Wonthaggi Life Saving Club

Mr O’DONOHUE (Eastern Victoria) (09:47): I rise to draw the attention of the house to the Wonthaggi Life Saving Club’s plight. Wonthaggi Life Saving Club, following a huge storm in May 2019, suffered significant damage. This has created an enormous burden on the local community in their efforts to protect their beach and to protect those who swim in front of it. The lifesaving club has undertaken extensive repair work to their buildings—some can be salvaged, some cannot. Temporary buildings have been erected until a full rebuild can take place. Some money has been provided, but much more is needed.

There is now a stumbling block with only weeks before the summer comes around and the need for patrols commences, and that is a notice served by the Bass Coast Shire Council for basically a make-good to the lifesaving club. This group of volunteers needs help. Some money is on offer from the state government, and I would call on the minister, Lily D’Ambrosio, to work with her department and the lifesaving club to see these roadblocks fixed so that whatever needs to be done to provide an occupancy permit for these temporary buildings is provided so that these volunteers can get on with the work that they do in protecting the community and protecting Victorians.

Battle of Beersheba commemoration

Mr BOURMAN (Eastern Victoria) (09:49): This is taken from the Australian War Memorial:

The charge of the 4th Australian Light Horse at Beersheba late in the afternoon of 31 October 1917, is remembered as the last great cavalry charge.

…

With time running out for the Australians to capture Beersheba and its wells before dark … The Brigade assembled behind rising ground 6 kilometres south-east of Beersheba …

…

The Light Horse moved off at the trot, and almost at once quickened to a gallop. As they came over the top of the ridge and looked down the long, gentle … slope to Beersheba, they were seen by the Turkish gunners, who opened fire … the pace was too fast for the gunners. After three kilometres Turkish machine-guns opened fire from the flank, but they were detected and silenced by British artillery. The rifle fire from the Turkish trenches was wild and high as the Light Horse approached.

The horses basically galloped in and they captured Beersheba. It continues:

Nearly all the wells of Beersheba were intact and further water was available from a storm that had filled the pools … casualties were thirty-one killed and thirty-six wounded; they captured over 700 men. The capture of Beersheba meant the Gaza-Beersheba line was turned. Gaza fell a week later and on 9 December 1917, the British troops entered Jerusalem.

Lest we forget.

Parliament Prize

Mr TARLAMIS (South Eastern Metropolitan) (09:50): I would like to thank all the students who participated in and contributed to the 2021 Parliament Prize. More than 630 students across the state told us what they would say in Parliament if they were a member of Parliament. Over 250 different important issues were raised through the competition and covered a range of topics, including the environment, disability rights, homelessness, racism, transport, education, media and Australia Day.

It was great to see 36 entries from 10 schools in South Eastern Metropolitan Region, which I am proud to represent. This included the winner of the grades 5 and 6 category, Joman Mesleh from Mount Hira College in Keysborough, with her powerful entry examining racism in Victoria. Her entry brought attention to the mental harms and consequences that racism can lead to. It also brought particular attention to racism experienced in schools and the immense impact of ignoring such horrendous behaviour. Congratulations to Joman Mesleh as well as to all the winners and finalists in each category.

Young Victorians, our future leaders, are impacted by decisions made by those in power today, and too often their views and concerns are readily dismissed. It is important that their views and issues and concerns are heard, because young voices matter. That is why it was fantastic to see so many entries from so many engaged students from across Victoria, highlighting their community spirit as well as their passion about issues important to them and their community. Not only has this competition provided a platform for Victorian youth to reflect on their community but it also provided us with insight into the matters important to Victoria’s next generation of community leaders. Again, I would like to thank all those involved, and I look forward to Parliament responding to their pressing issues through careful deliberations and listening to the voices of our young people.

COVID-19

Dr CUMMING (Western Metropolitan) (09:52): I speak today about the recent confusion around opening up. The daily press conference on Sunday, 17 October, was the most anticipated press conference of the year. Everyone in Victoria was eagerly waiting to hear about the lifting of restrictions. We had all seen the previous road map and were keen to see if the government would be sticking to it. We were told that we would get even more freedom than we expected, but what the hospitality sector got was a slap in the face. They set about getting ready for reopening on 22 October, booking acts and tables, only to be told the following day that it was a typo, that the events industry would not be reopening. Even if you downloaded the road map from the Premier’s website days afterwards, you would have an incorrect road map. Then the hospitality workers were told that they had to be fully vaccinated before returning to work, not just one dose as per the previous directions. Maybe the Premier could transfer one of his many communications staff to proofread any media releases and attachments to ensure that the government’s websites contain consistent information for the community.

COVID-19 vaccination

Mr MELHEM (Western Metropolitan) (09:53): I want to congratulate and thank each Victorian who rolled up their sleeve during this pandemic on reaching our 70 per cent double-dose milestone. The past two years have been tough for all of us. We missed out on birthdays and celebrations, we were apart from our friends and family, but here in Victoria we rose to the challenge and did one thing that will keep each other safe: we got vaccinated—and we are continuing to do so.

Last weekend our great city felt alive again. It felt like home again, with pubs, restaurants and cafes opening again. People were out and about, catching up with loved ones and embracing our city’s great culture. We still have some work to do before we can open up even further. People in Western Metropolitan Region have done their bit as well, and they did a fantastic job in rolling up their sleeves. Whilst there is still a way to go, I believe our community spirit and determination will get us to where we need to be. This coming Friday we will reach 80 per cent double dose and more restrictions will be lifted, and 90 per cent double dose by 24 November will deliver us closer to normal life as it was prepandemic. By getting vaccinated we can keep ourselves and our communities safe from this terrible virus. It is our only ticket to opening back up and reuniting with our loved loves. Again, I want to commend and thank Victorians for the great work they have done in the last two years.

STEP project

Mr GRIMLEY (Western Victoria) (09:55): It is with great pleasure that I stand here today to speak about an outstanding two-year pilot project called STEP, which has been made possible by the Commonwealth Bank through the Women’s Information and Referral Exchange, otherwise known as WIRE. This groundbreaking employment project assists victim-survivors of family violence in finding work and improves their independence and financial wellbeing. Approximately 99 per cent of women that seek out support from family violence services have experienced financial abuse, which can prevent them from working from home or see them forced to sign loans and inherit debt.

Working with a cohort of jobseekers who have experienced family violence, this project assists victim-survivors in developing jobseeking skills and financial capability as well as in preparing to return to work. The initiative is also trialling a set of workplace guidelines and guidance materials to help employers implement trauma-informed hiring practices and better support employees who have experienced family violence. Applications for the second pilot of WIRE’s STEP initiative for women and non-binary and gender-diverse people across Victoria, including Ballarat, are now available. Weekly group courses will continue to be held online from 11 October until June next year, providing tools for job searching, managing a new workplace and reaching financial goals. WIRE offers free assistance, referrals and information on any topic to all Victorian women and non-binary and gender-diverse persons. I encourage anyone seeking assistance to go to wire.org.au for more information on this outstanding initiative.

Diwali

Ms VAGHELA (Western Metropolitan) (09:56): It is almost the time to begin preparing for Diwali celebrations again. Diwali has become a staple of the Victorian cultural festival calendar. As you would know, Diwali, also known as the festival of lights, is the festive celebration of the win of light over the darkness. This year Diwali will be celebrated on 4 November 2021. Diwali is a very auspicious occasion for Hindus, and it is celebrated across the world also by Jains, Sikhs and some Buddhists. Traditionally millions of devotees decorate their homes with lights; create beautiful rangoli, which is an artwork made with dry colours on the floor; eat delicious foods; get together with their families and friends; and pray to Goddess Lakshmi, the goddess of prosperity and wealth.

Now that we are opening up our Victorian state safely and are swiftly moving towards achieving key milestones in our road map and achieving the required double-vaccination rates I am looking forward to attending Diwali events organised in a COVID-safe environment.

Victoria is home to a vibrant and harmonious multicultural community. We are also lucky to have such a wonderful multicultural community filled with amazing events and festivals. Multicultural festivals like Diwali strengthen our community and build a better Victoria for us all. Diwali is a delightful and inclusive celebration. I encourage everyone to join and celebrate their local Diwali event in a COVID-safe manner in Victoria. I give my warm wishes to all who are celebrating Diwali. From my family to yours, happy Diwali. Shush Deepavali.

Laurie Levy

Mr MEDDICK (Western Victoria) (09:58): I rise today to wish a happy 80th birthday to a legendary wildlife campaigner, Laurie Levy. Laurie’s will be a familiar name to many in this chamber. He has been a staunch campaigner to save whales and wildlife and in particular to end barbaric duck shooting in this state for over 35 years. As a news cameraman in the 1980s Laurie was sent on a job and saw firsthand the massacre taking place on our wetlands. Since then he has dedicated every waking moment to protecting our native waterbirds from gun violence. While we are yet to achieve a ban on duck shooting in Victoria, Laurie’s campaigning has seen a huge change in public sentiment towards duck shooting, with the majority of Victorians—women, men, country people, city people, old people, young people, Labor voters, Liberal voters, other voters, government MPs and other MPs—supporting a ban. Shooter numbers have also dropped, with less than 0.4 per cent of the Victorian population holding a game licence and even less using one. I know that all Laurie would like to see on this milestone birthday is for Victoria to end duck shooting. I will always do all I can in Parliament to make that happen. The happiest of birthdays, Laurie. Thank you for your ongoing and tireless work.

VCE exams

Ms PULFORD (Western Victoria—Minister for Employment, Minister for Innovation, Medical Research and the Digital Economy, Minister for Small Business, Minister for Resources) (09:59): Yesterday Parliament debated and passed a really significant piece of legislation, the Education and Training Reform Amendment (Senior Secondary Pathways Reforms and Other Matters) Bill 2021. This time of year is, I think, for many parents, carers, teachers and staff in our education system a time for reflection. As we are here in the chamber on this occasion, there are some 46 000 students undertaking what for many of them will be the first of their VCE exams. For VCAL students today marks for them a week, perhaps for them the first week, where they will be embarking on new work or further study opportunities or indeed completing placements that have been delayed through restrictions. It has been a period of reflection for me as I ironed my last school shirt, found the last missing library book—and duly returned it—and indeed did some last-day-of-school fancy dress. This reflection has included thinking about the historic reforms Lynne Kosky led on VCAL and the historic reforms that James Merlino is now building upon with VCAL. If I could just finally pay tribute to three extraordinary women to whom I owe a personal debt of thanks: Priscilla Herington, Elaine Rooney and Selena Rinaldi. I wish them all the very best.

Gender equality

Ms TERPSTRA (Eastern Metropolitan) (10:01): I rise to update the house on a very important virtual event I attended last week which was in regard to an announcement made by my colleague and Minister for Training and Skills, Gayle Tierney, about the addition of a course to the free TAFE list. That course is a very important course. It is called Identifying and Responding to Family Violence Risk, and it is an introductory course for people working in community-facing roles in places like schools, child care and gyms. Also, earlier in 2020, we announced the introduction of the Gender Equality Act 2020, and this came into effect in March 2021. This legislation, which is the first of its kind in Australia, requires 300 public sector employers, including local councils and universities, to report on and improve gender equality in the workplace. So I was very proud to be speaking with RMIT, who will be the course provider, and they will be providing a course in gender equity. This course is the first of its kind in Australia, and again thanks to the Andrews Labor government. I am really proud and pleased to be able to say as a TAFE ambassador that it is a great addition to the free course list, and we want to make sure that women have the ability to feel safe in the workplace when they go to work. They need the same opportunities as men. They need to be treated fairly, and they need to be respected. The free course will help build up a team of women in the workplace and men who are committed to gender equality at work, and I would just like to congratulate everyone who was involved in developing and delivering the course.

Northern Metropolitan Region community organisations

Ms WATT (Northern Metropolitan) (10:03): At a time when the strength of our community was tested once again it was the work of community organisations and volunteer groups that served such an important role in keeping us together. The Andrews Labor government has always been a government committed to supporting the work of these organisations, and I was delighted to be able to virtually meet with two groups within my community to let them know they were successful in receiving grants—as part of the Andrews Labor government priority response to multicultural communities during the coronavirus grant program—to continue their important work, including by providing food hampers, freshly cooked meals, groceries and essential items to community members in need.

Drummond Street Services is one of the longest serving welfare organisations in Victoria. They do amazing work helping vulnerable members of our society, and I was so humbled to be able to talk to their CEO, Karen Field, to hear of the integral work they undertake across the Northern Metropolitan Region. The Yeti Football Club do some incredible things within the Nepalese and Bhutanese communities across the Moreland council area, and this grant enabled them to distribute food relief to their local community. Thank you to club president Raj and all the volunteers at the club, and I hope to be able to come down and thank you all in person soon. I would like to recognise the efforts of these groups and all community groups across my electorate. There is no doubt this has been a challenging year, but I am heartened by the strength and resilience of the communities in Melbourne’s north.

Victorian Education Excellence Awards

Mr ERDOGAN (Southern Metropolitan) (10:04): The Victorian Education Excellence Awards recognise outstanding school professionals working in Victorian government schools. This year we celebrate the 20th anniversary of the Victorian Education Excellence Awards. The awards recognise the inspirational teachers, principals, business managers and education support staff who improve schools and support children and young people to develop the skills and learning outcomes they need to succeed in life. I am excited to inform the chamber that Deborah Harman from Balwyn High School is a winner of the Colin Simpson Outstanding Secondary Principal Award in the Victorian Education Excellence Awards.

Deborah joins with the rest of her team at her school, Balwyn High School, as the school is the winner of the Dr Lawrie Shears Outstanding Global Teaching and Learning award. These awards are a fantastic way to recognise and celebrate the efforts of our education professionals, like Deborah Harman, who go that extra mile to help young Victorians thrive at school. Congratulations, Deborah Harman, and the dedicated team at Balwyn High School.

STEM education conference

Dr KIEU (South Eastern Metropolitan) (10:05): Last week I received the opportunity to attend the Deakin University and Geelong Tech School at the Gordon’s STEM education conference 2021 in my capacity as the STEM education ambassador and on behalf of the Honourable James Merlino, Minister for Education. The conference provided a forum for STEM educators from early childhood, schools and higher education and STEM industry representatives to come together and share knowledge, practice and innovations. As Victoria’s inaugural STEM education ambassador and a lifelong proponent of STEM education, I understand the importance of key STEM initiatives, investment in specialist education facilities and connection with schools and industries. I am eager to continue to engage with stakeholders from across the state to ensure increased engagement and participation in science, technology, engineering and mathematics.

Women in STEM webinar

Dr KIEU: On another but related matter, I was also delighted to serve as a panellist on the Women in STEM webinar organised by the Israeli Ministry of Science and Technology. The webinar brought leading academics, STEM proponents and advocates together from across the world—from Israel, Germany, Sweden and of course Victoria—to highlight the current and worldwide challenges and barriers to increasing female participation in STEM and to share insightful ideas on how to attract and retain women in STEM education and industry. Creating opportunities for women in this field would generate a diverse, innovative workforce and would encourage strong economic growth in Victoria and make use of our human capital.

Dementia Australia

Ms TIERNEY (Western Victoria—Minister for Training and Skills, Minister for Higher Education)

Incorporated pursuant to order of Council of 7 September:

Today I rise to reflect on the important work of Dementia Australia, the peak body of people living with dementia, their families and carers.

Its recent findings, that a dementia diagnosis results in discrimination, isolation and loneliness not just for those living with the disease but their carers too, will resonate with many Australians.

Nearly half a million Australians have a form of dementia, and almost 1.6 million are involved in their care.

This figure will double in the next 25 years, increasingly touching all our lives, as it has mine.

It’s no surprise that Dementia Australia was founded by carers.

Our unpaid carers are crucial supporters for so many in our community, looking after a family member or friend who needs them, whether due to chronic disease, mental illness, disability or old age.

The lived experience of many carers is that the pandemic has thrown up a huge challenge for them personally.

It’s a hallmark of this government that we are supporting carers to help them manage their own wellbeing, so vital to their work and to maintaining a semblance of normal life.

In October’s Carers Week the Andrews Labor government delivered more than $2.6 million to organisations and groups to help carers reconnect and to promote their physical and mental health as we move to living with COVID-19.

Dementia Australia is more than an organisation. It is a community of committed and specialist staff and volunteers. Their compassionate and holistic approach to ensure people living with dementia are supported to live a high-quality life with meaning, purpose and value underpins all that they do.

The integrity and empathy demonstrated by caseworkers and the extraordinary team at Dementia Australia is equally important to the families and friends of those living with dementia.

I thank all of the staff and the more than 736 000 people who give their time and energy to unpaid care and congratulate this government for the work it’s doing to develop a Victorian carer strategy.

Bills

Constitution Amendment (State of Emergency and State of Disaster) Bill 2021

Statement of compatibility

Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan—Leader of the Opposition) (10:07): I lay on the table a statement of compatibility with the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006:

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 Constitution Amendment (State of Emergency and State of Disaster) Bill 2021 (the Bill).

In my opinion, the Bill, as introduced to the Legislative Council, is compatible with the human rights protected by the Charter.

David Davis MP

Second reading

Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan—Leader of the Opposition) (10:07): I move:

That the bill be now read a second time.

This bill, as proposed, aims to restore trust and accountability in the way the Victorian government responds to pandemics.

Under the disastrous COVID-19 response, previously unimaginable and unjustified limits on basic freedoms have become a Victorian reality.

Freedom cannot be taken for granted, it must be won and protected and defended from those—like this state government—who want to remove it.

Victorians have just endured 263 days of lockdowns, being locked in their houses, denied the opportunity to operate their business, forbidden to visit their family and friends, and forced to homeschool their children—or to school their children at home, I should say.

We have not been allowed to travel more than 5 kilometres from home or leave home after a 9.00 pm curfew.

We have not been allowed to get a haircut, take our children to the local playground or properly mourn our dead.

Yet, despite the toughest restrictions in the nation, Victoria still recorded more COVID-19 cases, deaths, job losses, mental health distress and school days missed than any other state.

And the government never disclosed the health advice that underpinned these draconian restrictions. If they were going to shut us down, lock us out, severely hinder our children’s education and social development, we should have been informed of the reasons why this was all necessary and justifiable.

But we were locked up, shut out, closed down.

And we had no say in it.

The government declared a state of emergency, and then rolled it over month after month after month—extension after extension.

For 18 months, these restrictions have been repeatedly imposed on Victorians without the health advice upon which they are based being publicly disclosed.

And the reason why they had to keep extending the state of emergency, which closed our state, economically and socially, and inflicted huge damage on our collective psyche?

Because they completely botched the COVID response, with the hotel quarantine debacle that cost over 800 Victorian lives, inflicted the virus on over 81 000 Victorians and cost 200 000 Victorians their jobs, and for which no-one ever took responsibility, despite the opportunity to do so at the Coate inquiry.

The Parliament hardly sat, yet the state of emergency kept rolling over.

This is not how democracy is supposed to work. It is not good enough, and that is why I am introducing this bill today.

Declaration of a state of emergency transfers extraordinary power over our lives.

It should be used rarely and with the greatest respect for the citizens of the state.

Our proposed changes will protect Victorian families and businesses from excessive restrictions on their freedoms, businesses and way of life.

Our amendment is sensible, reasonable and proportionate.

It is what should be in place, rather than a rolling monthly extension.

The Liberal-Nationals firmly believe in democratic values. We believe in a system of government that sees everyone as equal and gives everyone eligible and aged 18 or over the power to vote for their representatives.

This bill seeks to make a change to the Constitution Act of Victoria to provide for parliamentary approval by a special majority for an extension of a declaration of a state of emergency or a state of disaster or determination of a pandemic.

Under our bill, extension of a state of emergency or state of disaster requires approval of a special majority of Parliament.

Implicit is the requirement of Parliament to sit at least once a month for this very purpose.

A special majority of both houses—that is, three out of five votes—must be in favour of a state of emergency or state of disaster to be renewed for no more than 30 days.

A three-fifths majority is far more representative of our citizens, who have entrusted their freedoms and democratic rights to us, their elected representatives.

Our proposal also requires the Premier to provide every non-government party leader and Independent MP with regular briefings to justify the use of these state-of-emergency-style powers.

It is utterly contemptible to our constituents that we would blithely abrogate our responsibilities to them by handing over extreme controls over their lives to a single person, the Premier.

We won’t do it, it goes against our collective grain, to every sinew of our beings.

We think that having a proper parliamentary approval is important as it encompasses a broad range of different views from different members of Parliament from across the spectrum.

Our proposed process will inevitably result in a far more balanced, reasonable and sensible approach to dealing with these matters.

Further, we propose that this legislation have a sunset clause at the end of 12 months. This legislation should not continue ad infinitum, it must come to an end when the threat of this pandemic has passed.

This bill is completely different to the abomination being proposed by the government this week.

That piece of legislation is the most extreme law of its kind anywhere in Australia, with the potential for a significant overreach of government power.

That legislation places unprecedented power in the hands of one person—not the cabinet, not the Parliament, but in the hands of the Premier alone.

To roll so much power into one piece of legislation, with no oversight, is unprecedented. It is an incredible attack on democracy.

The coalition supports streamlining our state-of-emergency process with this proposal.

We do not support handing over everything—our rights, our liberties, everything—to one person, even the Premier, with the only supposed oversight being:

1. a body, a consultative committee that his government appoints, which he doesn’t even have to take notice of, and

2. the chief health officer, whose advice he can reject, and

3. the Parliament, who he doesn’t have to inform.

That is not democracy.

Under the government’s legislation, there is token mention of reporting, but no consequences if that reporting doesn’t happen in a timely way, or indeed at all.

We would also expect that at least one case of the virus would have entered the state before a state of emergency could be declared.

It is a nonsense that Victorians can be locked down before a single case is recorded.

We also reject the notion of applying orders to segments of the Victorian population based on character, attributes or circumstances, which is purely and simply discriminatory.

The Equal Opportunity Act 2010 includes attributes such as age, race, religion, gender identity, disability, sex, marital status, sexual orientation, physical features, to name a few.

Worryingly, under the government’s proposed legislation, once the Premier makes a pandemic order, those under that order can be detained, restricted, prohibited from private and public gatherings, and be restricted from carrying on business. It also provides for detention, without defining what form that may take.

We think the government’s legislation goes too far. It gives too much power to one individual, in quarterly sunset-less instalments.

The legislation I am introducing today is sensible and pragmatic. Parliament must vote with a special majority of both houses—that’s three out of five—to extend or renew every 30 days.

States of emergency should only be used for limited time and to achieve limited purposes. The Parliament must have proper oversight of the extraordinary powers, and there should be regular reporting and enforceable accountability.

What Victoria needs is to recover and rebuild our state, not for the Premier to be handed dictatorial powers. We need to rebuild jobs, to get kids back to school and to keep them at school, to get the place open and stay open, while keeping us safe.

What we are proposing—and it is quite the opposite of the massive power grab proposed by the government—is sensible, practical, accountable and democratic.

I commend this bill to the house.

Ms TAYLOR (Southern Metropolitan) (10:15): I move:

That debate be adjourned for two weeks.

Motion agreed to and debate adjourned for two weeks.

Committees

Public Accounts and Estimates Committee

Inquiry into the Victorian Government’s Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic

Mr LIMBRICK (South Eastern Metropolitan) (10:16): I move:

That:

(1) this house notes that:

(a) 2021 has seen a significant and ongoing impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in Victoria;

(b) certain communities, people, businesses and sectors have been disproportionately impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic;

(c) the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee report on the inquiry into the Victorian government’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic was tabled on 2 February 2021 and no other oversight committee has thoroughly considered the government’s pandemic response throughout 2021;

(d) aspects of pandemic management such as the vaccine rollout, management of hotel quarantine, border controls, enforcement of public health directions, mental health impacts and assistance packages have had no thorough consideration commensurate to the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee’s work last year; and

(2) pursuant to section 33 of the Parliamentary Committees Act 2003, requires the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee to reopen their inquiry into the Victorian government’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic, to consider and report, by no later than 31 March 2022, on the efficacy of any changes stemming from the initial report and new issues that emerged throughout 2021.

A state of emergency allows governments to suspend normal democratic decision-making. This is very serious, because powers of this kind can be so easily abused, and without proper scrutiny unintended consequences inevitably arise. This is why the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee (PAEC) inquiry into the Victorian government’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic was so important. If we cannot vote on government decisions, surely we must be allowed to scrutinise them and raise issues from our constituents.

No doubt PAEC was not a comfortable experience for ministers and public servants; they had to answer difficult questions. But answering difficult questions was the least of the problems of my constituents, many of whom shared horrific stories—parents worried sick about the education and mental health of their kids, people living alone and suffering from crippling loneliness, family businesses built up over generations teetering on the edge. Asking questions on their behalf is why I am here. It is the one way that they can be heard. If politicians and bureaucrats on six-figure salaries find it uncomfortable answering questions at PAEC, perhaps they could get some perspective by talking to a single mother about her experience of lockdown.

Looking back, the first PAEC inquiry into COVID was a simpler time. I was able to ask the Premier whether we would be able to get our freedoms back, and he assured me that they would be returned in full. Like I said, these were simpler times. And in the same week the inquiry started, the chief health officer (CHO) famously made his statement that daily COVID cases would not exceed 300 per day again under his watch. As of today there have been 49 days where the daily case numbers exceeded 300, including 28 where the daily numbers exceeded 1000. It is obvious looking back now that the government were taking expert advice from someone who thought he knew how to control COVID, but he did not, and they used this advice to exert the kind of lockdown policies on Melbourne that experts in every other city around the world would consider extreme.

On the last day of the PAEC hearings the Ombudsman handed down a report which showed the human rights of 3000 tenants of public housing had been violated. It was too late at that time to ask ministers or public servants much about it at PAEC.

When the findings of the PAEC inquiry were eventually handed down on 2 February this year, there was only one new daily case. Maybe it did not seem like we needed to extend the hearings at that time, but a lot has happened since February. For a start there have been another 60 000 new COVID cases in Victoria, which is more than three-quarters of all cases since the pandemic began. Then there were the lockdowns, starting with the Valentine’s Day lockdown, which was lockdown 3. We have since had lockdowns 4, 5 and 6. Some were described as ‘short, sharp, circuit-breaker’ lockdowns. We have had no opportunity to ask about this in the committee. Nobody yet knows the full extent of the negative consequences of extended lockdowns, but Melburnians are about to find out.

So much has happened since February it is hard to encapsulate it all. Despite handling a Black Lives Matter protest professionally last year without handing out fines to protesters and without undue force, the police started using weapons against protesters and arresting protest organisers for incitement. At anti-lockdown protests this year grandmothers and children have been pepper sprayed and the police have opened fire on protesters with dangerous riot control weapons. I would like to have asked about this. In regional centres people spent all day waiting for tests and sometimes set up their own contact tracing while somebody in Melbourne was still trying to locate them on a map. At some point the COVID-zero strategy was abandoned and the Premier changed his mind about whether or not lockdowns could be lifted when infection numbers were still high.

A curfew was imposed that nobody has adequately explained. It would be nice to ask about that or see any evidence about it. And if people who could not work from home had not suffered enough, vaccine passport and mandate policies have created a whole new underclass. Then there was the international embarrassment. Protests broke out overseas from expats left abandoned, and in New York people worried about the footage they saw of police overreach.

Throughout this, government accountability has been at an all-time low. Not only has democratic decision-making been curtailed and human rights assessments been kept secret but committee scrutiny via PAEC has been stopped. Several of our questions to ministers in this place have gone unanswered. Even private briefings with the CHO stopped in July, and within the government it was reported that normal cabinet deliberations are bypassed in favour of a crisis cabinet. This shrinking model of decision-making and accountability has failed. Now Victoria will be a worldwide test case for the long-term consequences of when you have had excessive lockdowns.

The Liberal Democrats believe liberty and democracy are precious and must be protected at all times. During a state of emergency it is crucial that we find other ways to maintain scrutiny. The Public Accounts and Estimates Committee is one way to do that, to keep some form of representation. It is time we reinstate the PAEC inquiry into the pandemic.

Ms SHING (Eastern Victoria) (10:21): Well, if you listened to Mr Limbrick’s contribution just now, you would get the impression that in fact Victoria has been beholden to a closed model of government which has provided no information, no modelling, no data and no details to substantiate the reduction in freedoms as a consequence of the imposition of restrictions. That is one side of the story. You know what? Mr Limbrick is entitled to his view. I also note that Mr Limbrick is not here because he refuses to disclose his vaccination status in the confirmed format to enable him to attend the parliamentary precinct.

Ms Symes interjected.

Ms SHING: Again, I am going to pick up the Attorney-General’s interjection: he is very happy to do it on social media. And if that is not emblematic of the purpose for which a motion like this is being moved, then I struggle to find a better example of politics trumping substance.

We have, as everybody in the state will fully understand and appreciate, endured the hardest set of restrictions and changes and disconnections and alterations to the way that we live and work and learn and connect that any of us have any recollection of ever having contemplated before. It has been extraordinarily hard. But for people like Mr Limbrick to come into this place—virtually, because he cannot attend because he will not show his vaccination status—and move a motion like this and to give the impression that somehow the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee (PAEC) will be the salvation of democracy because questions can be asked in addition to all of the other questions and the other formats and the other reports that have been generated in relation to the pandemic response is, at its most diplomatic, an overreach.

Mr Limbrick would like to think that the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee can in fact replace the work that has been undertaken in countless media events, press conferences, social media distributions and bulletins, parliamentary updates, briefings to members of Parliament, briefings to the community and work across multiple portfolios. In fact what we will see is Mr Limbrick and indeed others deriding the quality and the context of those information updates and those bulletins and those briefings on the basis that they are not subject to scrutiny. Mr Limbrick, on the other hand, is very happy to take to social media and to make all sorts of comments and to pass all sorts of judgements and views and to opine and proselytise about the importance of democracy and of personal freedoms himself whilst also deriding the method and the manner in which Victorians have been updated and kept abreast of changes to the pandemic response over time.

PAEC inquiries are only useful to the extent that questions are asked and information is sought and received within the remit of the committee itself. I was privileged to be able to be a member of the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee for four long years, along with my colleague Ms Patten. It felt like an eternity, and it went by in the blink, thankfully, of an eye. It is a huge volume of work. It involves integrity, scrutiny and accountability measures across every portfolio. It involves extensive reporting requirements, and as Ms Taylor and others in this place can appreciate, including Mr Limbrick, it also involves analysis of significant volumes of information around outputs, around budget measures, around reporting frameworks and, again, around government’s performance overall. These are important functions for the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee.

But when I think about the inquiry which was undertaken by PAEC earlier this year and I think about the fact that one of the most esteemed experts in the field of epidemiology, of outbreak management, of public health and of logistics, Professor Allen Cheng, attended and was only asked two questions, I think of that as a wasted opportunity—a wasted opportunity by those who are now putting motions like this before the house and claiming in fact that PAEC is the vehicle by which this sort of scrutiny and accountability can and indeed should be delivered.

To say, as Mr Limbrick has said and his colleague in this place, Mr Quilty, has said, that our actions have not been scrutinised is absolutely, demonstrably incorrect. To say that PAEC is in a position to scrutinise in a separate way, beyond question time, beyond the updates, beyond the reports, beyond the briefings and beyond the daily media conferences that have been held—more than 120 in a row by the Premier himself, now supplanted with ongoing updates from experts such as the chief health officer; formerly Professor Allen Cheng; the chief commander, Jeroen Weimar; and indeed various others who can provide a different lens and a different focus to the challenges and to the changes inherent in pandemic response, including the chief psychiatrist and others—is to pay lip-service to the thousands of hours that have gone into making sure that we have a rigorous and substantive response that matters, that is delivered and that is rolled out on the ground in a way where it makes the most difference in countering the growth in cases, in managing and suppressing outbreaks, in providing access to vaccinations and in ensuring the coordination of large-scale logistical exercises, including the delivery of food, of medication, of services and of assistance to people in isolation, and is to do a great disservice to the work of the entire Victorian community.

I look at what has been achieved to date, and I look at the enormous uptake in vaccinations. As at yesterday we had 91.6 per cent of Victorians over the age of 16 having received a first dose, and we are scheduled to hit our 80 per cent benchmark early. So this Friday from 6.00 pm we will see significant easing and changes to restrictions.

What Mr Limbrick is proposing is to delve into the minutiae of the detail in which pandemic response decisions have been made—to do the same thing that the Supreme Court did in relation to the curfew, albeit in a less rigorous and less informed way, I will say, from the perspective of legal analysis—and to create minority reports or lines for social media or posts or grandstanding opportunities, to be able to have a quick clip on the news showing outrage, showing anger, showing dismay. You can do all of that already, Mr Limbrick. You can go out there and you can create as much of a media storm as you want, and I suspect you are using this opportunity right now, in not being able to attend the house, to do exactly that.

You can indeed continue to interrogate as a member of PAEC the way in which budgetary allocations, estimates and reporting have been delivered in the course of the pandemic. Nothing is stopping you from doing that. In fact you would know full well that nothing is stopping you from doing that because of the fact that Professor Brett Sutton has indeed attended PAEC and has indeed answered questions. There are already mechanisms for this to happen. To reopen the inquiry, though, does not add additional value beyond the remit that you as a member of the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee already enjoy.

What I would propose is that this house puts its energy and attention into a pandemic response which is not divisive, a pandemic response which does not give oxygen to conspiracy theories, a pandemic response which is about recognising the contributions made by everyday Victorians to get us to that figure of over 90 per cent of first doses for eligible Victorians and into recognising the effort across our entire state, from the middle of Melbourne right to our borders, to be part of the solution. We have seen communities rally around each other in the course of outbreaks, of clusters and of disadvantage which have cut a swathe through Victorian communities. This work will continue whether or not inquiries like this proposed by people like Mr Limbrick succeed in this chamber. Let us focus on the substance. Let us focus on the recovery and on the ongoing efforts to make sure that our economy, our communities, our health, our wellbeing and our engagement and reconnection with each other can be fortified and can thrive as we emerge from these restrictions. This motion does not deserve endorsement by the house.

Mr FINN (Western Metropolitan) (10:31): It is always good to know that the government is reading the talking points and that the same arrogance that we have come to expect from the Premier is also being shared by the members of the backbench. The arrogance is full on. After they have destroyed this state they get up here and they have the audacity to lecture us, just as the Premier lectures us just about every day. He does not do it quite as often as he did last year, but he gets up there and he lectures and he berates and he abuses and he blames us and he carries on like a two-bob watch. The people of Victoria quite frankly have had a gutful of this Premier and they have had a gutful of this government—simple as that.

Ms Shing interjected.

Mr FINN: I’m sorry, I can’t hear you. You’re sounding a bit muffled. We are all sounding a bit muffled at the moment.

I rise to support Mr Limbrick’s motion. I commend him for bringing this motion to the house today, although I am tempted to amend it. I will not, but I am tempted to amend it and set up a separate standing committee altogether, because I think this issue actually calls for that. What we have seen over the last two years in this state is the greatest hit on society that we are ever going to see in our lives—any of us. I am not sure if the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee—and no reflection on PAEC—is quite up to the task of examining this in the way that it needs to be examined. I mean, we have had six lockdowns in the last two years—six lockdowns. We have become, courtesy of this Premier and this government, the most locked down city on the face of the earth. I mean, instead of being the sporting capital of the world, instead of being the culinary capital of Australia, the arts capital, all of those things, we are now the most locked down city on the face of the earth, and this government has done that.

Let us face facts. The virus is not the biggest threat to Victoria; the Andrews government is. Just look at what they have done. Just look at what they have done over the past—well, it is less than two years, isn’t it. At the beginning of last year we were going along hummingly. Certainly there were some problems with the government spending and so forth. We knew that the government was in debt. That all predates the virus. But then the virus hit and the Premier had his—what would you call it—Napoleon moment, I suppose, where he thought he would step forward and save us all. And he would indeed save us—by burning the place down. That is what he did.

You just have to have a look at the economic impact of what he has done to this state. I would invite members to go down Bourke Street, but we know what happens if you do that. You do not want to do that, because members of the government object very strongly if you suggest that you walk down Bourke Street and actually have a look at what has happened down there.

Mr Ondarchie interjected.

Mr FINN: Well, I am not going there, Mr Ondarchie. I am not going there. As late as last night I walked down Little Bourke Street. Now, we are told by members of the government that things are back to normal. You know, ‘Everything is beautiful again in Melbourne. The place is booming’. Well, that is just bulltish. The fact of the matter is if you walk down through the city—as I did last night, as I said—Little Bourke Street used to be the most vibrant place in Australia. It was absolutely amazing; the vibe in the place was just extraordinary. Last night the number of restaurants that were closed, despite a crack of freedom that we can see, was quite astounding. And I suspect there will be a lot of restaurants in Little Bourke Street, throughout Melbourne and throughout Victoria who will not be reopening at all. They have had a fatal hit from this government.

It is not just in the CBD. If you go to any suburban shopping centre, you will see the empty shops and you will see the ‘For lease’ signs. We have not been able, of course, to go to any country regions or any country centres of late, but I am looking forward to doing that, and I suspect that we will see the same thing in those centres.

You know, we are supposed to be overjoyed that we can go shopping again as of Friday. Well, I tell you what, I do not know too many small business operators that are actually jubilant that this has come to pass, because they have all had to put up with the economic impacts of this government. Prior to this current lockdown—and it is still a lockdown—we lost 111 000 small businesses in this state, and we are losing small businesses at the rate of at least 100 a week. You fear to think what has happened to the owners and the employees of those small businesses. It is, and it continues to be, absolutely devastating for them and for the economy of this state.

The human rights abuses that we have seen have been astonishing—absolutely astonishing. There is nothing that the government can be proud of in that regard, nothing whatsoever, when you consider the number of people who died last year. The WorkCover investigation—what has happened to that?

Mr Ondarchie: I can’t recall.

Mr FINN: Mr Ondarchie cannot recall. None of us can recall, apparently, what has happened to the WorkCover investigation. I would dearly love to know.

And of course we have seen riots in the streets. We have seen the police, who I have been a strong supporter of and I am still a strong supporter of, use weapons and use tactics, I suppose, that normally we would not see. I was told by one police officer’s family that that was an order that came straight from the Premier’s office. It did not come from the chief commissioner. It did not come from police command. It came straight from the Premier himself.

Ms Crozier: The power-hungry Premier.

Mr FINN: The power-hungry Premier, as we know. So much for politicians not interfering in operational matters of the police—just appalling. Now he has introduced medical apartheid. Those who are not double vaxxed cannot sit in Parliament, cannot go to the footy, cannot go to the pub—they are second-class citizens. I never thought in this state, in this country we would have a situation where we would have a two-tiered society, where some people have rights and others do not. I never thought I would see that in my lifetime—just extraordinary.

We could go on to talk about the education destruction, and there are going to be a lot of kids who are going to be suffering for a very long time. When you consider that this has been going on for two years, you just think of those kids who were just about to finish their last two years of education. That has been destroyed. I know with my own two daughters who are still at school, it has totally disrupted their studying habits and their learning habits. It is pretty diabolical.

We then have the mental health crisis in this state. It is a huge crisis. It was big before; it is absolutely huge now—purely because we have a government that just does not care about that. Then of course, just as we see, as I mentioned before, a crack of freedom through the opening door, the Premier comes in and says, ‘Well, I’m going to introduce a permanent pandemic bill. I am going to be all powerful. I am going to control your lives forever’. Good God, it is absolutely horrifying. So we do need this motion to pass. I can understand why the Andrews government does not want this motion to pass, because the last thing that Daniel Andrews wants is accountability. The last thing he wants is to be held accountable by the people of Victoria or by this Parliament. I support the motion.

Ms PATTEN (Northern Metropolitan) (10:41): I am pleased to rise to speak on Mr Limbrick’s motion, and I am pleased to see that Mr Limbrick is enjoying some of his freedoms at the moment. It looks like he is at an early-opening nightclub going by the red lights that we are seeing, which are bathing him in a beautiful slightly pink colour. We are seeing those freedoms. Whoever thought that we would be broadcasting into Parliament from a nightclub? This year has brought us many unusual things.

I do not actually have a problem with the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee continuing its investigations, but I note that Mr Limbrick does. I mean, he did not even agree with the last PAEC report. He wrote a minority report on it. So I guess this is the idea of having another go and hoping that PAEC does better, that it might say something that Mr Limbrick can agree with. And as someone who has been on PAEC, I would certainly suggest that it is about asking the questions, but it is also about listening to the answers. I think we saw some appalling behaviour at PAEC, where we saw people with their feet up on the tables, posting to Telegram, not listening to the answers, not listening to the people that they asked to appear in front of them—the discourtesy!

So I hope, if PAEC is doing a further investigation, that they do it with courtesy and with manners and that they actually listen to the answers and, one hopes, that they do look at the failure of the vaccination rollout, do look at the failure of Victoria being right down the back of the queue for getting vaccines from the federal government and do look at the way the federal government treated Victorian businesses separately. In looking at the recommendations from PAEC’s report, I would say that some of the aspects of the new pandemic legislation actually go to many of the recommendations that PAEC made, which were about greater transparency, which were about more information and greater accountability.

Now, I note that under the new Public Health and Wellbeing Amendment (Pandemic Management) Bill 2021 the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee will have a role to play in assessing the regulations and the human rights assessments. As someone who sits on SARC, I am looking forward to the extra level of work that those regulations will bring to SARC. I am also pleased that what we are seeing in this pandemic legislation is the fact that we will finally see the health advice published.

The assessment of the charter of human rights that Mr Limbrick has been advocating and calling for now will be published under the new legislation. The reasons behind any orders will now be published. There will now also be an expert advisory committee, an independent committee, that will also be scrutinising the decisions made by this government or whatever else they might like to scrutinise in regard to pandemic orders or the pandemic itself. The new legislation is bringing in many of those aspects and addressing many of the criticisms that Mr Limbrick has laid out in this chamber over the past months, so I am certain that he will be positive about some aspects of that new legislation.

Mr Finn interjected.

Ms PATTEN: I may be being a bit hopeful there, mightn’t I, Mr Finn? Certainly if we want PAEC to be doing this as well—I know the amount of work that we do in PAEC, and I know that these questions possibly do not necessarily need a separate inquiry—they could be asked in PAEC in the normal accountability questioning that PAEC does of each ministerial portfolio. However, if Mr Limbrick would like PAEC to do this on top of the work that SARC is doing and on top of the work that the advisory committee will be doing, I am not going to oppose this motion. But in looking at the recommendations that have come out of this I am not sure that this is illuminating information that we did not already know.

Dr RATNAM (Northern Metropolitan) (10:47): I too rise to indicate that the Greens will be supporting this motion. My colleague who currently sits on the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee, Sam Hibbins, has also been calling for this inquiry to be reopened. I would like to note that I moved for a COVID-specific parliamentary committee back in March last year at the beginning of the pandemic, which was unfortunately defeated by the government and some of my crossbench colleagues in this place. The Greens have been consistent in calling for more transparency and oversight of the government’s management of the pandemic response, and in the absence of a more robust model PAEC should continue its oversight work. On that basis we will be supporting this motion.

It is also important to acknowledge that the Victorian parliamentary committee system is actually one of the weakest in the country, with too many committees with a government majority and a government chair, and we could actually be served much better if we reviewed that and had much more balanced oversight of those committees and a greater diversity of representation on those committees. So I hope that my colleagues in this place and the other chamber will consider that, because a good parliamentary committee system that is diverse, represents a broad range of views and is not scared of that kind of interrogation and oversight that parliamentary committees are capable of actually is much healthier for democracy as a whole.

I would also like to acknowledge the context in which this motion is being moved, and I disagree with some of the assertions made by other members in this chamber during this debate. I think we have to acknowledge that we have been through such difficult times globally, in Australia and in Victoria, and we acknowledge the restrictions have been so hard for so many people. It is the role of parliamentarians to reflect the concerns of the community, and that is why having good investigative bodies, having committees do their work with a diversity of representation, is really good. It is really good to build public trust and confidence in the Parliament’s role and responsibility in these matters, particularly in these unprecedented times.

It has been such a difficult time as we have dealt with this health crisis together. We know this health crisis and pandemic have had the potential to make millions of Victorians sick and lead to the deaths of thousands of people. We are fortunate that our public health response has protected us from some of the worst outcomes we could have experienced in this pandemic if we had not had those public health measures. It has been challenging, but we have to acknowledge that some of the things that we have had to endure and that have been put in place have been for the benefit of saving people’s lives. We are in an unprecedented situation. We are in a pandemic. It is a health crisis, and it is really important that we work together and we show good leadership to our community, which is why I really disagree with particularly some of the comments made by the opposition in terms of how to frame the context of this discussion.

It is really disingenuous and dangerous when you start minimising what we are going through and that we are in a pandemic. There are people who are genuinely fearful, anxious and afraid because of what is happening—so uncertain, so dislocated, because of what is occurring. We have a role and responsibility to show leadership in the community, and that is not by exploiting and manipulating people’s fears. It is actually by bringing the community together to lead us through this crisis with as many of our lives intact as possible and with our health protected. I also have to respectfully disagree with Labor MPs who have asserted that a media conference can somehow equate to or replace the importance of parliamentary oversight in a liberal democracy. It cannot, and that is why I support this motion. The Greens have supported greater transparency and oversight, but I stand by my comments that some of the commentary in this debate, particularly from the opposition, is really disingenuous and very dangerous.

Mrs McARTHUR (Western Victoria) (10:51): I rise today in support of Mr Limbrick’s important motion calling on the Public Accounts Estimates Committee (PAEC) to reopen its inquiry into the Victorian government’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic. I would particularly like to endorse this motion as a newly appointed member of this committee, which I believe does have a crucial role in our democracy. Accountability is vital to public administration, particularly through a financial lens, given the monumental burden that governments place on individuals through taxation. Taxes are far too high right across Australia, but Victoria is the highest taxing state in the country, so nowhere else do the public accounts and expenditure so desperately require oversight and scrutiny. It is our responsibility as the legislature to hold the executive to account and to ensure that the money of hardworking individuals, families and businesses is spent wisely by this government—as much a pipedream as that might be.

Last year, the period which the inquiry was scrutinising, the Parliamentary Budget Office noted that the Victorian government had set aside $24.5 billion over two years for its COVID-19 response. It is obvious that following the tabling of that report in February this figure will be astronomically larger after another year of debilitating lockdowns. PAEC should review how taxpayers money has been spent this past year as well as all administrative responses and the general handling of the pandemic. Victorians deserve to know the facts about what went on behind the iron curtain of secrecy in regard to the enforcement of public health directions, border controls and the litany of extraordinary powers exercised by the government this past year, which we have discovered this week it wants to expand. That is just unbelievable. Even proper cabinet process was suspended in favour of a gang of eight. It is no wonder Mr Jennings resigned on the strength of that grab for power. Further, it is imperative that we investigate the mental health and economic aspects of and impacts on Victorians from another year of lockdowns. One year was excruciating enough, but the impact of many more long months of Victorians being locked inside their homes was unfathomable at the time of tabling of the last COVID PAEC report.

PAEC is an ideal forum to examine these matters, particularly by scrutinising the government’s consideration and modelling of these concerns, or lack thereof. It is also necessary that we reopen the inquiry because, understandably, last year’s inquiry focused on the hotel quarantine disaster, with the loss of 800 lives directly attributed, which caused last year’s lockdowns while the rest of the country was relatively free. This time we must examine the economic and mental health analyses that were used by the government to consider a return to such cruel restrictions when even during the large wave New South Wales never suffered rules that were equally widespread and harsh. The reopening of this inquiry should also importantly focus on the impact of the government’s decisions on rural communities.

As I noted in the chamber a few weeks ago, many areas in my electorate had next to no COVID cases throughout the entirety of the pandemic, including this year. Hindmarsh shire and Buloke shire have never had a single case of COVID throughout the entire pandemic. Queenscliffe borough and West Wimmera have had one case; Yarriambiack, Southern Grampians and Central Goldfields, just two; Northern Grampians, Loddon and Hepburn shires, five. The list goes on, and not only in my electorate of Western Victoria but right across the regions. Clearly these areas have not suffered incredible economic damage and curtailments of their freedoms due to a virus. They have suffered totally due to the actions of this government, and this government needs to be held accountable for that. Small businesses in tiny rural hamlets have not had to shut their doors due to being overwhelmed with a contagion infecting their customers. They have had to close their doors because of the pen strokes of the bureaucrats in Melbourne, not because of any virus that infiltrated their premises. Government, not COVID-19, is ultimately responsible for the disaster inflicted on rural communities and many other areas in metropolitan Melbourne.

These actions and the decision-making process that led to them in 2021 ought to be properly scrutinised. The reopening of this inquiry would be a good step for doing just that. I implore the chamber to support this motion so that Victorians can have increased transparency over the government’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic, which will undoubtedly be remembered for many years to come—and we will be paying the price for what has happened for decades to come. This state needs clarity over what occurred over the past 18 months. We need to fully understand how the government responded to this crisis and its evident failures so we can both learn from it and hold those responsible accountable for their appalling decisions.

Melburnians deserve to know why they became residents of the most locked down city of the world. Country Victorians deserve to know why they were included in crushing lockdowns and restrictions despite often not being anywhere in close proximity to coronavirus cases. Border communities need to know why they have been divided by a line on the map and so disadvantaged by bureaucrats in Melbourne. Business owners deserve to know why they have suffered from hundreds of thousands of dollars in lost income, often closing their doors forever. Families deserve to know why the government allowed their relatives or children to fall victim to mental health issues. Workers deserve to know why this government denied them income, cost them their jobs and left them without support. When schoolchildren grow up, they deserve to know why the Labor government denied them years of critical education during their development. Victorians deserve to know what decisions were made that caused our state to go from one of the best places in the world to one of economic destitution and net negative immigration.

I take issue with Ms Shing’s suggestion that daily orchestrated press conferences, government social media propaganda and press releases are sufficient to properly scrutinise this government.

Ms Crozier: Total arrogance!

Mrs McARTHUR: It is unbelievable arrogance, as Ms Crozier suggests. This government has managed the pandemic from a North Face jacket, no less. It is totally disingenuous to say that that is all we require to allow the public to understand the reasons behind the extraordinary restrictions, rules and regulations and mandates that this government has imposed on Victorians and that actually disadvantage many other people throughout Australia who cannot come to be with their families so often, and especially at times of need.

At no time in the daily rollout of orchestrated press conferences with faux commanders and so-called medical experts did we hear from financial experts, education experts, mental health experts, domestic violence experts—

Members interjecting.

Mrs McARTHUR: No, we did not. And as for briefings from the Department of Health, they went for half an hour and barely happened. That was a farce as well. What has the government got to hide? What possible issues can the government want to hide? If they do not want PAEC to openly look at what they have done in a transparent process in this state, then that is appalling in itself. They should be actually encouraging—if they have got nothing to hide—open and transparent scrutiny and accountability.

We all need answers, and reopening the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee inquiry specifically in this area, as Mr Limbrick has suggested, is just one of the many necessary processes to help achieve this. And I welcome the support from Ms Patten and Dr Ratnam and actually subscribe to Dr Ratnam’s view that we ought to have PAEC and the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee independently chaired as well.

Dr CUMMING (Western Metropolitan) (11:01): I rise to speak on Mr Limbrick’s motion. To say that COVID has had a substantial impact on our community, on people and on businesses during this year is an understatement. Unfortunately a lot of these impacts have been made worse by the government’s management.

My electorate has been the worst hit. Hume, Wyndham, Melton, Brimbank, Moonee Valley, Hobsons Bay and Maribyrnong have consistently had high case numbers, and their vaccination uptake has been slower than other areas. Councils, faith leaders and local doctors have been crying out to assist for over 12 months. Only in the last few months has the government finally started to work with them, setting up place-based programs. We have seen little in the way of vaccination education.

Only last Sunday the Premier said that he had asked us to get vaccinated. No, Premier, you did not ask. You coerced, you mandated, you forced us to do it—or we would not have a job. And the mandates have been consistently changing: first dose by 15 October, second dose by 27 November—and it was all for authorised workers. Then it was all hospitality workers to be double vaxxed before they could reopen. Talk about kicking someone when they are down. An industry that has been so hard hit throughout the last 18 months now cannot even get staff to reopen. The cafe across the road from my office is still operating as takeaway only because they cannot find staff.

Public sector employees were to be fully vaccinated, until it was found out that the directives did not cover court or council employees or even electorate officers. What about parliamentarians? So more changes were made to the directives. We have had so many road maps within a month—I think it was four—and we have had changing goalposts. We thought that it would end at 80 per cent, but now it is 90. Now it is actually 12 months, and it may be even longer.

We are living in a segregated society of the vaccinated and the unvaccinated because the government would not actually use rapid testing. In one breath essential workers—their pet projects—were allowed to use rapid tests, but not everybody else. And this is advice from our chief health officer, Brett Sutton. He was determined that rapid tests that have been used in Europe—in Germany, as an example—since January were not good enough. They are good enough for 85 million people in Germany. It is shocking. Yes, they do give a false positive result, possibly, but if you get that false positive result, then of course you can actually go down the path of the other test. But that takes 48 hours and $180 rather than $20—appalling! The government may be willing to use a rapid test to get the Metro Tunnel built or the level crossings removed, but they will not actually provide it to anyone to get a haircut, to just go back to normal life or to go to visit someone in their family in a nursing home—just in the last couple of weeks. Appalling! And even when we reach the 90 per cent goal, we will not be out of restrictions. We have been told that they will be here until 2023.

What we do not know is why things keep changing. Is it different health advice? Are they correcting mistakes? Is it power over politics? We do not know, because the health advice that the non-government members have been asking for has not been forthcoming. With the ability to keep extending the state of emergency, this government is not accountable to anyone, certainly not to this house, and I think they should be accountable.

The Greens, Derryn Hinch’s Justice Party and Fiona Patten believed that they were negotiating with the government to make sure that we were going to have monthly briefings with Professor Brett Sutton, but the last meeting was in July. What month are we in now? October, almost November—August, September, October. Do you really believe that this new pandemic legislation is actually going to address this—with your new itty-bitty committee that will have just the government chairing and controlling it—or is it actually going to give us the proper oversight? I think not. An investigation by the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee might be the only way that we can hold this government to account. I will be supporting this motion. I am looking forward to somebody giving us a royal commission into what this Victorian government has been doing.

How dare others in this chamber take the opportunity—knowing that we cannot do points of order, knowing that we cannot vote—to talk about others, and Mr Limbrick in particular, knowing that he has no right of reply. You are out of control, government, out of control. The community knows this. We know this, because we are actually sitting in a basement doing Parliament like it is the Second World War. I feel like Churchill at the moment, or bombs are going overhead, the bombs in Parliament. I could have done a rapid test and been able to walk in there, but no—I must show my paperwork. There have been many, many, many people comparing this to the Second World War and to Germany. I have taken great offence many times about that because of my German heritage, but I know that Germany is a very progressive country—no mandates, 80 per cent vaccinated, rapid testing since January this year. Only since 15 October have the unvaccinated actually had to pay for a rapid test.

You have been missing in action, government. Your chief health officer has never showed us the advice. The community knows this. How dare you say that we are taking this opportunity somehow for Facebook or for social media. No, we were actually thrown out, because you could have voted otherwise for my amendment to make sure that we could attend. How dare you blame us for putting us into a basement to have Parliament. I take great offence at the other crossbenchers who have the nerve to act like this is a media opportunity. This government—this Premier—has used this pandemic as a media opportunity for his re-election. Well, you are not going to get re-elected; no, you are not.

And to the Greens, it is not a pandemic anymore; it is endemic. We do not need this pandemic legislation. If any of the crossbenchers sell out this community, sell out Victoria for mandates, mandating masks for our children, mandating vaccines for our children—where are our parents’ rights? Prime Minister, where are you? Help us. It is ridiculous. You should hang your heads in shame, government.

Ms TAYLOR (Southern Metropolitan) (11:11): I would like just to put on the record that I think there may have been a little bit of poetic licence with the analogy with Churchill. I am just putting it out there; feel free to disagree. I will move on from that, but I did think that was a little bit of a stretch.

Moving on to the topic we have in front of us, I do notice how conveniently some persons in the chamber avoid the elephant in the room that we have just been through—and it is continuing—an extraordinary pandemic. It is a health issue, and politicising this issue I think is absolutely disgraceful. It hurts on the inside when we think about this. I think of my loved ones, of community members, people in Southern Metro, people in Victoria, people across the globe, and that genuine care and concern for the outcomes of millions across the globe and also locally in Victoria. Trying to extrapolate the most uncomfortable and difficult elements—which we do not resile from, because we acknowledge, and that has already been stated in the chamber by Ms Shing and a couple of others, that there have been some extraordinary measures that have had to be taken in order to keep people safe, including the wearing of masks—I acknowledge that it is unpalatable. These measures, not being able to see your relatives, no-one enjoys, and no-one is pretending to. And neither has the Premier at any point. He could not visit his mother, who is in regional Victoria. Everyone is fully aware here of the extraordinary circumstances which we have all been put into as the direct result of a pandemic, a one-in-100-year pandemic.

I was listening to the radio this morning, and it was interesting. Someone was reflecting on the pandemic and the person reflecting said, ‘You know, I had the vax. It wasn’t just for me. It was for those people in the community who are immunocompromised’. ‘It wasn’t just about me’—it was about other people that he was doing this for. That was for me a very poignant moment, just sitting there listening in the car on the way to Parliament, that it is about the collective good, and thinking about someone else other than ourselves is what underpins the decision-making, not least of all for our most senior health officials, who bear an extraordinary responsibility—the huge public health team, 2600 people—noting all the ramifications that go with managing our way through a pandemic.

Just to pick up on one point but not to in any way criticise Germany or other nations, in Germany they had 95 794 deaths and 4 501 021 cases. So I think when you are making references to other countries you do not want to extrapolate one little element that suits a particular argument. You can do that, but you might want to look at the overall impact of that situation and the way the health situation has been managed when trying to build a counterargument or to support a particular outcome in a motion that has been put before the chamber. I do not know about you—95 000 deaths, that is pretty significant to me. Every one of those has a ramification, the same as in Victoria; every life lost is a tragedy and has ramifications as well. But I would just urge a little caution when making loose comparisons with other countries across the globe.

There was talk about human rights abuses and rights et cetera. I am not going to go down that rabbit hole, but suffice to say: even in this debate today, haven’t we seen mocking of public health officials—particularly by those opposite. And I find it frankly disgraceful, because I have the utmost respect for those who have far more knowledge and experience and expertise than me—many years of university, going overseas. Public health is a specific area of expertise, with Médecins Sans Frontières and otherwise. So I do not pretend to be an epidemiologist or to know more than they do. I think it has been amazing the thousands of pseudo-epidemiologists that have emerged through this pandemic. I find it extraordinary, because I do not pretend to have that level of expertise. I am happy to defer to and for our government to seek advice from those who actually have expertise on these matters.

Now, there was an issue to do with the pace of the vaccination rollout. Let us pick up on that point, shall we? We know that it has been well canvassed that the commonwealth Liberal government could have treated the vaccine rollout as a race—but we know they did not. It was sort of a laconic approach: ‘Oh, we’ll just saunter along’. And of course in Victoria we have been relying on that supply. I am glad to say that supply has finally come through, but there were very many nervous moments for our public health officials waiting till the end of the month to see, ‘Has the supply come through? Has the supply come through? Can we get the vaccines we need?’. If we make promises to the community to say we will hold these massive logistical exercises, lo and behold we actually have to be able to deliver what we promise. So we were reliant on the vaccine supply.

But having said that, can I just commend the Victorian community, because as of yesterday 91.6 per cent of the over-16 population has now received a first dose of a COVID-19 vaccine—and a shout-out to them and their parents for really getting on board. Now 75.4 per cent have received a second dose. 4 484 902 vaccine doses have been administered through the Victorian government vaccination sites. I do also find it a little limp and a little bit of—I do not know—a gross underestimation of what it takes to roll out these logistical exercises. They are massive. There was discussion before about, ‘Okay, so how have we reached out to community?’. What I will say is that we are working with local councils, communities, religious leaders and local organisations to offer tailored support for diverse communities, like we have done previously with the Greek Orthodox church vaccination site in Thornbury, a Hindu temple site in Mill Park and a mosque in Newport, just to give examples. But there have been far more than that that have gotten underway to get the kind of outcomes that we are seeing. A shout-out to Southern Metro as well—some really, really terrific results in terms of first and second doses. Come on—let us get going, let us get going. Let us get to that 80 per cent second-dose marker.

I did want to also speak to an issue raised by Dr Ratnam, just to note: we are truly accountable. I think there was some conjecture on her part to suggest that somehow we were not. The Greens have had access to briefings by the chief health officer on public health orders.

Ms Terpstra: Yes, absolutely they have. Just like the Libs did—the Libs too.

Ms TAYLOR: Who knew? Exactly. And the Liberal Party as well.

Ms Terpstra: Everyone.

Ms TAYLOR: The broader crossbench, exactly. Not only this but we are becoming even more accountable by transferring the power to declare a pandemic and provide orders to elected officials and not public servants. Now, I am a little bit confused. I do not know where those opposite are at with this particular legislation, because a couple of weeks ago they were sort of pushing for it; now they are against it. They do not know where they are sitting on it.

Dr Bach interjected.

Ms TAYLOR: It depends on the day, doesn’t it? We will just see where that lands. I think something is being debated in the lower house, but suffice to say it is very confusing to know where they actually stand on this issue.

Finally, what I will say, as a member of the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee—not to underestimate the incredible amount of work that goes into contributing to that committee and to making sure that all the parties represented get to properly scrutinise all the material that is presented before the committee—is that to say that that is the panacea, that that is the last threshold by which democracy will be served, is a bit of an overreach. I think we can all be very comfortable that there have been multiple opportunities, already enunciated by Ms Shing, and there will continue to be so, for those opposite to properly scrutinise COVID-19. But let us move forward. The community wants to recover. We want to recover. We want to move forward. Come with us on this journey.

Ms CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan) (11:21): You know, that is the quality of what we have got with this government: ‘Come with us on this journey forward’. Do you not understand, Ms Taylor, the amount of businesses that have gone under, the amount of people that have lost their lives, their livelihoods turned upside down, the amount of suicides that have occurred? This motion that Mr Limbrick is putting into the house today your government shamefully will not support because you do not want scrutiny or accountability. Time and time again you have refused that. No transparency, no accountability—we saw it with that farcical hotel quarantine inquiry, where the Premier could not recall, nor could 10 bureaucrats and three ministers. It was absolutely a joke.

Well, let me tell you, in June of this year we put out a media release supporting the issue—Ms Terpstra, Ms Taylor, who are giggling over there—and about the importance of this accountability that needs to be upheld by reopening the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee (PAEC) inquiry. I will quote from this:

During the 2020 inquiry, the Liberal Nationals uncovered detailed information on the failures of the Andrews Labor Government’s COVID-19 response including—

Ms Terpstra interjected.

Ms CROZIER: it is not made up, Ms Terpstra, it is fact—

on the mental health impact—especially amongst youth of Labor’s lockdowns, the cost of hotel quarantine which was previously kept secret, the number of fines being withdrawn or reviewed, the total legal costs of the Coate inquiry being more than the actual inquiry, WorkCover’s ongoing investigations into Departments and Ministers and mixed and amended messages from senior Ministers and public servants over advice.

I will not go on to all the things that were listed, but I will say that there were some things that were listed when we made those highlights about the failures. There were:

• Further breaches from Victoria’s hotel quarantine system;

• COVID testing centres experiencing multi-hour wait times over the New Year period …

Well, that is still happening. You ask anyone. I know members in this house have been talking about what has been happening up in the Wodonga area. There was:

• Victorian Auditor-General investigates government’s hotel quarantine contracts with security companies …

Well, we know that. No-one can even make a decision, and it was found to be an entity that made a decision. Really? It was not a person but an entity, that WorkCover investigation found. What a farce that was too. These agencies and this government are treating Victorians with contempt, and it is a disgrace. I will go on:

• Hotel quarantine operators who never hosted returned travellers paid millions;

• Hotel quarantine workers paid full salary despite not working a single day;

• Government apologises for incorrectly quarantining Brisbane travellers;

• Former hotel quarantine worker complains of “hostile and intimidating behaviour” …

This list goes on and on and on:

• Epidemiologists and hygienists criticise flaws in hotel quarantine …

There are a whole range of other things, but today I do not have enough time. The Victorian Auditor-General’s Office (VAGO) report Management of Spending in Response to COVID-19 is absolutely damning, and it is telling about the failures of what has happened under the Andrews government administration—the worst administration, the worst policy failures that have ever happened in this state with what happened with the hotel quarantine breaches last year.

Ms Terpstra interjected.

Ms CROZIER: This is not made up, Ms Terpstra. This is from the Auditor-General’s report, and this is your problem. The government just absolutely refuses to understand the meaning of ‘truth’, they refuse to understand the meaning of ‘transparency’ and they refuse to understand the meaning of ‘accountability’. Truth, transparency and accountability are not understood by the Andrews government. But I want to return to this VAGO report, because it is telling. On page 7 it talks about:

Without strong processes, departments cannot be certain that material fraud or corruption did not occur.

‘Fraud or corruption’—well, haven’t we heard that recently in IBAC. It says:

However, DHHS and the Department of Jobs, Precincts and Regions (DJPR) did not put in place effective fraud controls at inception because they needed to set their programs up quickly. Although they later tried to improve controls, an internal review found DJPR still had gaps that risked fraud and waste.

…

This made it difficult for the Department of Treasury and Finance (DTF) to gain an accurate picture of whole-of-government COVID-19 spending.

…

For example, at DHHS, an executive-level staff member did not disclose that they had previously worked with a consultant the department hired.

…

DHHS used professional services firms extensively to respond to COVID-19. However, it used several different processes to engage staff from these firms, including engaging some staff as ‘secondees’ rather than consultants. As departments do not need to disclose spending on secondees …

Therefore it is just telling how far this government will go to cover up and not provide—

Ms Terpstra: What would you have done?

Ms CROZIER: I will tell you what we would have done. We would have told the truth, Ms Terpstra. We would have released the health advice. We would have been accountable and we would have been transparent, not like your government, which has done none of that. I will go on. The Auditor-General’s report goes on to say:

Victoria did not have a personal protective equipment (PPE) stockpile prior to the pandemic. As a result, departments needed to act quickly, rely on unfamiliar suppliers and often paid high prices.

I have heard this before. I have heard what this government has done, and I would like the Auditor-General to investigate exactly who brought the PPE into Victoria and how. It continues:

Although the former DHHS and HealthShare Victoria (HSV) tried to mitigate the risk of using unfamiliar overseas suppliers, they still experienced stock delays. They also received stock that was not fit for purpose, worth more than $172 million. This mostly comprised:

• 33 million N95 respirators costing $110 million

• 14 million surgical face masks costing $9.5 million.

This goes on. This report is absolutely damning. So Mr Limbrick’s motion, which is asking for this Parliament, through the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee, to oversee and reopen their inquiry into the expenditure and what happened, is perfectly reasonable. Why the government refuses to accept and support this motion is again telling. It actually says everything about this government. They do not want to be found out. They do not want it to be shown that their response has been a disaster.

We are the city with the longest lockdown in the world. We have had the harshest restrictions of anywhere in Australia. We have had the worst outcomes. Surely the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee inquiry should be reopened to look at this response. That is what we were calling for in June, that is what this motion is calling for now, and for the government not to support this is extraordinary. It is a genuine motion to look at the issues. So when some of those on the crossbench criticise the opposition for what we are talking about, let me say to them: they stand with the government more than they do not. But I am pleased that they are actually supporting this motion, because it needs to be supported.

This inquiry needs to be reopened. We need to be looking at this more thoroughly. The committee is chaired by a government MP, it is stacked again with government MPs, but the work of PAEC and the exposure of the failures by the last inquiry I am sure will be found again with this. There is an absolute necessity for Victorians to understand what has happened in this state, where the expenditure has gone, where the 4000 intensive care unit beds have gone. Well, we know—

Ms Terpstra interjected.

Ms CROZIER: You say ‘Oh’. That was the promise that the Premier made: extra ICU beds, 4000.

Ms Terpstra interjected.

Ms CROZIER: Yes, that is right. You need resources, you need staff, and that is why it was so disingenuous and so irresponsible for the Premier to stand up there and promise an extra 4000 ICU beds. They need staff—

Ms Terpstra interjected.

Ms CROZIER: I do know that. That is why I say that it was irresponsible and disingenuous, through you, Acting President—

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Melhem): Order! Can we have the debate through the Chair. I think we have had enough interjections on both sides. Ms Crozier, you have 1 minute left with that interruption.

Ms CROZIER: As I was saying, through you, Acting President, it was a disingenuous and irresponsible promise of 4000 extra ICU beds, because they do need resources, they need staff—that is, people. You cannot pluck out 4000—well, actually it is 12 000—intensive care unit staff for those extra beds like that. And for the Premier to come out a few weeks ago and say, ‘No, that’s not what we said’—again, the man is a liar. He stood up there on 1 April. He said it on camera. He said it in a media release. He lied to the Victorian people. He said it on 1 April.

Ms Taylor: On a point of order, Acting President, I think that is disrespectful to the Premier. Ms Crozier is making pretty strong allegations there. I would ask her to withdraw.

Ms CROZIER: I will withdraw if you would like me to withdraw my calling the Premier a liar. I will say that it was completely a mistruth, what he said.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Melhem): You either withdraw it or you do not withdraw. Withdraw without qualification.

Ms CROZIER: I withdraw.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Melhem): Thank you, and I will give you five more seconds, if you wish, because of the point of order.

Ms CROZIER: I support Mr Limbrick’s motion, and I would suggest the government do so in the interests of transparency, accountability and truthfulness to the Victorian public.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Melhem): I call Ms Terpstra.

Mr Finn interjected.

Mr Meddick: Before we get started, I raise a point of order, Acting President, on the disrespectful language from Mr Finn. I ask that he withdraw.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Melhem): Mr Finn, I ask you to withdraw.

Mr Finn: Acting President, my understanding is Ms Terpstra is in the chamber, so if she objects to me calling her a chipmunk on speed, then certainly she can take the appropriate action.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Melhem): I ask you to withdraw. I do not believe that is parliamentary language or that it should be used in this house, and I ask you to withdraw. Regardless of what other members may or may not think about it, I do not believe it is, so I ask you to withdraw.

Mr Finn: I am not sure whether it is the chipmunk or the speed you object to, but I withdraw.

Ms TERPSTRA (Eastern Metropolitan) (11:32): Wow. Haven’t the standards in this place risen to such lofty heights at the moment! Anyway, I rise to speak on this motion as proposed by Mr Limbrick. It is calling for the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee COVID inquiry to be reopened and notes that the committee tabled its report in February this year.

Of course we have had lots of debate on this motion this morning. There has been lots of debate. There have been lots of interesting comments and things thrown around—some interesting perspectives on things. So, look, I am not going to traverse and argue with a lot of the things that have been thrown around, simply for the fact that it is pretty clear to me that some of the speakers on this motion actually firmly believe in their own minds what they are saying, despite clear evidence to the contrary. So if people want to believe alternative facts, I am not going to argue with them. I do not argue with people who present alternative facts. There is just no point in doing that, because they do not exist, so to actually engage in that space and argue about that would actually be ridiculous.

But I just want to comment on a few things that have been raised not only in Ms Crozier’s speech but I think just in regard to the Victorian Auditor-General’s Office (VAGO) report. I just want to touch on this in terms of this theme through the debate today that there is some kind of grab for power. Well, the model that was being proposed by the government was actually supported by Matthew Guy only a few weeks ago:

He says the government—not public servants—should take responsibility for managing the pandemic.

He said:

Those who make these decisions—politicians—should be ultimately accountable for them …

He said that, and he also said:

As a general principle, I think [public health orders] should be ticked off by a minister or the Premier.

When it’s a minister or a politician, we are responsible and we are accountable to the people, and I think during a pandemic, making legislation that is so wide-reaching, they should be accountable, and those decisions should be accountable to the people.

This is why there has been discussion as well about the proposal for pandemic legislation, and that is something that, as I said, those opposite were supporting. So it would be very convenient to be able to come into this place and say whatever it is you like without having to be accountable for it, and this is what we have seen. I was calling out and interjecting while Ms Crozier was speaking and saying, ‘Where are some of the things that are being put here? Where is the evidence for it?’. What would they have done? Nothing. There has been no response.

It is very convenient just to say, ‘That’s not good enough. You should’ve done this, and you should’ve done that’, but not have to be in the position of actually having to stand all of these systems up very quickly in a pandemic. The ultimate goal of this government was to actually protect the health of Victorians. I was just looking at some of the death rates around the world and cases of COVID—over 250 million cases of COVID worldwide and almost 5 million deaths worldwide. What should we have done—nothing? Is that what you are saying—we should have done nothing? Clearly there is no playbook or rule book for a pandemic. We have not had one for 100 years, so sometimes when you stand systems up quickly, things can go wrong. We committed to the hotel quarantine inquiry, which was an inquiry to look at exactly what went wrong and how we can improve things, so to simply say that there is a lack of accountability—you know, Ms Crozier called the Premier a liar and then withdrew that because it clearly was unparliamentary. There is just a random grab bag of all manner of stuff. We really, quite frankly, require better standards than that, surely.

Turning to the Auditor-General’s report, we welcomed the Auditor-General’s review of the government’s spending through COVID-19, and I note that the Department of Health has accepted all eight recommendations and the findings and outcomes of the audit. We love the work that VAGO does. They are a great organisation, and of course government funds them. We do not hide from that. We welcome what they do as an integrity agency; they do incredibly important work. I also note that two recommendations have already been implemented and the remaining recommendations will be implemented over the coming months. We are always up for continuous improvement. Like I said, I do not argue with people who present alternative facts, because they do not exist—so there is no point arguing about that.

As we know, the Department of Health and Human Services was responsible for the public health response to COVID-19 as well as managing hospital preparedness and providing social services in response to the impact of the pandemic on the health of the Victorian community. The Victorian government’s initial response prioritised preparing the health system for the unparalleled hospital demand because we knew we were going to expect a large influx of cases because people were unvaccinated. We knew that they would end up in hospital, so we needed to scale up, and that included the establishment of statewide PPE stockpiling and a partnership with Monash Health to ensure we had the right amount of PPE.

As the pandemic unfolded, the department had to adapt quickly to circumstances and shortages. There was global demand for a whole range of things, so we were in the queue for that, despite our Prime Minister saying there was not a race for vaccines. We wish he had considered it a race earlier on and actually said to Pfizer, ‘We would like to have, thank you very much, all those vaccines that you were offering us early on’. Perhaps we would not have needed to embark on having to lock down to protect public health and safety in the community. I think, if we look at it fairly, the analysis clearly is that had the federal government acted quicker in response to the pandemic and got vaccines to us quicker, maybe these things would not have had to happen—you know, there would not have needed to be so many more lockdowns.

I think department staff have done a remarkable job in challenging circumstances, and we should recognise the work of the thousands of people right across the public service who have taken on new roles as part of the state’s COVID response and worked long hours to serve the community. Ultimately many of the people who work in public health are really dedicated to ensuring community health and safety is paramount—they are good people—and for those opposite to besmirch and ridicule and run down those people’s efforts in the middle of a global pandemic is really low rent, quite frankly. The nature of responding to a one-in-100-year event means there will always be reflections and learnings on what can be done. As I said, we welcomed the VAGO audit, and we will continue to work through the recommendations. The government has accepted those recommendations.

I want to end my contribution in a couple of minutes on this note: I think the Victorian community has shown incredible resilience in what they have done and the way they have approached this. By far and away the greater majority of Victorians have embraced the advice of the Victorian government, which has been based on expert medical and health advice. We have the best medical advice available to us, and we follow it. It is like saying, ‘We follow the science’. We do not make it up as we go along. And it is very easy for those who are all experts in the field, despite not being a doctor, despite not being a virologist, despite not having any qualifications at all, to sit there and say—

Ms Shing: Just a keyboard.

Ms TERPSTRA: Yes, exactly, just a keyboard. But they can say, ‘We know more than the experts’. I think that is a very dangerous proposition to put forward. It is completely irresponsible to put that proposition forward. You go and consult medical professionals because they are the ones that are experts in their field. So again, everything that has been done has been based on that advice. Those opposite have had the ability to access briefings, as have some of the crossbench, so it saddens me that we have such a low level of responsibility and conduct of debate around these matters.

As I said, the majority of Victorians have trusted this government. They have followed the advice. You have only got to look at the facts on this—look at the vaccination rates in Victoria. Despite the fact that the federal government gave away some of our share to New South Wales, Victorians, and particularly young Victorians, beat a path to the door of their GP, their pharmacy or the state vaccination clinics to get the jabs in their arm.

I do not support this motion, and I would urge those on the crossbench and others in this chamber to defeat this motion. It is unnecessary. It is simply going to tie up government resources. Those opposite want to use these committees to formulate their own policies because they are lazy, they could not be bothered. It is simply criticising government. That is all—

Ms Shing: Just to get a grab on the news.

Ms TERPSTRA: Yes. It is to get a social media grab and get an interview with a journalist. And do not be articulate when you do it either. Stumble over your words and flip-flop and say things, and then go back on it. It is a beautiful thing to watch some of the journalists question those opposite about what they said a couple of weeks ago—to watch them try and wriggle out of it and try and articulate something coherent out of it. So good luck with that. Keep talking to yourselves over there, because no-one else is listening to you. But that is all right; that is what you are good at, and we know that. Like I said, many Victorians have listened to the health advice by getting the jabs in their arm. I will leave my contribution there, and we should reject this motion. I urge those in the chamber to do the same.

Mr LIMBRICK (South Eastern Metropolitan) (11:42): Firstly, I would like to thank all the members for their contributions to this motion today. I would just like to take on a few of the points that have been raised. Ms Shing spoke about some of the conduct in the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee at the last inquiry, and actually I would agree with Ms Shing that some of the conduct was not acceptable. However, I would note that none of that was by me. I acted professionally at all times during the inquiry, and I actually took my role very seriously, because I was entrusted with that by an election of the crossbench, who put me in that position. At the time, I committed to the crossbench that I would undertake inquiries on their behalf. Some of the crossbench have actually taken up that opportunity, and I did my best to take up issues on their behalf during the inquiry.

Secondly, Ms Shing raised Professor Cheng and how he was not queried so much. Well, I would state that I actually took great delight in being able to question some of the experts that we would not have otherwise been able to question and that through my entire time, the short time that I was allocated, I directed all of my questions to Professor Cheng. His responses were actually very enlightening about the issues that I raised, and I subsequently had some correspondence with him about those issues.

Ms Shing also spoke about government transparency at media conferences and things like that. Well, the government talking at people is no substitute for deep questioning of experts about the complex issues, and also the ability of an inquiry like this to have submissions from the public is very important, I think, in that members of the public can exercise their ability to participate in these things rather than just being spoken at by the government.

Mr Finn raised the point that an independent inquiry would be better. Well, I actually agree with that too, with Mr Finn. And what I find quite strange and remarkable is that the government is opposed to continuing this inquiry even though they control this committee. It is not like it is going to be run out of control or anything. It is controlled by the government, so I just do not understand why they would be against this.

Ms Patten raised that some of the issues around the pandemic legislation address some of these recommendations for the COVID inquiry. Okay, but we have still got to look at what happened in the past here. It has been a long time since the last report was tabled and a lot of things have happened since. I think it is very important that we look at what has happened and whether there have been issues with that and things that we can improve for the future, especially for going forward with new legislation. Surely we would want to take those things into account.

Ms Patten also raised the fact that we are out of Parliament and in a nightclub. I would say this: the nightclub, although it is a very nice venue, has been closed for a very long time. The reason that we are here is the same reason that many businesses are closed at the moment. I also state that the idea that we are out of Parliament and that this is some sort of stunt, well, Dr Cumming and I both raised the alternative method of rapid antigen testing, and for some reason the house deemed that it was not fit to do that. I do not know whether it was too hard or—whatever. Well, I will say this: in exile we have managed to implement rapid antigen testing. I have in my hand a certificate from a doctor. Dr Cumming, Mr Quilty and I all had rapid antigen tests this morning, and we were all negative, so it is really not that hard. It is actually quite a simple process that only takes a few minutes, and it would be quite easy to implement in Parliament. If the government and this chamber are serious about implementing things that will better manage workplace safety, then they should implement it as soon as possible.

I actually agreed with much of what Dr Ratnam said. I know her colleague Mr Hibbins. I have worked with him on PAEC, and I know that he, like I do, takes his role on this committee very seriously. He asked many good questions on the committee during the inquiry and many of the angles from which he was asking about things were similar to mine. Dr Ratnam also raised the point that a media conference is not the same thing as going through a robust inquiry, and I totally agree with her.

I am running out of time here. I would like to thank everyone again, and I urge everyone who supports transparency on what has been happening to support this motion.

House divided on motion:

Motion negatived.

Business of the house

Notices of motion

Mr LIMBRICK (South Eastern Metropolitan) (11:55): I move:

That the consideration of notice of motion, general business, 663, be postponed until later this day.

Motion agreed to.

Bills

Local Government Amendment (Rates and Charges) Bill 2021

Second reading

Debate resumed on motion of Mr DAVIS:

That the bill be now read a second time.

Mr LEANE (Eastern Metropolitan—Minister for Local Government, Minister for Suburban Development, Minister for Veterans) (11:56): I am pleased to start my contribution on Mr Davis’s private members bill. Can I just unpack, to start with, how badly drafted this bill is and the opposition’s understanding of the local government acts.

Firstly, council rates are not levied through local laws but via a declaration made by the councils under the Local Government Act 1989. You are amending the wrong bill, but we are not surprised at all. Fees and charges are set through council budget processes in consultation with the community and local businesses.

Secondly, the bill seeks to impose restrictions on councils through ministerial good practice guidelines. The purpose of ministerial good practice guidelines is to assist councils to achieve compliance under the Local Government Act 2020. They are a tool to support councils to achieve best practice. As a legal mechanism, guidelines are just that and should not be used to impose obligations, and actually they are unenforceable.

It is just too amazing. We have been in here a number of times when Mr Davis has talked about this government riding roughshod over local communities and local government, and then because of one instance of one local government he is not happy with, about which he probably did not have the whole details, he wants to come in here and impose this Parliament on a level of government that should have autonomy—and I agree they have autonomy. In the second-reading speech Mr Davis spoke about small business, but the bill does not define what business is. So Harvey Norman and Gerry Harvey must love the Liberal and National parties. He must love them so much. When a Harvey Norman store puts a sign out, a small shire cannot get a business fee off Gerry Harvey—after he got zillions of dollars given to him by the Liberal-National parties, by their mates federally. It is just appalling. I find this quite insulting to the local government sector given the support, the magnificent support, local councils have given to their communities and their businesses during a really tough time, a global pandemic.

There are 50 000-plus workers in the local government sector. During this time some of them have been redeployed from different positions to actually concentrate on supporting their communities and also supporting their small businesses. The majority of the 79 councils actually voted to freeze business fees, to waive business fees, and then Mr Davis comes in here and, using the words that he uses all the time, wants to ride roughshod over local councils and local communities. Basically what this is all about, and if you have not noticed now—

Business interrupted pursuant to sessional orders.

Questions without notice and ministers statements

Children of parents in custody

Mr BARTON (Eastern Metropolitan) (12:00): My question is for Minister Tierney, representing the Minister for Corrections and Minister for Youth Justice. It is estimated that 77 000 young people in Australia currently have parents who are in prison. These children are invisible victims of crime. They should not be punished for the crimes of their parents. Children who have parents in custody have a lower life expectancy, are less likely to complete their education and are less likely to obtain long-term employment. Despite this, there is no minister accountable in Victoria for children with relatives in custody. These children need family support. Someone should be responsible for them. So my question is: why is there no minister directly responsible for children with parents in custody?

Ms Tierney: Can I thank Mr Barton for his ongoing interest in this area. I think it is demonstrable in terms of his values generally, but I think that this probably is a question more appropriate for the Premier.

The PRESIDENT: Are you happy to direct your question to the Premier, Mr Barton?

Mr BARTON: Thank you, Minister. I am more than happy to go to the Premier.

Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Attorney-General, Minister for Emergency Services) (12:01): I echo the comments of Minister Tierney. Your question is specifically in relation to the creation of a ministerial portfolio, and that is why it would be more appropriate for the Premier to respond to that, and accordingly I will seek an answer and table a response in due course.

Mr BARTON (Eastern Metropolitan) (12:01): Thank you, Attorney. Despite the clear need for family support in this area, there is a massive data gap. There is no-one in Victoria keeping data on how many children have parents in custody, despite this being very easy data to collect. If we do not collect data, then no-one is held responsible. At the point of a parent going into custody they should be asked if they have dependent children. We have seen the consequences of this not happening. We know of parents arrested at a parole appointment while their children have been left in a car park. The cost of doing nothing is enormous. By not collecting this data on these children we are rendering them even more invisible. So my supplementary question is: will the government consider conducting a trial where data is collected on dependent children when a parent is taken into custody?

Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Attorney-General, Minister for Emergency Services) (12:02): In accordance with the standing orders I will need to refer that also to the Premier, given the substantive question was directed to the Premier. But as the coordinating minister for the department of justice I will ask my independent questions in relation to the data capture from a courts and corrections perspective, bearing in mind there would be some crossover with child protection, I would assume, and family services. But I like your line of questioning; I think that we should have a look at that.

Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission

Dr BACH (Eastern Metropolitan) (12:03): My question is to the Minister for Local Government. Minister, yesterday in response to my question asking you if you were aware of any of the activities and behaviours that we heard about in IBAC hearings from the former mayor of Banyule council, such as using taxpayer funds to reward Labor factional work, lobbying for state government taxpayer grants and giving relatives and factional allies taxpayer-funded roles in electorate and ministerial offices, you replied with a definitive no. We also heard during IBAC hearings from the former mayor that, and I quote, ‘I don’t think it was a secret to anyone that that’s how things worked’. How is it, Minister, that you were not even aware, as both the Minister for Local Government and as a Labor Party member, of any of this embedded Labor Party culture of factional patronage?

Mr LEANE (Eastern Metropolitan—Minister for Local Government, Minister for Suburban Development, Minister for Veterans) (12:04): It is very weird, this question. I stand by the answer I gave yesterday. What I concentrate on as a member of Parliament and a minister is a positive agenda to support the stakeholders that I deal with, and I actually take a lot of pride in that. I spend all my working hours and the night thinking of ways to enrich the lives of those stakeholders, and actually I am quite proud. I am quite proud that that is what I concentrate on. I stand by the answer I gave yesterday. When I said no I meant no, and I stand by saying no.

Dr BACH (Eastern Metropolitan) (12:05): I do thank the minister. Minister, these behaviours and activities were going on under your nose, within your party, within your now portfolios and by your colleagues. In fact as President you were in the chair in June last year when Mr Davis moved a motion regarding allegations aired on 60 Minutes and in the Age that the Honourable Adem Somyurek and other ministers misused members’ staff and other budget entitlements for internal Labor Party purposes. Even though you were in the chair at the time, you say you were entirely unaware of these activities and behaviours. Would you like to correct the record?

The PRESIDENT: Dr Bach, I am struggling with your supplementary. I think it was more about the party stuff than the Minister for Local Government. I will allow the minister to answer it, but I was not satisfied with the supplementary.

Mr LEANE (Eastern Metropolitan—Minister for Local Government, Minister for Suburban Development, Minister for Veterans) (12:06): I think Dr Bach goes back to the time when I was in your role, President, and I have got to say when I was the President I was concentrating on a food program. We had a food program coming out of our dining room which I was passionate about. We had an event for social enterprises to award their employee of the year in Queen’s Hall. My concentration was exactly as I said. Since I have been a minister and since I have been an MP I have taken pride in what I do, in doing my best and in enriching the lives of the people we all represent.

Ministers statements: suburban development

Mr LEANE (Eastern Metropolitan—Minister for Local Government, Minister for Suburban Development, Minister for Veterans) (12:07): This is spectacular. I would like to update the house on two fantastic suburban development programs, one in West Footscray and one in Tarneit.

In Footscray you will notice a fantastic, colourful pop-up park on Clarke Street in Barkly Village. Through the Neighbourhood Activity Centre Renewal Fund program the Andrews government has invested $94 000 in partnership with Maribyrnong council, a council that has supported its community magnificently in local times. These improvements make Barkly Village a better place to visit and shop and allow for improved access for pedestrians and cyclists in the village shopping centre. The upgrade also includes new and renewed planting, bike racks and additional seating.

The second project is that Sunset Views Boulevard between Tarneit station and Leakes Road is getting a makeover. It is going to include pedestrian lighting, an upgraded shelter and new trees. In partnership with Wyndham City Council—another council that has been magnificent in supporting its community during this period of time—it is an investment of $330 000.

Can I give a great shout-out to Wyndham City Council, Maribyrnong City Council, the office for suburban development and also two fantastic local MPs—

Ms Stitt: In the west.

Mr LEANE: yes, in the west—Katie Hall and Sarah Connolly, who I have had a number of conversations with about how they improve their—

Mr Finn interjected.

Mr LEANE: ‘I can read, you idiot’. What fantastic advocates they are for their community, and I look forward to working closely with them into the future.

COVID-19 vaccination

Mr QUILTY (Northern Victoria) (12:09): My question is to the health minister. Today the Therapeutic Goods Administration has approved the third booster shot for adults. The government has moved the goalposts for relaxing restrictions from 70 per cent of over-16s double dosed to 80 per cent of over-12s and now to 90 per cent. The finishing line keeps being shifted. The Liberal Democrats believe in setting a clear end date. We already have 90 per cent first dosed. It is clear that vaccine mandates are trying to solve a problem that does not exist. The vast majority of the population was signed up to get their first shot well before mandates were announced. Before December, Victoria will have more than 90 per cent of the eligible population double dosed, yet you are talking about restrictions well into the next year and the new pandemic legislation will allow indefinite use of emergency powers. COVID is now endemic, no longer a pandemic. Minister, will you commit to lifting all COVID restrictions before the end of the year?

Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Attorney-General, Minister for Emergency Services) (12:10): As the representative for the Minister for Health, I would be happy to provide that question to the Minister for Health. However, I would say that Mr Quilty already knows the answer to the question that he is asking.

Mr QUILTY (Northern Victoria) (12:11): Thank you, Minister. The state of emergency ends on 16 December. By that time our state will be almost certainly completely vaccinated. For 18 months we have called on the government to put aside the emergency powers and return to a democratic government. You have refused that request, going so far as to eject opposition from the Parliament in an attempt to silence us. Now it seems you plan to extend the COVID state of emergency indefinitely. Despite a 90 per cent vaccinated population, you propose to continue with mandates, controls and restrictions. I am confident that this government will use its new powers to mandate a third dose and will continue the restrictions well into next year. The Liberal Democrats have called for 4 December as freedom day. We call for a total end to this disaster of central planning and authoritarian power. We have a vision of no more curfews, no more lockdowns, no more check-ins, no more masks and no more vaccine mandates. It is time to end the emergency and live with COVID. Minister, with a double vaccination rate of over 90 per cent, why can’t we lift all restrictions by 4 December?

Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Attorney-General, Minister for Emergency Services) (12:12): Again, Mr Quilty, I will pass on the question elements of your very long narrative, which was more about your party’s platform, as opposed to a question to the Minister for Health. However, you have asked a very specific question about why the protection of the Victorian community needs to continue into next year, and I am sure that the Minister for Health will provide you with some details in relation to the health advice underpinning these important decisions.

Emergency Services Telecommunications Authority

Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan—Leader of the Opposition) (12:12): My question is for the Minister for Emergency Services. Minister, last week the head of Victoria’s 000 emergency call authority, the Emergency Services Telecommunications Authority, left his post, despite saying just a week before that he was going nowhere and would see the job through. With emergency call wait times ballooning and several recent deaths linked to long 000 delays, this is the worst possible time for chaos and instability within ESTA, and I ask: Minister, did Marty Smyth really resign or was he pushed?

Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Attorney-General, Minister for Emergency Services) (12:13): Mr Davis, I was contacted last week by the board, who advised me that Mr Marty Smyth would be resigning from his role. I certainly have thanked Mr Smyth for his work. I have not been Minister for Emergency Services for very long, but I have met Mr Smyth and members of the board of ESTA, considering in detail the challenges that they are facing at the moment. I wish Mr Smyth all the best for his future. I understand that he has got family connections and is wanting to return back to Queensland.

In relation to consistency, I agree with your comments. It is important that we have strong leadership, and I am very happy that Stephen Leane has been appointed as interim CEO. He has a wealth of experience as assistant commissioner at Victoria Police, but he is also currently a board member of ESTA. So for him to come in and take on that role, having been there, will provide a level of continuity. He will continue to work with the board, and I look forward to working with both Mr Leane and also Mr Ashton in the review work that he is doing, providing additional resources to this organisation as we continue to support them to respond to the health pandemic that is affecting a lot of our frontline services, including the hardworking people at ESTA, who continue to do a fantastic job during such a challenging time. The interim leadership and the continuity that his appointment brings is the right decision for the organisation.

Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan—Leader of the Opposition) (12:15): I thank the minister for her response. It seems that she was contacted by the board, but the idea of a ‘fantastic job’, as she described it, worries me greatly. Minister, isn’t it a fact that just a few days before the ESTA CEO departed the organisation a call to 000 went unanswered for over 8 minutes as a husband performed CPR on his wife, who sadly could not be revived?

Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Attorney-General, Minister for Emergency Services) (12:15): As I have explained to this chamber before, there are a number of initiatives that are supporting ESTA in their important role, and I reiterate that ESTA call takers do a fantastic job. This is one of the most challenging jobs, I think, that anyone could do, particularly in an environment where we have calls that would in a normal year, or last year, average around 2200 being in excess of 3000 calls a day. In relation to the specific matter that you raise, I do not have specific information about that particular case. Of course my condolences to that family for the loss of their loved one. In relation to the specific facts that you have put, I am not in a position to confirm those, because I do not have those at hand. But what I can say is that the government is fully behind the support that is required to ensure that ESTA can continue to do the important work that they do.

Mr Davis: On a point of order, President, I am just trying to understand whether the minister will provide information on this case to the chamber.

The PRESIDENT: I believe the minister has finished her answer.

Ministers statements: Aboriginal businesses

Ms PULFORD (Western Victoria—Minister for Employment, Minister for Innovation, Medical Research and the Digital Economy, Minister for Small Business, Minister for Resources) (12:17): I rise to update the house on our government’s support for Aboriginal businesses across Victoria. Last week the Victorian government opened applications for a $1 million extension of the First Peoples’ COVID-19 Business Support Fund. The funding will help Victorian Aboriginal businesses affected by the pandemic to cover expenses, adapt and plan for a strong future. We expect that up to 160 Aboriginal-owned businesses will be eligible for these new grants, helping them to recover and thrive in the future. This extended support builds on the $1.3 million of support delivered through the First Peoples’ COVID-19 Business Support Fund last year. I would like to thank the Kinaway Chamber of Commerce for partnering with the government to deliver these important grants. Kinaway are doing incredible work to build the capacity of the Aboriginal business sector, and they have continued to provide vital support to the Victorian Aboriginal business community through the COVID-19 pandemic.

Our government is committed to supporting Aboriginal self-determination and economic prosperity. Work is underway on the development of a new Victorian Aboriginal employment and economic strategy, and the government is working in partnership with the First Peoples’ Assembly of Victoria, the state’s first democratically elected body for Aboriginal Victorians, to establish the elements required to support future treaty negotiations. Building strong Aboriginal businesses is vital to boosting economic prosperity, and it has been a pleasure to hear from so many Aboriginal businesses that have grown and evolved and thrived over the last year. I look forward to supporting the great ideas of Aboriginal businesses and entrepreneurs over the years to come.

COVID-19 vaccination

Dr CUMMING (Western Metropolitan) (12:18): My question is for the Minister for Health in the other place. Will the minister please explain why employers were directed that retail workers needed to be double vaccinated to reopen? Until the press conference on Monday, retail workers were told to be double vaccinated. The COVID-19 Mandatory Vaccination (Workers) Directions (No 5), signed off by the acting chief health officer on 21 October, showed a date of 26 November for double vaccination for retail workers.

Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Attorney-General, Minister for Emergency Services) (12:19): I thank Dr Cumming for her question, and of course I will seek an answer from the Minister for Health. But I would like to say that it is the advice of our public health officials that vaccination certainly remains our best protection to mitigate against this virus and indeed to enable our state to reopen as safely as possible. There is a lot of information online available for retail workers. There is the coronavirus website’s ‘How we work’ current restrictions, which has retail trade FAQs, which are really clear about how they deal with customers attending their store, how to work with staff and the specific dates and requirements that need to be met.

Dr CUMMING (Western Metropolitan) (12:20): I thank the Attorney for her response, but it would seem the directions change so often that everyone is struggling to keep up. But I do look forward to the Minister for Health’s response. Will the minister please explain why healthcare workers do not need to be double vaccinated until 15 December? The COVID-19 Mandatory Vaccination (Specified Facilities) Directions (No 10)was signed off by the acting chief health officer on 21 October, effective from 11.59 pm that night. Workers in healthcare facilities had a first-dose deadline on 29 October and a second-dose deadline on 15 December. Healthcare facilities include hospitals, ambulances, COVID-related healthcare sites and dentists. No wonder there is consistent confusion around the requirements for workers to be vaccinated with no consistent dates and the dates continually changing.

Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Attorney-General, Minister for Emergency Services) (12:21): I thank Dr Cumming for her question. I will pass it on to the Minister for Health. I would use the opportunity to thank our amazing healthcare workers and health providers across the state, who have not only been ensuring that the health and safety of Victorians have continued throughout the pandemic but obviously have been compounded with the impacts of this virus. In relation to the dates, I am very confident that a lot of health providers are very clear on these things, because this is obviously their core business. I would ask Dr Cumming: if you have a specific example of where you have a health provider that is seeking some further information, it might be a good opportunity to connect them directly with the Department of Health. But your general question I will seek an answer to from the Minister for Health.

Emergency Services Telecommunications Authority

Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan—Leader of the Opposition) (12:22): My question is again to the Minister for Emergency Services. Minister, as you have just indicated to the chamber, Stephen Leane, the Victorian road safety camera commissioner, has been appointed as interim CEO of the Emergency Services Telecommunications Authority in the wake of Marty Smyth’s departure. Minister, why has the government appointed a part-time CEO to ESTA at a time when the organisation is in absolute disarray and people are dying while on hold for help?

Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Attorney-General, Minister for Emergency Services) (12:22): Mr Davis, your second question contradicts your first question. You were concerned about continuity and experience and support for an organisation after the departure of a CEO, and Mr Leane delivers exactly that, being a current board member of ESTA. Having the experience and expertise of being an assistant commissioner of Victoria Police places him in a very good position to take on the role of interim CEO.

Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan—Leader of the Opposition) (12:23): It does not contradict it in any way of course, but I simply say that at a time when there is a real problem like that you obviously want someone who can devote themselves to these matters. If Stephen Leane is now the part-time leader of two organisations vital to the safety of Victorians, what extra resources will your government be providing to the office of the road safety camera commissioner and ESTA to ensure Victorians will not suffer even more as a result of your decisions?

Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Attorney-General, Minister for Emergency Services) (12:24): Mr Davis has asked a question that would be appropriately answered by two ministers, so I will stick to my portfolio responsibilities and not those of the Minister for Police. There are additional funding, additional support and consideration of a number of initiatives to help ESTA grapple with these challenges as a result of the COVID pandemic. I have taken the chamber through those initiatives at length in previous answers. Given this is your supplementary question it is a bit difficult for me to review those in the time that is provided, but I would ask you to review my previous answers, which go into some detail on the support that we are giving to ESTA in these challenging times.

Ministers statements: cybersecurity

Ms TIERNEY (Western Victoria—Minister for Training and Skills, Minister for Higher Education) (12:25): I use this opportunity to update the house on cybersecurity courses. Building opportunities and supporting partnerships between TAFEs, universities and industry remain a dedicated focus of the Andrews Labor government. Cybersecurity was identified as a major priority of this government, and that is why we introduced the certificate IV in cybersecurity to free TAFE. We responded to industry needs and demands, particularly from the finance sector, and cybersecurity has become one of the most popular courses. We are proud of that.

In 2018 Box Hill Institute launched the Cyber Security Operations Centre, the first dedicated space for cybersecurity training in Australia. Box Hill worked with industry to develop Australia’s first dedicated vocational qualifications as well as the advanced diploma in this specialised area. Box Hill also won the Cybersecurity Educator of the Year award at the Australian Information Security Association awards in 2020.

Many TAFEs and universities across the state work in partnership to support pathways from VET to higher education in this field. Deakin University has partnerships with Box Hill and Chisholm Institute, with pathways to the bachelor of cybersecurity. It is pleasing to note these partnerships, as this is a connected approach that we are driving right across the postsecondary sector. Our $350 million higher education investment fund invested in this industry with the establishment of a cyber defence centre at Deakin University. The Andrews Labor government understands that it is critical to build opportunities for Victorians in this very critical industry.

Family violence

Mr GRIMLEY (Western Victoria) (12:26): My question is to the Attorney-General. The government’s family violence strategy and $3.5 billion worth of spending in the area have some shortfalls, in the opinion of our party. Recent Crime Statistics Agency case studies tell us this. In terms of perpetrators, there are a range of offences that can be used to prosecute offenders’ behaviour when it comes to family violence. Sections 23 and 24 of the Summary Offences Act 1966 are often used. However, both attract a maximum penalty of only three and six months imprisonment respectively. Disgracefully just 30 per cent of the guilty verdicts for section 23 receive imprisonment, and where they do, half get less than six months. Thirty per cent of section 23s are dismissed, 20 per cent result in a fine and 20 per cent get a community correction order. Section 24 is often used for family violence, though, where the violence was aggravated as it was in the presence of a female or a child under 14. This offence disregards the impact of family violence on adolescent boys. For section 24 offences, 70 per cent of offenders get less than six months imprisonment. Attorney, does the current sentencing regime deal with family violence perpetrators adequately, especially in situations where that violence is in the presence of a child?

Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Attorney-General, Minister for Emergency Services) (12:28): I thank Mr Grimley for his question in relation to family violence. Of course no child should be subjected to or witness family violence. It is abhorrent, and this government, as you have indicated, has taken a very serious stance against family violence—a lot of investment support for our support agencies and indeed our justice system.

We of course would always consider further ways to protect vulnerable children, particularly in the family violence space. Currently there are particular provisions that protect children if a family violence intervention order is in place. For example, behaviour that exposes a child to family violence is a contravention of that order and a criminal offence under the Family Violence Protection Act 2008, punishable by a maximum of two years. Contravention of a family violence intervention order by intentionally or knowingly causing fear or apprehension in a protected child also constitutes an offence, punishable by a maximum of five years.

Our sentencing courts do treat family violence seriously and have consistently held that family violence aggravates offending. I do not want to reflect on the decisions of the court, but I would say that of course, 100 per cent, they take into account those that are in the presence of offending behaviour in the consideration of the seriousness of the offence and the sentence it should attract. As we know, this is a crime that takes up a lot of police and court time, and I thank them for their ongoing efforts to ensure that we are responding to this scourge on our society appropriately.

Mr GRIMLEY (Western Victoria) (12:29): Thank you, Attorney. The question was more about offences that sit outside the breaches of intervention orders. That was what I was trying to get at. Crime Statistics Agency data that came out earlier this year looked at the effects of family violence on children. It said, and I quote, where intimate partner violence involved children, it was:

… more likely to involve assault and repeat police attended incidents … spanning over a longer period of time, and involve family violence protection orders.

The same data shows that around 77 per cent of children witnessing family violence went on to have a negative interaction with the justice system within five years. Other evidence suggests many kids experiencing family violence go on to become perpetrators themselves. It seems to me that it is extremely important that family violence in the presence of a child or children is taken with the utmost seriousness. In the opinion of our party the current sentencing regime clearly does not allow for adequate sentencing in these situations. My supplementary therefore is: Attorney, will the government commit to looking at a new offence for family violence in the presence of a child with a maximum penalty of at least two years imprisonment and a requirement to attend Caring Dads or another similar rehabilitative program?

Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Attorney-General, Minister for Emergency Services) (12:30): Mr Grimley, you smash me with all these stats and clauses, but your intentions are good. Of course this is a government that takes family violence intervention and family violence action—anything that will help protect particularly women and children—very, very seriously. We have a record of legislative reform and of investment, and our efforts certainly will not stop until this offence stops.

COVID-19 vaccination

Mrs McARTHUR (Western Victoria) (12:31): My question is for the Minister for Small Business and concerns the blow inflicted on businesses in Ballarat—in the minister’s own electorate, no less—which have been blindsided by the government’s sudden rule change requiring full vaccination for all staff. Businesses with single-vaccinated staff had relied on the original phase A option to open with reduced capacity while waiting for second appointments to come around. Your government has now summarily ditched that possibility. As Commerce Ballarat CEO Jodie Gillett said:

It just breaks your heart. It makes me so angry that someone sitting in an office in Melbourne, at the stroke of a pen, is causing this much grief for people who have already been through so much.

Minister, how is it fair to bring forward the deadline four weeks and give businesses just one week to fix it?

Ms PULFORD (Western Victoria—Minister for Employment, Minister for Innovation, Medical Research and the Digital Economy, Minister for Small Business, Minister for Resources) (12:32): I thank Mrs McArthur for her question and for the opportunity to respond to some of these concerns, which have at their root some misunderstanding of the way in which the road map has been rolled out. And I say that with all respect to Jodie Gillett and her board and members. I would also stress that this is not in any way an issue that is Ballarat exclusive, though I note that your comments and your context quote the concern of that organisation.

There was a vaccination mandate, which everyone would be well familiar with, for essential workers, and that had a date in mid-October and a date in late November that were the required dates for anybody on the essential workers list, whether they were in Melbourne or areas like Mildura that were following the Melbourne restrictions or whether they were in regional Victoria. And of course everyone in the business community in Melbourne has not been afforded the opportunities for much greater levels of trade that those in regional Victoria have. That requirement was in place for essential workers and had been for some time. For instance, a hospitality business operating a takeaway or a retailer operating click and collect was covered by that, but their non-working staff in heavier periods of restrictions were not.

As the vaccination milestones have been met, the alignment of metro and regional arrangements, which was foreshadowed back on 19 September, will come into place at 6 o’clock this Friday, which of course is incredibly exciting and welcome news. Lots of traders in regional Victoria are excited and await the arrival of Melburnians with open arms, especially now that we know that the vaccination rates are so high for Melburnians.

Hair and beauty, personal care services businesses and hospitality in regional Victoria had the opportunity to open with expanded numbers. They were able to operate with expanded numbers this past period, phase B, if their staff satisfied the higher vaccination rate. Now, many, many businesses have been prepared for that and have been unimpacted by it. There are some businesses—I would suggest, in a community with a 95 per cent first-vax rate and an 83 or 84 per cent second-vax rate, a minority of businesses—that have been caught as the road map milestones have been reached ahead of time. This significant one from last week we reached a week ahead. I am hoping like mad, as I imagine most in our small business community are, that the one for 24 November we will also meet.

Mrs McARTHUR (Western Victoria) (12:35): I thank the minister for her explanation. However, it does not cover the concerns of the vast majority of businesses. I quote Bec Reeves of Formation Hairstylists in Ballarat, who said:

Today’s news—

that is, the other day, yesterday—

on my business NOT being able to … operate in PHASE A of the roadmap while my staff await their second vaccination … is absolute garbage, demoralising and completely devastating.

…

Small business across Ballarat … are CRYING for your help … ALLOW us to operate under the PHASE A restrictions, ALLOW us to provide for our families, ALLOW us the decency and respect for complying with the ever changing goal post that we have been chasing around for the past 18 months!

What action will you take to prove you are listening to these devastated businesses, which have had their goalposts changed at the last minute when their staff went out to get the second vaccination, and businesses across Victoria?

Ms PULFORD (Western Victoria—Minister for Employment, Minister for Innovation, Medical Research and the Digital Economy, Minister for Small Business, Minister for Resources) (12:36): In essence, what Mrs McArthur is advocating for here is a delay to the reunification of settings for regional and metropolitan areas. The road map that was released on 19 September foreshadowed that when we got to 80 per cent double dosed there would be a reunification of the arrangements and also foreshadowed the concept of the vaccinated economy, which the Premier has been talking about publicly, and lots of other people as well, every day since then. On hair and beauty, can I just say that I am in very regular contact with those peak industry organisations. The overwhelming view in that industry is in support of vaccinated patrons and vaccinated staff, and they have worked assiduously to make sure that their members have the contemporary and accurate information to support them in a safe reopening.

Ministers statements: early childhood education

Ms STITT (Western Metropolitan—Minister for Workplace Safety, Minister for Early Childhood) (12:38): I rise today to update the house on how we are supporting children to make the all-important transition from kindergarten to prep. In kindergarten programs across Victoria teachers are supporting children and families to step into prep. We know it has been an incredibly tough year for children and families, and again I convey my deep appreciation for the work of all of our early childhood workforce. I am pleased that from next week transition and orientation activities can resume across early childhood services and schools, and this will allow children and families to visit their new schools and to meet with their teachers. Early childhood services will also be able to welcome prep teachers on site to facilitate the building of relationships and the sharing of important information. Preschool field officer Michelle Gough from South Gippsland explains what makes a successful transition:

… one of the most important factors … is the direct communication between the child’s kinder teacher & … foundation teacher.

The Department of Education and Training is supporting this work with funded time release and professional development for staff, and resources and webinars for families. Additional supports are also available to support families experiencing vulnerability, including outreach support for Aboriginal children. All children moving from kinder to school will also receive a transition statement. These statements summarise a child’s abilities and strengths, giving schoolteachers an idea of what each child is interested in and how they learn best. As the government, we are committed to doing everything we can to ensure children are happy and thriving as they move into school next year.

Written responses

The PRESIDENT (12:39): Regarding questions today: Mr Barton to the Premier, two days, question and supplementary; Mr Quilty, Minister for Health, two days, question and supplementary; and Dr Cumming to health again, two days, question and supplementary.

Questions on notice

Answers

Mr RICH-PHILLIPS (South Eastern Metropolitan) (12:40): I would like to raise some questions on notice which remain outstanding. These are questions that were listed for the attention of the Minister for Health on 3 August: questions 3928, 3929, 3930, 3931, 3932—it goes through consecutively all the way to 3959. I wrote to the Minister for Health on 16 September drawing his attention to these questions; however, we have not received a response to those. And there are also a further two questions for the Minister for Health—3695 and 3696 from 25 May. I seek an explanation from the minister—I think it is the Leader of the Government—as to where those answers are.

Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Attorney-General, Minister for Emergency Services) (12:41): Mr Rich-Phillips, I will make attempts to follow up some answers to your outstanding questions. I would advise the house there are about 500 currently outstanding in the Minister for Health’s portfolio. This is a small amount of the questions that have been directed to him in recent times. Every effort is being put towards this. However, you could appreciate that this is a department that has been focused on some pretty pressing matters throughout the last 18 to 20 months.

Constituency questions

Northern Metropolitan Region

Mr ONDARCHIE (Northern Metropolitan) (12:41): (1480) My constituency question is for the Minister for Public Transport. My residents of Northern Metropolitan Region, particularly around Reservoir, are concerned about the 558 bus and public transport in their local area. Recently I invited those residents to complete a community survey, and I thank them for their feedback. A lot of it was about public transport. Locals have expressed a desire to see more frequent services of the 558 bus, which connects the north-west of Reservoir to the train station. The 558 passes LE Cotchin Reserve, Merri Creek reserve, Central Creek, Edgars Creek and the shopfronts surrounding the Reservoir station. These parks are beautiful, but much more can be done to tidy them up. They have been a central point during these lockdowns, and they have helped communities to get out and about. So the question I have for the minister is: will the government commit to directing the Department of Transport to do an investigation into extra services of the 558 and better access to Edwardes Lake on the route?

Western Metropolitan Region

Ms VAGHELA (Western Metropolitan) (12:42): (1481) My constituency question is directed to the Minister for Multicultural Affairs, Minister for Community Sport and Minister for Youth, the Honourable Ros Spence. My question relates to the portfolio responsibilities of multicultural affairs. Many older Victorians came to Victoria and worked their whole lives to build a better future for the next generations. That is why the Victorian government is supporting seniors of multicultural backgrounds through the multicultural seniors support 2021–25 program. Over 900 multicultural seniors groups will receive grants of up to $2000 per annum to support their members and build stronger community connections. My question to the minister is: can the minister please provide me an update on how seniors groups of the Western Metropolitan Region can access funding through the multicultural seniors support program? Groups can use the funding to conduct social and cultural activities, to improve seniors’ digital accessibility and literacy, to provide practical support, to purchase essential equipment and resources, and for running costs. Seniors groups in the Western Metropolitan Region in Victoria have played important roles in maintaining and preserving their cultures and passing them on to the next generations.

Northern Victoria Region

Ms MAXWELL (Northern Victoria) (12:44): (1482) My constituency question is to the Minister for Local Government and is to ask what funding will be provided by the state government to the Yarra Ranges to help recovery efforts following the storm that hit their community in the middle of this year. It is more than four months since the significant storm event damaged 135 homes, leaving 74 of them uninhabitable. The estimate of storm recovery is $65 million, and I am concerned by reports that council has only received $3.5 million to date by way of support. There are multiple issues with telecommunications across the affected area, and there is a lot of work to do in collecting green waste, road rehabilitation and helping residents clean up ahead of the fire season. This community needs assurance and a flow of funds to support their recovery efforts.

Northern Victoria Region

Ms LOVELL (Northern Victoria) (12:44): (1483) My question is for the Minister for Disability, Ageing and Carers. The Mooroopna Education and Activity Centre, or MEAC, is a wonderful resource for locals, providing a safe space where people can learn new skills, meet up with friends, seek assistance and connect with their community. The Andrews Labor government’s onerous requirement forcing Victorians to prove their COVID-19 vaccination status wherever they go means that MEAC has been inundated with older community members seeking assistance to set up their MyGov account and print out their vaccine certificate. Manager Jan Phillips estimates that at least 60 people a week are presenting, requiring their assistance. The centre’s staff are overrun and require additional resources to cope with the extraordinary demand. Will the minister provide a funding grant to the Mooroopna Education and Activity Centre to allow them to employ an additional staff member dedicated to assisting the many people seeking help to access a COVID-19 vaccination certificate?

Southern Metropolitan Region

Ms TAYLOR (Southern Metropolitan) (12:45): (1484) My constituency question is to the Minister for Education. On Tuesday last week, 19 October, I had a very fruitful meeting with Brighton Primary School principal Steve Meade. Steve is a passionate and committed advocate for his school community. He brings two decades and a wealth of worldly experience to his role. I commend his resilience, that of his school community—parents, staff, students—and that of school communities all around Victoria, teaching and learning under COVID-19, noting that these two years have without a doubt been challenging. But most disappointing to Steve from all of this have been the added hurdles and structural challenges this pandemic has thrown to public schools, just as wealthier private schools across Southern Metro continue to receive generous JobKeeper support from the commonwealth despite having remained profitable and lucrative throughout the crisis. The gap widens. Even before this pandemic the commonwealth has funded non-government schools up to 80 per cent of their running costs while its contribution to state-funded public schools has remained clamped at 20 per cent. My question for the Minister for Education is: since 2014, despite the refusal of the commonwealth government to act on this issue, what has the state government done to address the problem of the growing inequity between private and public schools?

Northern Victoria Region

Mr QUILTY (Northern Victoria) (12:47): (1485) My constituency question is for the Minister for Education. The current Wodonga-Albury COVID outbreak shows that children aged 5 to 18 account for 41 per cent of cases. During this outbreak we are seeing some parents choose to manage their own risk around their children attending school. Several schools have made it clear that if parents do not send their students back after a day’s closure and clean, then they will be in breach of the department’s guidelines. This is a coercive tactic, forcing parents to choose between a rock and a hard place. Students have spent over 150 days in remote learning without cases. Now, during a regional outbreak, you are demanding that parents send their kids back to school. Many are assessing the risks for themselves and are choosing to keep their children at home, whether schools support remote learning or not. You spent months building the panic, now you expect parents to disregard this conditioning when they believe the safety of their children is at risk. Minister, will you ensure that hybrid modes of learning are on offer in northern Victorian schools to support parents making a choice to isolate kids during the outbreak?

Western Victoria Region

Mrs McARTHUR (Western Victoria) (12:48): (1486) My question is for the Minister for Transport Infrastructure and concerns the Maroona–Portland rail freight line, which Victoria currently leases to the Australian Rail Track Corporation. The speed limit along the entire 170-kilometre line has recently been halved, from 80 kilometres an hour to 40 kilometres an hour—it is a bit like some of the roads, actually—as a result of the poor condition of the track. This doubles the journey time and even requires the use of a third locomotive and crew, as the reduced speed means the train has insufficient momentum for uphill gradients. Tonnes of Portland-bound freight are being diverted onto the roads, with consequent wear and tear, environmental damage and cost to business. It is not just grain; potential new markets for containerised wool and export mineral sands are being jeopardised. I appreciate this line is leased to ARTC. My question is: what is the Victorian government going to do to ensure this vital infrastructure functions to support the economy of the south-west?

Western Metropolitan Region

Dr CUMMING (Western Metropolitan) (12:49): (1487) My question is to the Minister for Health in the other place from a resident of Footscray. Will the minister ensure that those suffering from COVID in the Western Metropolitan Region receive information to help them cope with the disease at home? My constituent, Alex, a truck driver, was diagnosed with COVID on 5 October. He isolated at home. He lives alone. For three days he received a phone call from the Department of Health to check on him. He was given no advice on how to reduce his symptoms. He asked for a doctor, but no-one would visit. He was told to ring an ambulance if he had breathing difficulties. Minister, this is simply not good enough. What welfare checks are being done for single people in Western Metropolitan Region?

Eastern Victoria Region

Ms BATH (Eastern Victoria) (12:50): (1488) My constituency question is for the Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change. My East Gippsland constituents’ legitimate livelihoods are in dire jeopardy because of this government. The Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning has recently altered the conditions of the East Gippsland timber release coupes. Ignoring the science of soil specialists, it has altered the prescriptions from general management zones to special management zones for the Orbost spiny crayfish and in doing so has removed 50 000 hectares from productive forest coupes. This includes buffer zones around temporary streams and drainage lines. This has an enormous flow-on effect because any subsequent contingency plans are going to take weeks and weeks, laying off people from work for weeks and costing them substantial income. Will the minister remove the prescriptions on the Orbost spiny crayfish and ensure any future prescription evaluations undergo thorough and rigorous regulatory impact statements to justify such situations?

Western Victoria Region

Mr MEDDICK (Western Victoria) (12:51): (1489) My constituency question is for the Minister for Roads and Road Safety, and it has been raised with me by residents of the town of Dunkeld. This town of less than 700 is the tourism gateway to the southern Gariwerd mountains of Jadawadjali and the Gunditjmara countries. The new Grampians Peaks Trail includes walking and cycling routes; however, with a speed limit of 80 to 100 kilometres per hour the winding arterial roads are unacceptably dangerous for pedestrians and cyclists. Dead and injured wildlife are also a feature of the major roads leading from Dunkeld into the Gariwerd mountains. Apart from the trauma this causes to wildlife it also causes emotional distress to people visiting the otherwise tranquil Gariwerd area. Road safety measures such as reduced speed limits, multi-use signs and wildlife crossing warnings will mitigate the risks and impacts of road trauma to locals and tourists and to wildlife. Will the minister reduce the speed limit and implement appropriate signage along key arterial roads out of Dunkeld?

Mr Ondarchie: On a point of order, President, I raise with the house some outstanding constituency questions that I have been asking on behalf of my constituents that are very important to them. I asked constituency question 1322 and I have been waiting 49 days for a response. I raised another one, constituency question 1208 to the Minister for Health, that is now 140 days overdue. This is important to my constituents. President, I know there is nothing in the standing orders that generates a response through you to these questions, but I would just remind the house this is very important to our constituents, and that is why constituency questions are so valuable to us. I seek a response to those questions as soon as possible, please.

The PRESIDENT: Thank you, Mr Ondarchie, for raising those issues.

Bills

Local Government Amendment (Rates and Charges) Bill 2021

Second reading

Debate resumed.

Mr LEANE (Eastern Metropolitan—Minister for Local Government, Minister for Suburban Development, Minister for Veterans) (12:53): I will be brief and finish my contribution before lunch. I know other members of the government are really keen to talk about the partnerships we have had between the state government and local government around supporting particularly small businesses. I have already mentioned the great job that the councils across this state have done in supporting their small businesses and supporting all their communities, particularly when you look at the food packages, care packages and local governments ensuring that the local procurement of small businesses through that facility was prioritised.

I have already mentioned that this bill is basically unenforceable. If it goes through this house and goes through this Parliament, it will actually be useless. So I call on all members of this chamber to vote against this bill. As I said, it is going to be useless anyway. I think in saying that, the government opposes this particular private members bill. It is a kneejerk reaction to one issue. Every time there is one issue that someone does not like, are we going to come into this Parliament and change the parameters within which local government can operate and change the way that they should be autonomous and not be dictated to by this Parliament? As I said, they have done a great job—they have frozen business fees, they have waived business fees.

For Mr Davis—and the members of the opposition—in my saying that we will be opposing and calling on other people to oppose the second reading, I think I have probably given him what he wants anyway. I think he just wants to tweet. It is a tweet. It will not even make sense of what the debate is about, or it will just be a tweet to say the government does not support small business. I mean, that is basically the essence of what the opposition has become. They have become sort of 3D Twitter trolls when they are not swearing at each other. That is basically what they have become. So I would say to the rest of the chamber I am sure Mr Davis and others have already got what they want, because they will just misinterpret everything about the government’s position, as they do. They will misinterpret what local councils are doing. They will misinterpret anything just for their political narrative, but I think that Victorians and small business and particularly the 50 000 workers that work in local government are smarter than the opposition and Mr Davis give them credit for.

We will be opposing the bill, but I will leave it there to give members of the government an opportunity to talk about the great support and the great partnership the state government have had with local government during this really difficult time not just for small business but for the whole community.

Sitting suspended 12.56 pm until 2.03 pm.

Mr ONDARCHIE (Northern Metropolitan) (14:03): I rise today to speak to Mr Davis’s bill which is before the house, the Local Government Amendment (Rates and Charges) Bill 2021. Unlike the government’s, this is a bill that is quite simple, only a few pages. We have not been delivered a 120-page tome that has all hidden meaning in it. This is a bill that is worthy of the house’s consideration today—a bill that is there to enshrine that council fees, rates and charges of any kind payable by businesses are not harsh, they are not unreasonable and they are not increased or imposed on these businesses as we are working our way through this COVID period and the current financial year—and it includes some support for business over the next three future financial years.

It is important to note that small business is the heartland, it is the strength, of the Victorian economy. They are the largest employers, people in small business, and they have felt very much the effects of Daniel Andrews’s draconian measures on them through the course of the last two years or 18 months—and by the looks of things they have the possibility of being affected over the forthcoming years, too, should Dan get his way in a few days time. We have to be able to help businesses. The CBD—a lot—is dramatically affected. I know Mr Finn often talks about Bourke Street. Straight out the front door and down the road—I encourage government members to go for a walk and count the shops that can be open as opposed to the ones that have ‘For lease’ signs out the front.

As we are working through the context of this bill, it is important to know that many, many people—families, individuals—have been affected by what has happened to their businesses over the last little while. And we are not talking about big conglomerates here. We are talking about families who have put their houses on the line. We are talking about casual employees and employees that need the money every week to pay their outgoings—to pay their electricity bills, their phone bills, their internet, their petrol and their groceries—and, when they are allowed to, to go out and have a nice time. They have been dramatically affected by the effects of COVID, and it is going to take small business a long time to recover—a long time—so it is important that all levels of government support business and its chance to recover and to rebuild, and that is what we are looking to do through this bill that is before the house today.

I think it is important that we remind local government of what their place is. Mr Leane said in his contribution that the bill was useless. Well, I do not think that the sentiments that are placed inside this bill are useless. It is about protecting small business. It is about jobs. It is about helping local shopping strips. It is about helping local economies. It is about helping people to get back on their feet. And we are calling on local government to do their part to support it.

Mr Leane also went on to say that local government have done a great job in supporting business. Some, maybe, but I beg to differ, because we have councils, particularly in my region of Northern Metropolitan, whose focus has been somewhere else. And I refer to the City of Yarra, who decided in this very important time of helping businesses to recover that they want to impose a tax of up to $5000 for taking up the space in which they operate their businesses. We have had a process where we have allowed small business, particularly in hospitality, to use areas out the front of their shops in places that are designated car parks, and now the City of Yarra wants to charge them for that. That is ridiculous. A city that has done all it can do to stop vehicles coming into its municipality is now saying, ‘If you take up a car park, we’re going to bill you for it’.

I have to say there are people who are very silent on this, very silent on what the People’s Republic of Yarra are doing to small business. I have not heard a word out of the Greens about this, not a solitary word, saying this is hurting small business and jobs. And why? Because we have a Greens-led council in Yarra. How dare they say anything about them. But even the Minister for Small Business has said to Yarra, ‘This is ridiculous’. I have called time and time again for Yarra to reverse this crazy decision. But no, on the casting vote of the mayor of Yarra last week they said, ‘We’re going ahead’. And when you call on the Greens to speak out about how this is hurting small business and employees—crickets, not a word.

So I find it somewhat ironic that Yarra council pushes ahead with this cash grab on parking. They had an opportunity last Tuesday night to deal with this. But no, the mayor decided to use her casting vote in favour of the motion. They will say, ‘Oh, it is because we need the money’. Well, let us think about some of the things that council have done. It was not that long ago that Yarra council, Moreland council and Darebin council decided to run training courses to train climate change protesters. They are running training courses to train locals on how to protest about climate change, and they are saying they have not got enough money. Well, it is because they are using their money for things that are not about rates, roads and rubbish. They are focused on things that are outside their own bailiwick. We say to local government: do the basic things you need to do.

Now, to be fair there are some councils, particularly on the urban fringe, that are covering for things that the state government should have been doing in the first place, and they have had to carry a greater load because they have been neglected by the state government. I know the City of Whittlesea and the City of Hume, both of which I represent, have had to pick up the pieces from the state government leaving them hanging. But the Greens-dominated Yarra council want to run a climate training program to allow people to learn how to protest at climate change activities. Really? That is their job, is it? The City of Yarra were also advertising for someone they called a climate emergency artist, where they were looking to employ someone with a significant body of work to be creative around the climate emergency issue.

And how much were they looking to pay this person to do this? The City of Yarra—a local government area—which wants to charge people for using space outside their shops to promote their wares, to sell, to make business and to employ people and which wants to charge people extra for picking up rubbish bins, is now saying it wants to employ a climate emergency artist to be creative around the issue of the climate emergency and pay them $72 854 a year to do that. Yes, that is right, Deputy President, you should look shocked: $72 854 a year for the City of Yarra, a local council, to employ someone to do some creative artwork around the climate emergency. And let me make that even more refined for you, Deputy President, because I know you are just shocked about that: that $72 854 plus super was coming straight out of ratepayers pockets, initially for a six-month contract. Now, you have just got to say to yourself: what are these people thinking? I know the ratepayers of Yarra, of Moreland and of Darebin—from time to time, as I speak to them regularly—just shake their heads and say things like, ‘Could the council just do their job and not get caught up in things that are outside their immediate responsibility?’.

That is why this bill is very important. Not all councils, to be fair—I have dealt with some councils that are quite responsible and take up the mantle—but this is about driving councils to behave themselves in a prudent and financially responsible way to support small business. If they will not do it, then maybe we need to legislate. So, Mr Leane, I disagree with you that this bill is useless. The sentiments are very, very important. I would be surprised today if the government voted against it, because they are making a statement to small business, they are making a statement to employees and they are making a statement to people who put their houses on the line to run a small business that they do not care about them. They have not yet supported the sentiments in this bill. I would not be surprised if the Greens—hang on, I said it as a plural; if the Green—said today that they would not support this, because they are beholden to their mates at Yarra. They are not standing up for small business. The City of Yarra talk about the things that they are trying to do—could they just focus on looking after their residents? Could they make sure they are spending their money on things that are appropriate? And that is why this bill is so important to this house today.

I would remind all of those who are getting excited about attacking this bill that employing somebody for $72 854 to do creative artwork around the climate emergency in the City of Yarra is inappropriate. To run training courses for people in the municipalities of Moreland, of Darebin and of Yarra on how to protest at climate emergency activities is inappropriate. We are not saying it is not due cause, we are saying: is that an appropriate use of ratepayers money? And that is what this bill is designed to do. So I say to those who will consider voting against it today that you are sending a very clear message to small business. Do not come in here with your rhetoric about supporting business, do not come in here with your rhetoric about being tough on bad expenditure, because you are just supporting that today. So I commend the bill to the house.

Dr CUMMING (Western Metropolitan) (14:14): It has been really interesting to hear the debate this afternoon, and I am pretty sure everybody here in the chamber would actually know that I was in local government for 21 years before I actually got into Parliament. In March next year it will be that I have represented my community for 25 years in the west, and I have the great fortune of having some of the most wonderful councils in the western suburbs—the councils of Hume, Wyndham, Melton, Brimbank, Moonee Valley, Hobsons Bay and Maribyrnong. They have done their utmost during this pandemic. They have reached out to the state government, wanting to know if there was anything more that they could actually do for their communities. Interestingly, the state government did not use their local councils to their full potential.

If you know anything about the history of the difference between local government and state government, local government is an arm of the state government. If you think about many years ago when people were looking for gold in Ballarat and there were not the cars on the roads, they would actually get a miners permit in Ballarat, collect the money and then go by horse and cart to the state government to actually hand over the money for that miners permit to the state. We still have that system in place.

Local government rates and charges, or taxes, are some of the only ones that you actually see being spent in your immediate area. I can pick an example. Maribyrnong City Council would, say, have a rate base of about $70 million, but your local government rates are actually seen and spent in that immediate area, that small area within that boundary, unlike the state government, where they collect their charges from everywhere. But the money that is taken from, say, poker machine revenue in Maribyrnong—$50 million or $70 million—could be spent anywhere in the state. But your local government rates are spent in your immediate area. And it is not just about rates, roads and rubbish, because you have to cut the grass in the parks, and you do not get revenue from cutting grass and you do not get additional charges from cutting grass. You do get a small charge maybe from someone who attends a swimming pool, but it would be great if the state government actually gave local government more in the way of grants so they could service their community more closely.

We as the 59th Parliament debated the new Local Government Bill 2019—I think it was just before the pandemic in 2019—and we were able to debate that bill for almost 25 hours. I would hope that with this new pandemic bill that is coming towards us we get the same opportunity to debate it as fully as we debated the Local Government Bill.

Now, I was not a fan of that Local Government Bill, the review at that particular time or the then Minister for Local Government, but we debated it. We debated it for hours in the committee stage—Adem Somyurek, who was the local government minister at that particular time, and I—and at that time we had Leader of the Government Gavin Jennings, who allowed that debate to occur. He allowed Adem and me for hours and hours and hours to debate that bill so I could actually raise questions on the many questions and emails that I received at that particular time. So this bill that the opposition has put into Parliament I find quite interesting. I think that it would definitely need amendments, and if it actually did get up, I would love to be able to debate it in the committee stage.

But if we talk about local government and the pandemic at this particular time, what I understood was, at the start of the pandemic, when, say, Maidstone, as an example, had higher case numbers, the state government at that time rang up the local council—Maribyrnong City Council—and asked if they could actually use the toilets in the area. I was highly critical of the state-of-emergency bill, seeing that the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 actually talks about authorised officers and health officers. They are already in the act, and council workers could have easily been used and picked up. All of the, say, 700 employees could have been pivoted and redeployed in a pandemic situation to actually help the state handle this pandemic.

It would seem that the state government just took it upon themselves to make up new systems, took it upon themselves to make a lot of systems extremely complicated, especially around vaccinations. I have been critical that in a pandemic—and you would believe it was, as some people have said, a race—that if it was an urgent pandemic situation, we could have had 24/7 vaccination centres, which I have heard have been used around the world in Third World countries, where people were pretty much lined up on school chairs in a queue so they could actually get their vaccination. But, no, we had to complicate the situation by having a centre set up here, a centre set up there. We did not actually go into the community where they actually needed it—only in the last couple of months. So the state government have really dragged their feet.

Now, I have heard the criticism, and it is true, that in a normal situation the federal government would be responsible for vaccinations, especially with the flu. But in a normal situation with the flu vaccination, you probably get 5 or 10 per cent of the population. You are not trying to vaccinate 100 per cent of the population. Normally with vaccination, say, with the flu, the GP network, the chemist network work quite well. But in a pandemic situation you would expect that the state government would have to set up very large—such as the showgrounds or the MCG—capacity for vaccinations, and 24/7.

Here in Victoria we have a workforce that actually works seven days a week, 24 hours a day, but we had a situation where the messaging from the media and from the Premier was so mixed and matched it did not give a sense of urgency from the state government—as well as not having a 24/7 facility available. We knew that we had AstraZeneca being mass-produced here in Victoria, so why didn’t the state government immediately throw all of their support behind the vaccines that were here, readily available, in Victoria? And then we had this complicated system of having to ring up and make a booking rather than just having a walk-in service. We had another complication, and we are still having all of these additional complications, in the way of MyGov and uploading, and this is what has dragged out the vaccination rollout. This is what has dragged out our situation of waiting to get to 90 per cent. The sense of urgency from this state government just has not seemed to be there, not in the way of actually making sure that that messaging got through, or even making sure that those smaller community vaccination facilities were available, because the GPs in my area of Western Metropolitan stood up last year.

But I have only recently seen them turning up to give what the state government has now let us all know is our health advice at these pressers, the daily Dan pressers. I have only just seen the state’s chief psychiatrist, when we have known since the first lockdown the mental stress and strain that lockdowns create. We have had six lockdowns—six lockdowns—and it was only a couple of months ago that we actually saw the chief psychiatrist come to a press conference. It was only just recently that they took the local GPs that have stepped up within my Western Metropolitan area and brought them into Parliament to speak to the chief health officer, and they have been requesting this since the start of the pandemic. This state government has taken its time to show urgency.

Even with the lockdowns that we have had—you know, one day, five days—this state government does not seem to know what they actually mean to local business, while I have watched in my area, in the Western Metropolitan area, the most vulnerable communities having soup kitchens and queues way down the street, queues of cars, looking for food boxes. This is because of the lockdowns that we have had. We have had the most lockdowns in the whole entire world. We have put so many people out of small business and we have put so many people out of work that they are now requiring handouts in the way of food.

I do not think that I have seen this or even read about it in history books since the Great Depression. And I have seen this because I have read through historical local government records. Many years ago, when a previous mayor of the City of Footscray passed, his wife turned up with all of his boxes from during the Depression. I was reading through minutes of meetings and I could see that through the Depression the City of Footscray had a soup kitchen next door in the hall on Hyde Street. I thought it was quite amazing that the local government at that time was having soup kitchens—I could not imagine it—but now here we are in this pandemic and this state government has created this situation due to their lockdowns.

They are not picking up rapid testing, not looking to Europe for their best practice and not picking the best from around the world and taking up those best practices here in Victoria. Sadly what I have witnessed is a police response for a health crisis, which has made us an embarrassment to the whole entire world. It is going to take us a long time to turn that around. It is going to take us a long time to heal the wounds that this state government has created due to the length and pain of the lockdowns. And the government, with this new pandemic legislation—I hope that they will abandon it to make sure that we are not going to go down a path of a continually divided community between the vaccinated and the unvaccinated, this so-called vaccination passport society. We all understand that we will have to show our vaccination passports to go into other countries, but not here in Australia. We should be a united country. We do not need mandates. We just need good health advice. We do not need mixed health advice. One minute there is this, another there is that. We do not need the state government micromanaging us.

It has been quite sad to watch that this state government has not actually used local government to its full potential. They actually just came in with the last state-of-emergency amendments, so now we have had these authorised officers going through local businesses in the last week threatening them with $100 000 fines—I have heard in Footscray. I have seen videos of them going through Daylesford from shop to shop. Is this really what we want—for the small businesses that have survived to be actually receiving $100 000 fines? Do we really want that? Do we really want to fine our community for not wearing a mask outdoors when we know that this is an indoor virus? Why have we actually abandoned science? Why have you made things up as you go along? Why have you allowed certain people to be essential but small business not? Why wasn’t everyone considered essential during this pandemic? Yes, this is a bill about rates and charges. I think I will end my contribution there.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you, Dr Cumming. It is always good to get an insight from someone who has been in local government.

Mr ERDOGAN (Southern Metropolitan) (14:32): Yes, it is a hard act to follow Dr Cumming’s insights into the local government sector. I appreciated the civic lesson in how ratepayers money is to be used and the difference between state and local government funds. It was an interesting insight. Thank you for sharing that with the chamber. I know everyone here—you might not be here today—has appreciated it also.

I might move along to the bill before the house, because I know Mr Davis has put in so much work. He told the papers about it. He put on social media that this bill was coming, so obviously as a member of this chamber I was looking forward to speaking on this bill. Thank you for that. I guess this bill broadly talks about the need to, I guess, rein in increases of certain fees at a local government level on the back of the Liberals being upset, in particular at one council in inner Melbourne, it seems. It means a targeting of one council, so one rule for everyone now as a result is being proposed, which is an interesting aspect.

I think as a government we have always been responsive to the needs of ratepayers and residents. People will recall it was our government that introduced rate capping following the 2014 state election, and since then we have also worked collaboratively with the local government sector to roll out a range of programs, even dating back to before the pandemic. I know in my electorate of Southern Metropolitan Minister Leane would be well aware of the partnership the state government has in terms of delivering library services in our communities. They are an essential educational resource that communities rely upon. That was even pre pandemic that we made those levels of investments, and obviously through the pandemic that has continued.

There are many technical aspects to this bill that Mr Leane referred to earlier, and so I want to echo his concern about the drafting of this legislation. I am not sure who Mr Davis consulted in its preparation. I hope it was not the Shadow Attorney-General, because I will remind the chamber again that he does not have a legal qualification, and his competence to undertake this work was summarised by Mr Finn recently.

On that point, I want to point out that I was just making a comment about the drafting of this legislation, just expanding on what Mr Leane pointed out, that the Local Government Act 1989 would probably need to be amended too to give genuine effect to the intentions of this bill. But also some of the clauses are very broad, and I am concerned that they could have unforeseen consequences—or maybe they are foreseen and that is the aim of this. As we have seen through the pandemic certain sectors have been disproportionately affected, and what I am concerned about is that a blanket rule to this effect, even if it is effective, would mean that a benefit would be conferred on certain businesses that have actually done quite well. We know that electronics and home hardware sales have gone through the roof. There were record profits for companies in those sectors and in construction supplies et cetera. We understand some small businesses have done very poorly and it has been difficult for them to operate in this environment. The work that my committee did looked at the effects on the tourism, hospitality and events sectors, and they have been disproportionately affected, but other sectors have done well. Like I said, the Harvey Normans of the world, the Bunnings et cetera have done really well out of the pandemic operating situation. So I think there are different effects on different companies and different organisations.

So it is a blanket rule change in response—from what I can see—to one particular council. Regardless of which party dominates that council, I think we need to have rules that apply equally across all councils and that are fair and reflected in that. So in that regard I do have concerns about this bill. Like I said, the drafting elements are clearly concerning.

A lot has been said about the work of our Minister for Small Business, Jaala Pulford, and the work that we are doing in this space. Just last week a $54 million funding boost was announced for the outdoor economy, a package which will assist businesses in activating outdoor spaces and their capacity. There are a number of other programs as well. A further $20 million will be available to councils to support all businesses that want to use utilise this outdoor space to expand their capacity and safely open up. And we are opening up. Unfortunately many of the speakers in this chamber today have misrepresented the work of our Premier and our cabinet-led response to the pandemic. They have been misrepresenting. We know that the economy is opening up. We said when the 70 per cent targets were met we would open up, and at 80 per cent we would open up accordingly—and now 90 per cent. So we are moving—transitioning—to a vaccinated economy. I think we need to understand that vaccines were not around last year, and this year there were delays in their delivery, in particular to our state, but once they came I think the state hubs did an amazing job. Out of all the states and territories no-one else delivered more AZ, AstraZeneca, than our state clinics did. I think it was over a million jabs. So on that work I just need to commend all health professionals in their role in rolling out that program.

But obviously there is a lot of work to be done—there still is—and so that is why a lot of this funding and access to funding is contingent on councils demonstrating that any additional costs or fees incurred or loss of revenue as a result of the activation of outdoor space will not be levied on local businesses. This is about supporting our businesses, opening up and Victorians getting out and about. But there is so much other work that we have done, and a comment along the way was—

Mr Ondarchie interjected.

Mr ERDOGAN: No, I will not be supporting the bill, because I think it is poorly drafted. The idea of supporting businesses we are doing already. Some of the examples that the Liberals give are talking about this government and red tape. We have been cutting red tape. Minister Pearson is delivering on regulatory reform. He is doing a regulatory reform package of over $70 million which is going to make it easier for small businesses to interact and is trying to make a number of uniform—

Mr Ondarchie: On a point of order, Deputy President, with due respect to my learned colleague, he is clearly confused about what he is talking about here, because he is talking about state government initiatives. This bill is about local government. Could you bring him back to the bill, please.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Ondarchie, there is no point of order. But I do remind the member that it is a local government bill, so if he could keep his comments to local government, it would be great.

Mr ERDOGAN: I will. I will refer to the work that our government is doing, and there is significant overlap because the intentions of this bill, we are told, are about assisting businesses to cope with the next three or four years of potential hardship. That is the point I was trying to hit upon—that some businesses have actually done quite well compared to others, and such legislation may result in unintended consequences where those that have already benefited will benefit even more under these proposed reforms. I was also reminding the house of our history of introducing rate capping, which was actually quite popular in the community, and the role of the Essential Services Commission in setting the right and appropriate levels. So I think this bill at this time is quite opportunistic in my opinion, and I believe it is in response to one inner-city council and their attempts to add an additional levy or tax on local businesses in their area. But our small business minister made our viewpoint quite clear.

Mr Ondarchie: Do you support that?

Mr ERDOGAN: No, obviously I do not support it. I support the position of our small business minister. She actually wrote a letter to that effect, and it—

Mr Leane: You should support their autonomy.

Mr ERDOGAN: Well, that is a good point. I do support local government autonomy. I think that is an important fact that we need to reflect upon, and this bill interferes. Like I said, it is the Liberal-Nationals that are always talking about riding roughshod over local governments and local communities—was ‘roughshod’ the word that Mr Davis used? That is what this bill is actually calling for.

We are saying local community should have a say in the way their local areas are run through their councils, and there are certain powers that councils have. They are allowed to apply their policies according to the will of their council, which is reflective of the view of their residents and ratepayers, so I think they are well within their powers to decide what they would like to do in this space. Nonetheless, as a government we need to make sure our policies are applied fairly across the board.

This bill does not solve a lot of those issues. It is very short, about five pages or so, and it is very, very specific legislation. The clauses being inserted will not, I do not believe, be interpreted to have the effect that they are intended to have. Like I said, the fact that it has not even referenced the Local Government Act 1989 is definitely an oversight, and it is an oversight in the drafting. So if the opposition is serious about some of these reforms, I think the best approach is to approach the relevant ministers in this space and have that conversation, provide insight. We are a consultative government, so we are happy to take feedback on board. I am always open to feedback.

But I think our government has listened and we are supporting communities. The business support is, I must admit, in partnership with the federal government. If we refer to just the last period, the federal government provided the disaster payments and thousands of businesses received our business costs assistance program support. It was a great partnership.

Mr Ondarchie: Have they all got it now?

Mr ERDOGAN: Yes. I believe many of them do have it. I am not sure if it is every single one, but the majority have. The people I have spoken to have told me that once they were registered the first time, many of the payments were automatic, which even saved the burden of having to reapply for many of these businesses. That is how fantastic it was. Obviously all of us are learning through this pandemic, and it has been a challenge, but I am proud to say we have reached this point.

This bill does not address these issues, because like I said it will confer a benefit to those that actually have not lost anything throughout this period, potentially, beside the fact that it might not even have any legal standing; that is a different argument to be had. I would like to see the legal advice in the drafting of this, but that is a different issue.

I think the point I am trying to make here is that there is a road map to get out of this period of difficulty for these businesses. The hospitality sector is opening up, in-house dining, so to speak, has returned, and obviously when 80 per cent targets are reached there will be further opening up. At 90 per cent we will be operating a vaccinated economy. It was fantastic to hear on the radio this morning that there will be a booster program—it has been approved—so the vaccinated economy will continue through 2022 as our Premier outlined most recently. He has already stated that there will be no more statewide lockdowns or citywide lockdowns, so I think this whole misrepresentation of our road map is unfair.

I think there is much more to say in regard to this bill, but I know there are a number of speakers so I will wrap up on that point. I will not be supporting this bill, I am sorry.

Mr FINN (Western Metropolitan) (14:45): I thank Mr Erdogan for his apology. It is accepted. Mr Erdogan has much to apologise for, and I thank him for that indeed. I just wonder, listening to Mr Erdogan’s address to the house, did he actually mention local government at all? He rabbited on about what the Andrews government was doing and what it was not doing and did not go anywhere near what he should have been talking about. I am not actually sure if he mentioned local government at all. That is the crux of this bill and what it is about. It is about the impact of local government on its ratepayers and particularly small business.

I have always said that the best form of government is a good local government, the worst form of government is a bad local government—and I have experienced both. I remember when I was first elected to the other place back in 1992 there was a shire that I represented, the Shire of Bulla. Mr Ondarchie well remembers the Shire of Bulla. That was an extraordinarily well-run council. It was a council that I was very proud to work with. It did a great deal for the local community but also a great deal for small businesses. John Watson, Kathy Duncan, a whole range of people on that council, Phillip McMahon—I could go all day, there were so many of them. They all did a great job for the Shire of Bulla and it really was a delight to be able to work with those people because they actually understood what was going on in their community. I suppose the crux of a good local government is the understanding of what the local community needs, what it wants and the ability to balance perhaps the two. I often look back and think back to the days of the Shire of Bulla and deeply regret that it no longer exists.

Despite the best efforts of Sunbury to get out of the City of Hume that, of course, has been thwarted by this government. The Labor Party prior to the 2014 election promised the people of Sunbury that they could get out of the City of Hume, they could establish their own municipal future. Then, of course, when they were elected the government turned its back on that commitment—not for the first or the last time, I hasten to add. But that is something that I know the people of Sunbury and the people of Bulla will not forget in a hurry. That is a tragedy, in my view, because the people of Sunbury and Bulla have really missed out in the Hume conglomerate—missed out in comparison to, say, Craigieburn or Broadmeadows. That is the unfortunate fact of life. To go from the Shire of Bulla to the City of Hume was a hell of a culture shock for a lot of people and we still have not quite recovered from it, it has to be said, and I think that is probably going to be the way for quite some time.

The Shire of Bulla is an example of a good council, of a good local government. I could go on for quite some days about some of the examples of bad local governments. The City of Wyndham is a classic example.

Ms Lovell interjected.

Mr FINN: Deputy President, I have looked back in stunned amazement at the City of Wyndham as its councillors have brawled and have put their own personal agendas and catfights ahead of the welfare of the people of that municipality. I have often called for the council to at least be held accountable if not sacked by the government, but of course that has not happened, which is a great pity and not surprising. They were sacked years ago, but they have not been sacked lately and that is a pity.

Ms Lovell interjected.

Mr FINN: Not Wyndham, no. That was Brimbank.

Ms Lovell interjected.

Mr FINN: Whittlesea, was it? Yes, Whittlesea. Well, look, let’s face it, there is no shortage of local governments that probably could come into that category, but Wyndham is a classic example. We have had Brimbank, and we know what happened in Brimbank and unfortunately some of the shenanigans in Brimbank are creeping back in.

Thankfully we have councillors like Cr Trung Luu and also Cr Maria Kerr on the Brimbank council, who are holding the powers that be to account. They are doing a great job. And next door in Melton we have Cr Julie Shannon, Cr Moira Deeming and Cr Goran Kesic, the deputy mayor, who are also doing a brilliant job—also Cr Kathy Majdlik, the mayor there. They are doing a good job, a great job, for the community, and I commend them. I wish we had more councillors like them instead of some of the ones that we have around the place who regard themselves as some sort of little tin gods—you know, people like Jack Medcraft from Hume, who regards himself as perhaps more important than anybody else on the earth. We need people like the ones that I mentioned before who really take the people seriously, take their jobs seriously but do not necessarily take themselves too seriously, and that is extremely important as far as I am concerned.

I mentioned before one of the big issues that we face with local government and that this bill deals with is the impact of local government and its actions on small businesses. Small business particularly at the moment is really struggling. I have run a small business myself. I know how difficult it can be. I know what it is like to hang around—we do not have to hang around waiting for the cheque to arrive anymore, but I remember in the old days we had to do that—and then race down to the bank and pay the extra money needed to clear it earlier so we could actually eat. Members opposite would not know what I am talking about because I do not think any of them have actually run a business, but I have been there. I have experienced that, and I fully understand what many small business people are going through now. It is horrendous. I mean, it is a horrible, horrible situation for small business right across this state, and so many have already gone to the wall. Sadly, so many small business people already have taken their own lives as a result of what has happened in the last two years or a little less, and that is an untold tragedy of this pandemic. It is an untold tragedy that hopefully one day will be told. We will be able to look at this entire situation with honesty and we will be able to examine with some degree of truth what has occurred during this time. I do not wish to overly politicise this, but I feel that that will be after the political demise of the Premier, because at the moment truth and honesty are something that we are not going to get from this government or anybody associated with it. And that is a sad thing for the people of Victoria.

But the small business community is suffering in a huge way. The last thing it needs is local government firing up and inflicting more pain on people who are in many ways just hanging on by their fingernails, and I am sure there are members from right around the state who can back this up. People in metropolitan areas, country areas—they know people, as indeed do I, that are hanging on by their fingernails. They are really scratching just to survive. The last thing they need is local government slapping more rates on or more taxes, more charges. That is the last thing we need, and that is what this bill sets out to prevent. It is about protecting those small businesses and the people that those small businesses employ. That is what this bill is about.

Mr Ondarchie before mentioned the City of Yarra. How could we not mention the City of Yarra when we are talking about bad, bad local government. I mean, if you are talking about bad councils, shocking councils, disgraceful councils, then you are talking about the City of Yarra, because the City of Yarra, I do not know if it has got clowns, I do not know if it has got elephants, but it is a circus, let me assure you. The latest commitment by the Yarra council—and Mr Ondarchie might be able to help me as to how much we are looking at for that artwork—

Mr Ondarchie: Nearly $72 000.

Mr FINN: $72 000 for a piece of artwork to tell us all about the climate emergency, which of course we all know does not exist. So I do not know where these councils get off with this stuff. You might as well put up a painting of Donald Duck. It would be just as effective. So here we have these councils pushing along their political barrow irrespective of the truth or otherwise. They do not care. It is a political point to be made, and they will probably go to—I was going to say some sort of fest—some conference at some stage and they will all get a round of applause and a pat on the back, and the comrades from here, there and everywhere will all raise a glass of the finest French champagne to their honour.

It is a wonderful thing to be a Green. I tell you what—I have said this before—I wish I could afford to vote Green. I would not; I just wish I could afford to, because you have got to have a lot of money in the kick to even consider voting for them, because you know it is going to cost you an arm and a leg. You just have to talk to the small business people in Richmond and Collingwood and so forth. They will tell you what sort of council the Yarra council is. I have friends, as you might expect—a number of friends—in Richmond, who are in despair at what their council is up to. They tell me stories that fair dinkum would curl your hair and have almost done the same to me from time to time. It is quite astonishing. If only the Yarra council would stick to putting up black and yellow lights on the town hall at grand final time, we would be happy with that. I know you, Deputy President, would be as happy as I am at the prospect of that.

I think we really have to look at the role of local government, because there seems to me to be a lot of councils that have actually gotten away from their key role. I know there is a lot of cost shifting on. I know state governments have put a lot of responsibility on councils and not given them the appropriate funding in order to support them. I know that goes on. But that does not take away from the fact that there are a lot of councils who are involved in things that quite frankly they should not be, and political campaigns are among them. It is not up to councils to spend their ratepayers money on pushing political campaigns, on pushing their own barrows. It is a criminal waste, in my view, and I have long been frustrated, annoyed, furious, at councils that do this. It seems to me that those councils are invariably of the left—almost always of the left. In fact I cannot remember a council not of the left that has done this.

Mr Ondarchie: Ask Rick Garotti.

Mr FINN: We will get to Rick Garotti. Oh, we have not got enough time to get to Rick Garotti, sadly. Members opposite have to realise that councils are there for more than branch-stacking purposes. That is something that members opposite should learn. We know that it is not just the Labor right that are involved in this. We know the left is involved in it as well. I see Mr Tarlamis over there—I suspect he knows it too. But that is, I suppose, beside the point. I wish to get back to the bill, and the bill is a very important one. It espouses a very important principle, and that principle is that small business operators and their employees have a right to do their business without local government screwing them over.

Dr RATNAM (Northern Metropolitan) (15:00): I rise to speak against this preposterous bill that the opposition have put forward to us, veiled as some sort of credible debate, because it is anything but that. The Greens will not be supporting this blatant attack on the autonomy of Victorian local councils. I have to say that I am quite surprised that Mr Davis has brought this bill before us, given what he has argued for, many times in this place, about the need for communities and therefore councils to have autonomy and greater control over the decisions that affect them. Many times he has said that in this place, but today apparently it does not apply.

We have seen a steady and worrying encroachment from state governments into the affairs of local government, with really detrimental consequences for local communities over many years now, and it accelerated in recent years in the areas of planning and, for example, the method of electing local councillors at elections. The result is that local communities and residents are feeling more and more powerless about the decisions that impact their lives. Power has been taken away from them to have a say in things like local planning, in transport and in the environment just to name a few.

Mr Davis has spoken previously in this place about apparently being concerned about this encroachment on local communities but now wants to do exactly the same. It strikes me that this is once again a disingenuous, cynical and lazy attempt by the opposition to score a few cheap points at the cost of good policy and local democracy.

Just to summarise once again what this bill does: it bans councils from raising any rates, charges or fees on local businesses without the minister’s approval until 2025 and also limits councils so that they cannot reduce any waiver or reduction or refund that a local business might already have. It means effectively that councils will have their hands tied unless the minister okays it.

Some of the problems with this approach are that all councils are different and all councils have different needs and different budgets. They need freedom to make the choices that are right for their areas, and the proposals contained in this bill will actually prevent more projects that will support local businesses, like parklets—using parking spaces for dining—because councils will not be able to afford to do it. We should be promoting this, not preventing councils from being able to support their local businesses. The contradiction, the hypocrisy and the nonsense coming from the opposition is hard to comprehend and consider and accept as some sort of legible argument, because it surely is not.

No-one is arguing that local businesses do not need support, but this bill does not achieve it. Mr Davis’s bill is also a terrible idea because of the context that local councils are in financially. They have very limited levers to fund projects, and rates and charges are just some of the very few tools that they do have. That being said, rates and charges are not just about funding for services and programs; they are also an important tool to drive change. In some instances, for example, parking fees can have an impact on reducing transport emissions, or waste levies can help reduce excess waste generation.

Local councils have already been rate capped against their will, and at the cost of many of them being able to offer the types of programs and services they otherwise would have been able to provide for their community. They are subjected to massive and ongoing cost shifting that has been going on for years. Just take libraries, maternal and child health services and urban planning, all services that the state government asks local councils to deliver and once used to fund significantly but now are services that have to be funded more and more by local councils alone because the state government has withdrawn the levels of funding needed to continue the services for their communities.

Just look at the recent announcement, as an example, by the state government to plant 500 000 trees in Melbourne’s west, which is a really welcome initiative. But it only allocated $5 million towards it. My understanding is that this will only cover the cost of the seedlings, which means that the thousands of dollars it takes to keep one tree alive and the millions it will take to plant and grow these trees to maturity is going to be pushed onto local councils once again without any further funding. It is a project that is set up to fail, all hidden in the fine print, unless the funding can be increased. This is what local councils are subjected to, week after week, by different levels of government. Local councils have picked up the pieces when state and federal governments have abandoned their communities over and over again, and they should be rewarded and supported in their work, not punished for cheap political points, which is what the opposition is doing today.

Let us look at the context as well in which this bill is being proposed by Mr Davis and the opposition and why they argue that it is needed. I know that businesses have done it very hard during the pandemic. Nearly every aspect of life has been disrupted over the last two years—school, work, retail, hospitality, the arts, sport, everything—and we know some parts of our society have faced much more difficult challenges than others. But as we recover we are all adapting to how things will be different in the future, and all industries and businesses are also adapting to business as usual. Even the Parliament has changed the way the chamber works, as we have seen today, managing to create a new hybrid sitting format. Although it did take a while to get there, we did, and it is really a welcome move. It allows more and more members to participate.

Local businesses too have been finding new ways to adapt to the new environment—the need to keep people safe as we still progress through this pandemic. They are finding new ways to utilise outdoor space for COVID-safe dining. This is a really good thing. Imagine this future that is upon us where we are going to see the street being used more and more for socialising and dining and not being taken up by cars that could be parked in other more appropriate places. Apparently parking takes up a fifth of our shopping strips. That is so much space, and on-street parking could be used for dining, pedestrian pathways or safe bike pathways that can activate our local neighbourhoods and shopping strips, which is what local businesses are crying for. This is an opportunity to reimagine our local streets and our neighbourhoods and ensure our shopping strips can thrive, particularly in this period when we are emerging from the pandemic. We should be all putting our heads together to think about ways that we can support local councils to reimagine the future of our streets to support our local businesses and our local communities, not just taking an opportunistic moment to bash up our councils, who are really working very, very hard for our local communities.

And on that point I want to now talk about the example that has been used multiple times in this debate. This whole bill seems to be a kind of veiled attempt at achieving a swipe at a particular council—a very cynical, lazy attempt to score political points. Maybe the opposition did not know what else to do. They do not have a clear agenda or vision, so this is what they come up with—bills that actually cannot have an effect because they amend the wrong bill. They do not actually achieve the support that businesses are crying out for. I do not know who you represent, but you are not representing businesses with this sort of bill that does not actually achieve the outcome you are seeking.

But let us take on the points that both Mr Ondarchie and Mr Finn have raised and the misinformation and the misleading way they have approached this debate in the chamber today. I want to applaud the City of Yarra, who have since day one been trying to find ways to support their local community and their local businesses through what has been a terribly difficult time. They have spoken to their community and they have constantly spoken to their businesses, gaining feedback about what more they could do to support and help their businesses thrive. They are in fact one of the first local councils to make outdoor dining permanent. So the examples you are talking about, which you are misleading and misinforming everyone about, are actually based on an incredible initiative that the City of Yarra are leading in Victoria. They know the future, post pandemic, offers us an opportunity to rethink how businesses can use more space to have more customers to increase and expand their businesses. That is what they are trying to achieve, and they have actually now established a permanent outdoor dining program that more councils, I predict, will be taking up because of the hard work they have done to establish the framework upon which this can become permanent. Most councils had previously set up temporary outdoor dining programs. Yarra has now gone one step further to assure businesses that they can continue to trade in this way. It has been months in the making. They have consulted widely, and they have gained the support from the majority of their community. Last month in fact—

Mr Ondarchie interjected.

Dr RATNAM: Mr Ondarchie, it would pay you to pay attention to the actual detail and truth and not interject. It would pay you not to just talk over me, Mr Ondarchie, if you actually want to understand what is happening in your electorate. I am sorely disappointed that an upper house member for Northern Metropolitan could mislead his community in such a devastating way.

Mr Ondarchie: On a point of order, Acting President, the spokesperson for Yarra council there is indicating that I have misled this house. If she wants to do that, she should do that by substantive motion and not use the debate.

Dr RATNAM: On the point of order, Acting President, I am going to the substance of why I think what Mr Ondarchie presented to this house is misinformation.

Mr Finn: Further on the point of order, Acting President, the inference—well, it was more than an inference; it was a direct accusation—of Dr Ratnam toward Mr Ondarchie was very clear. I heard it from where I am sitting over on the other side of the chamber. Clearly she should withdraw. If she wants to make that sort of accusation, it should be by way of substantive motion. She should withdraw.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Bourman): That is correct. Dr Ratnam, if you want to make an allegation like that, it should be by way of substantive motion.

Dr RATNAM: Thank you, Acting President. I would like to put some facts and information now on the record. I am allowed to debate this point, aren’t I, through my substantive contribution?

Mr Finn: On the point of order, Acting President, Dr Ratnam put on the record what I regard as a very serious charge against Mr Ondarchie. I believe very strongly that she should withdraw, and I ask you to direct her to do that.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Bourman): Whilst the allegation was an allegation that was not serious, I can ask Dr Ratnam to withdraw, but I am not going to direct her. I am going to put this down as to the workings of the house. I am not going to direct Dr Ratnam to withdraw, but any further stuff like that needs to be by way of a substantive motion.

Dr RATNAM: Thank you, Acting President. Let us set the record straight. Yarra council has conducted extensive consultation with their community and local businesses. Last month they decided to waive all fees associated with outdoor trading until April 2022, so that means businesses pay nothing over this summer in this really critical period when businesses are going to re-emerge from this really difficult period over the pandemic. They have set up a permanent program, and they have understood through their consultations that businesses understand the need for some cost recovery. They consulted. They talked with actual businesses, who told them they understood that council will need to pursue some sort of cost recovery. Sixty per cent of the businesses they surveyed said they were willing to pay $500 or more per month for the use of outdoor dining spaces. Residents and their businesses understand that there needs to be a fair and equitable sharing of public space—because this is what we are talking about: public space. Those opposite might not understand the notion of community and the commons and sharing public space, but I am glad my colleagues at the City of Yarra understand this concept and can respect the need for the fair and equitable use of public space.

Their program includes discounts and options for future fee waivers. They are going to be in constant discussion with their businesses as they figure out new ways they can support and help their businesses thrive, starting with a permanent outdoor dining program, one of the first in Victoria, setting up the template for councils to adopt this program and expand this program right across Victoria. They have done the hard work of setting up the fee structure, which is a tiered fee structure, so the numbers that have been bandied around are not the actual fees that businesses will pay. It is a tiered fee structure based on the level of traffic in that street or the level of business activity in those different regions, and it is actually a fair system to ensure that people are able to use these outdoor dining spaces and that the public are able to see a fair and equitable sharing of the public space that they too have an interest in.

I note that my colleagues opposite did not once mention comparable fees—for example, that the City of Melbourne charges $7992 per bay per year. But there is no mention of that or outrage about the City of Melbourne somehow not representing their residents. So it is very selective: these are numbers the opposition is using just for an opportunistic moment to have a go at a local council to somehow make themselves look more relevant when they are anything but. The people of Northern Metro are going to be deeply disappointed that one of their elected representatives, who they are counting on to support them through the recovery from the pandemic, is letting their community down by not portraying what is actually occurring and what their councils are doing to support the local businesses and is instead peddling selective information and exaggerations just to be able to make their opportunistic points. But the record now states and we now have clearly what the City of Yarra are doing, which is setting up a really sustainable model that future councils, other Victorian councils, will be able to look to and adopt in their own communities.

We have also seen that some councils have been able to develop these programs thanks to subsidies from the state government. Not all councils were in receipt of those subsidies, but it has recently been expanded. I thank the Minister for Local Government, who in his contribution talked about the work the state government is now doing to expand some of that funding so that more councils can offer further subsidies and fee waivers, which councils are wanting to do. They are asking for the ability to subsidise and support their businesses, but they need to do it in partnership with the state government. And I thank the Minister for Local Government for his vote of support for local government in his contribution, because we certainly did not hear that from the opposition, who seem intent on positioning themselves as somehow heroes when they are not actually doing the work to support our local councils and local businesses. Our local councils are actually doing that hard work, and the opposition is not representing their hard work.

On that note and in conclusion, I would like to thank every local council and our local councillors, who have been working tirelessly in such difficult circumstances, particularly over the last two years, at the coalface with their communities, hearing what their residents and businesses are going through and trying so many different things to be able to support them because they want their local communities to thrive. They care about them so much, they listen to them every single day, and I want to thank them for their incredible work. They are the heart of democracy in this state, and we should be doing more to support our local councils, not using moments like this to use them as a political punching bag, which is what the opposition seem intent on doing today.

Mr GRIMLEY (Western Victoria)

Incorporated pursuant to order of Council of 7 September:

I rise to speak on the coalition’s Local Government Amendment (Rates and Charges) Bill 2021.

My contribution will be brief and outline the reasons why we feel we cannot support this bill.

Let me first say that this bill purports to support small business and Derryn Hinch’s Justice Party absolutely agrees with its intent.

Now is not the time to be introducing new charges and fees onto small businesses getting back onto their feet—especially not $5000 a year type charges.

But we think the way this bill has been drafted is somewhat flawed.

We all know where this bill has come from—the Greens-led Yarra council passed a resolution that would allow them to charge around $5000 to small businesses for using car parking spaces to operate their business. Given the lack of feasibility for most businesses to operate outside—and no less, in Melbourne’s unpredictable weather—these have been aimed at hospitality businesses.

Whilst the focus of these ‘car park operators’ in the media has been on Melbourne’s city proprietors, I’m pleased to say that a number of businesses in my electorate have taken up the initiative. It’s great to see main streets reinvigorated at such a tough and isolating time.

I have to say this scheme and other government supports haven’t been without their issues to small business.

One example was a hospitality business in Horsham.

That business put in seating on the footpath, with a gap between the premises and the tables, as is normal, so that people can walk past. When it came to this venue selling alcohol, they were allowed to serve it at their new outdoor seating, but they weren’t allowed to serve it on the pedestrian footpath obviously because it had to remain clear for foot traffic.

However, due to the poor drafting of the ‘red line plan’ what this actually meant in practice was that staff would have to jump from the indoor premises to the outdoor seating to make sure they weren’t stepping on the footpath to serve alcohol.

Because of this they weren’t physically able to serve alcohol outside for a considerable while. It’s ridiculous. It’s an example of how bureaucratic nonsense can get in the way of business prosperity and development.

Another business waited for months—yes, months—for a COVID small business grant because they forgot to put an apostrophe in their application, meaning that the business names didn’t match up. When the apostrophe issue was fixed, they found out that because the owner, who had just purchased the business, hadn’t updated the business name through their ABN, they weren’t eligible.

It was something like $25 to renew and was clearly an oversight when purchasing a new business and doing all the other things new business owners have to do. After all, why wouldn’t this owner want to renew the name of the restaurant that had been successfully running in the town for 20-plus years?

Another example of red tape strangling small businesses.

I would like to thank the minister’s office for acting extremely quickly to fix this error once we had raised it with them. It’s just a shame these things happened in the first place given the pressure businesses have been under.

In relation to this bill, though, we have the following concerns:

• We can’t just take over councils’ autonomy every time one of them does something we don’t like, unless it’s outrageous and detrimental to the safety and wellbeing of certain persons.

• This bill and policy in no way reflects that some businesses have done well—and in fact, flourished—during COVID. And power to them. But it shouldn’t mean that every business gets a freebie. The bill has no revenue or profit testing.

• Similarly, this bill incorporates for businesses that are created between now and 2025.

• Similarly again, the mandate to not increase fees until 2025 assumes that between now and then most businesses will make pre-COVID profits and potentially as a result of utilising car parking spaces will make proportionally higher profits for the next four years.

• This bill is broad enough to stop all additional rates, fees and charges from councils being increased, even with CPI or other metrics.

• The bill neglects the precarious position our regional and rural councils are in. Ms Maxwell and I both have regional electorates and they are struggling to the point where I’ve called for a stabilisation fund to put them on a more even playing field with the metro and suburban councils.

• This bill has the potential to not allow my councils to adequately fulfill their obligations to residents and puts them in an undesirable financial position. I have seen councils from my electorate not happy about this bill and they certainly weren’t consulted on it.

• Lastly, councils are elected by their residents. If they do things that are unsupported, stupid or insulting, like a $5000-a-year tax for being innovative with their business, then I’d hope the disappointed residents would speak with their votes at the next council elections.

So, in summary, we would ordinarily support anything that supports small businesses and especially at a time like right now when we’ve had 270-plus days of lockdowns.

But this bill doesn’t address some key concerns such as inflexibility and a lack of means testing and certainly was introduced without consultation.

It’s for these reasons that unfortunately we will be opposing this bill today.

Dr BACH (Eastern Metropolitan) (15:16): I move:

That debate on this matter be adjourned until later this day.

Motion agreed to and debate adjourned until later this day.

Business of the house

Orders of the day

Mr FINN (Western Metropolitan) (15:17): I move:

That the consideration of order of the day, general business, 3, be postponed until later this day.

Motion agreed to.

Bills

Planning and Environment Amendment Bill 2021

Second reading

Debate resumed on motion of Mr HAYES:

That the bill be now read a second time.

Ms TAYLOR (Southern Metropolitan) (15:18): Thank you to Mr Hayes for bringing this bill to the house. I certainly understand the sentiment from which the bill has been brought forward, and we understand how important the environment is when we are looking at matters of our suburbs and broadly across the board. Anyone who knows me well would know that I have a great passion for the environment generally speaking and also for finding that really delicate balance and getting it right at the end of the day when we are looking at how we manage development versus keeping foliage and keeping open space and greenery in our suburbs.

We note that with this bill Mr Hayes is introducing a new requirement to provide an environmental impact statement for all planning permits and planning scheme amendments. But I will note that in Victoria we do already have many robust and fit-for-purpose processes for considering environmental values in planning matters. There are some challenges with this bill, and I say this absolutely with the greatest respect because I understand the intent behind the bill; I get what has brought it about. However, planning is obviously an incredibly technical area, and the ramifications can be profound when you bring forward a bill that perhaps may not, and I would have to say perhaps does not, really reflect that. I do not think it will deliver what perhaps is intended in the sense that it will be an extraordinary overreach, and in fact it is ratepayers, at the end of the day, that would have to cover the extra costs of the extraordinary regulatory burden. I am not sure if that is what Mr Hayes had intended—that ratepayers would have to bear the brunt of these changes that he is proposing to bring forward.

The bill has an unnecessary overlap and duplication of regulatory burden in any case, and it does not recognise the framework already in place to protect environmental values in Victoria. We do have a complementary system of legislation to protect environmental values, including the Environment Protection Act 2017, the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1998, the Wildlife Act 1975 and the Environment Effects Act 1978. And for instance, if we are going to look at some of the legislation that is already present, the Environment Effects Act 1978 provides a comprehensive assessment process for projects that have the potential for significant impacts on the environment. The Planning and Environment Act 1987, for instance, provides for the assessment of environmental values through planning schemes, which include policies, zones, overlays and particular provisions, and through the 2017 guidelines, for the removal, destruction or lopping of native vegetation.

If I go further, the Crown Land (Reserves) Act 1978 sets out a process for reserving, actively purchasing and managing land to protect environmental values. And if we go further, if a project has the potential to impact on nationally significant flora, fauna and communities, it may also require approval under the commonwealth. Now, if we go to that further level of government and regulation, there, with requisite purpose I should say, is the commonwealth’s Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.

Mr Finn: It’s a good read, that.

Ms TAYLOR: I believe it is. The existing network of legislation embeds environmental values in the decision-making process, underpins a range of obligations and regulatory activities, provides a framework for regulating and monitoring behaviour in development and includes offences for damaging the environment as well. So we can see that there is already quite a large and significant regulatory framework in place to oversee the issues—and I think many of the issues to which Mr Hayes is directing his intent behind this bill.

Now, one of the great concerns that I have, and certainly our government has, about the bill that is being put forward—and this is where sometimes there is a concept and conceptually somewhere you think, ‘Okay, well, if we add in an extra environmental overlay’—is that it is in effect a blanket approach and that you may have, I have to say, some very negative ramifications and perhaps some ramifications that were not intended originally when this bill was put forward. Obviously as a government we have to be totally responsible and accountable in that regard, and we cannot enable legislation simply because there are conceptual elements which might appeal from a popular perspective when indeed the ramifications can be very harsh and burdensome, particularly if we drill them down to the level of the ratepayer.

With the blanket approach proposed by the bill to impose an environmental impact statement on all planning permit and planning scheme amendments—and I emphasise that because that is certainly one of the alarm bells that comes to mind, having that blanket approach which is not nuanced to the vicissitudes of considerations when we are looking at planning proposals—if we draw it down to the everyday individual in the community or the family who might, say, want to put in a patio or a deck, how much regulatory burden are we wanting to impose on families? And then there are the added costs that might and indeed would have to go with that, because obviously if you are wanting to impose a much higher level of regulatory burden, then the ramifications attached to that will follow inevitably, even though conceptually it seems like a nice idea.

So if the blanket approach proposed by the bill were to be enabled, so to speak, by imposing an environmental impact statement on all planning permits and planning scheme amendments, this would—and I am not understating this, because I know there is often a lot of discussion in the chamber about red tape and what is the balance; I would say to you that this is really blowing out any sense of balance in that regard—place a significant regulatory burden, including on many planning matters. This level of assessment is just not justified. Assessment is appropriately captured elsewhere in the existing assessment pathway.

The imposition of an environmental impact statement for every permit application presents an unnecessary overlap and costly duplication of regulatory burden. When I am making these statements in the chamber I am not in any way resiling from the importance of factoring in environmental concerns—not at all—but I am comforted by the fact that we already have significant regulation in place at all levels of government such that we do not require this particular blanket approach, which, as I have been discussing, unfortunately would bring about a regulatory burden that just would not be workable and, I have to say, would actually get quite—I believe, or I contend—a lot of blowback from constituents at the end of the day. This cost would be passed on to everyday residents for things like applications for a carport, a driveway or even a verandah.

Having an environmental impact statement for a carport—I mean, honestly, do we think constituents are going to wear that? I do not know. I am not saying that with any sense of sarcasm. I am just saying the reality is, when we are looking at our constituents across the community, would they tolerate a full environmental impact statement and all the costs that would be associated with that? We do have to drill down to that level of detail if we are going to impose this blanket approach on the community. Essentially, to round it off, the proposed bill is an unnecessary overlap and duplication of regulatory burden at the end of the day, and it disregards the framework already in place to protect environmental values in Victoria. I did allude to the issue of cutting red tape and finding that balance, because at the end of the day this would actually swing red tape into overdrive without actually delivering on the environmental aspiration that I think is being directed towards or is perhaps the driving impetus behind the drafting of this bill.

Just to go to that point: what about our government when it comes to red tape? If I am going to raise that issue, where do we sit on that, and what does it actually mean for constituents? We are embarking on a process to cut red tape in the planning system. This includes removing duplication and regulatory burden that is unnecessary. Obviously you have to have a certain amount of rigour in terms of the regulatory burden to make sure that issues such as the environment and all the other vicissitudes of planning et cetera are factored in appropriately. So it is a delicate balance.

We should say that the planning system—and I think this is probably getting down and drilling down to the reality of what would happen if this bill were to be implemented—receives approximately 45 000 to 50 000 permit applications annually, ranging from simple patios and driveways to new subdivisions, high-rise buildings and more complex things like quarries. Obviously we have got the various controls, regulations and legislation to customise and deal with the different environmental impacts of each of these applications, from a single tree removal in a backyard to more comprehensive potential impacts to groundwater, air quality and soil quality. Including an additional layer of requirement through a proposed environmental impact statement would add an extraordinary cost burden for many everyday people, who are only maybe doing a reno on the back of the house or adding in a unit in their backyard. We have to be realistic about that. We cannot gloss over the significance of what that would mean for the constituents that we represent—all of us—here. So I did want to note that, because if we are going to look at changes to the processes around planning permits et cetera, then we do have to be really frank about the ramifications of those decisions.

I have other colleagues who wish to speak further on this matter, but I did wish to just get to the heart of some of the fundamental challenges and, I should say, fundamental risks that this particular bill raises, and I think we need to really be frank about the ramifications that would unfold. But I do say that respectfully, noting the intention behind the bill.

Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan—Leader of the Opposition) (15:31): I am pleased to rise and make a number of statements about the private members bill that is before us, the Planning and Environment Amendment Bill 2021, brought to the chamber by Mr Hayes. I want to first begin by saying I understand completely why Mr Hayes has brought this bill to the chamber. Planning in this state is in a shambles, environmental values are being trampled across the state, and the damage that is being done by poor process and lax and weak controls is indeed very severe. The community is very aware of this. The community is increasingly concerned.

On Saturday morning I was in the eastern region, but just next to my electorate with the crossings that cover both electorates—

Ms Terpstra: Why were you in my region?

Mr DAVIS: Well, I was there talking to our local community group because I am concerned about the loss of 550 trees and the damage that is going to be done to the Lorne Parade Reserve—a reserve that had been saved by Dick Hamer, saved by Joan Kirner and is going to be destroyed by this government. The current plan is to knock over almost 550 trees and to do that without proper planning. Nothing of any substance has been released. People have not been able to get the information, and I know the local community groups have been working very hard, the Lorne Parade group and the Surrey Hills Progress Association, to try and get the Level Crossing Removal Project (LXRP) to assist. I am quoting this because this is a live example of damage that is being done.

Let us be clear: in our metropolitan area we have a very large city, well over 5 million now in Melbourne, and a city that is facing significant challenges. We have, Mr Finn, as you will understand, a climate change challenge. But even more than that, let us be clear: if you build up a city with lots of concrete and lots of bricks and lots of asphalt and you take out all the trees, you do not have to be a great believer in climate change to realise it gets hot locally.

Mr Finn interjected.

Mr DAVIS: Yes. And the point I would make, Mr Finn, is that the removal of the tree canopies across the state, across the metropolitan area, across many of our regional areas is having a huge impact.

So I understand completely where Mr Hayes is coming from. I want to protect our city, I want to protect our environment and I want to see better processes in place. Unfortunately this bill does not quite get there. I understand why he has brought it and I understand what he is trying to do, but it actually does not quite get there. It actually adds a series of regulatory and other burdens that will not necessarily get the outcome that he wants—legitimately wants—but will actually just add burden and difficulty. So on this occasion the opposition is regretfully not in the position that we can support this particular bill, but I sincerely make the point that indeed—as I said to Mr Hayes earlier—I looked at whether we could refer his bill. I went so far as to draft an amendment that at the conclusion of the second reading I would move that the Planning and Environment Amendment Bill 2021 be referred to the Environment and Planning Committee for inquiry and consideration, to be considered concurrently with their current inquiry into the protections within the Victorian planning framework.

This was perhaps one way to deal with the legitimate issues that Mr Hayes was raising but also to ensure that we did not add unreasonable burden. And it is clear from reading the bill and looking at and working through it with a number of planning lawyers that in fact the bill would require additional burden on local families and local construction.

It would see the requirement for an environmental impact statement for quite minor works, and that did worry us, notwithstanding the need. I am in favour of clearer planning protections. I am in favour of people actually being able to understand what they can do and what they cannot do in their local area and on their own private property. But there are effects from some of these matters, and I do not want to add to the burden of local families with small or modest construction projects on their land, where indeed the situation would be such that they might make a legitimate set of changes on that land but would face a very significant regulatory burden. That is why we will not be supporting this bill on this occasion, but as I say, I am deeply sympathetic to Mr Hayes’s point of view.

I am deeply troubled by some of the planning changes that are being made in the state at the moment. I have spoken in this chamber on a number of occasions about VC187 and VC190 and VC194 and 196 and 198, and indeed VC170, which is being used as a head of power to crunch over local communities and to force projects onto local communities where there has been almost no consultation in some circumstances. Indeed some of these planning amendments actually strip away even the requirement to consult, even in some cases the requirement to advise people that there may actually be works afoot. These fundamentally anti-democratic changes are ones that we are strongly opposed to.

I say about the government’s planning agenda that we agree with those parts that truncate process and take out the unnecessary delays that are in some parts, but we do not agree with things that weaken the consultation requirements and we do not agree with an attempt to remove third-party appeal rights. So we want to be very clear about where we draw the line. If you can tell me that the council can do something more quickly, or a government department—and let us be clear, if you look at the state budget this year you will see that actually some of the biggest delays and biggest problems in planning scheme amendments and changes are actually in the minister’s office and in the department. There are enormous delays there. I always say the minister should begin by actually improving the timeliness and responsiveness of his office and his department. We have seen that the estimated times have blown out massively. This is actually before COVID. Before COVID, these times blew out.

Mr Hayes: And at VCAT, too.

Mr DAVIS: Well, at VCAT there are other issues that are applying too. I should say one thing about VCAT, and I will put this on the record here. In my experience, which has been extensive in the recent period with FOI, the VCAT processes have by and large been pretty good. They have developed a set of formulas that relate to directions hearings and phone hearings and audiovisual approaches, and they work well for some of this administrative law area that is part of their work. It does not work well for some other areas. The minister in the chamber now will understand what I am saying. There are real problems developing in some parts of our court system. But VCAT, when it comes to planning appeals, has actually got plenty of issues, and one of the issues is that they cannot get out to see things at the moment and hearings cannot necessarily be conducted in a way that enables local communities to fully participate. That is a real issue, Mr Hayes—I agree with you on that—and I think the issues of certainty at VCAT, the issues of the unpredictability of outcomes and the issue of costs for local communities are very real.

What I would say is that some reform at VCAT with respect the planning list is an important objective, and I would in no way resile from that need to make sure that that planning list is actually reformed and improved as time goes by. That would be in a major objective for us in coming into government, to actually have a VCAT list that is fair, that is expeditious and that actually keeps costs to a minimum, both for the construction and development sector but also in particular for the community sector who are actually exercising, often, their democratic rights to actually make points about a development.

Again, in this area I in no way absolve councils of some responsibility. I think by and large—you know, I will be quite clear on this—councils try to do their very best in this area, but there are some councils that would prefer not to make decisions, to leave difficult planning decisions to big bad VCAT, and I think that in fact councils should engage in these matters and actually make decisions with proper community input and actually do that as a responsibility locally. I would rather have those decisions made in the first instance at a local council level, because they are democratically elected, they represent their community and they understand their community. Those, I think, are very, very important values that we should be strongly, strongly supporting. But I do accept Mr Hayes’s point that there needs to be further reform at VCAT, and we will certainly say more about that as time goes forward.

I do particularly though want to, in the context of some of these matters, note that I have more recently—and I will not go into the full detail on this—sought to have a self-reference from the Environment and Planning Committee that dealt with matters around heritage, and I am concerned about a lot of the matters of heritage that we are facing in our suburbs at the moment. The loss of heritage, the loss of canopy trees, is very significant at the moment. You know, I was pointing just before to the misbehaviour of the LXRP and its extraordinary decision-making processes which do not take account of the need to protect local communities and protect local heritage or indeed local tree canopy. I give another example: the now famous example of the elevated rail between Caulfield and Dandenong where they took out more than 1000 trees in that corridor, and in that corridor—

Members interjecting.

Mr DAVIS: You may well laugh, but this is actually a very significant outcome for our community, and I have to say that the behaviour of the LXRP in releasing the tree retention policy the week after they had cut down almost 1000 trees is one of the most Orwellian things that I have seen in quite a long while.

Even more recently at Toorak Road they released the arborist’s report on the crossing removal on Toorak Road the week after the crossing was opened. They fought that bitterly at VCAT. They fought it bitterly and did not want to release it. And I should say, just to point to some of this process, that there is actually one document which is still in dispute, an important document that lays out options for that corridor—options for Glenferrie Road, options for Tooronga Road and options for Madden Grove. The government has refused to release that options document, again fighting bitterly at VCAT, and I guess we await decisions on that.

My point here again is the process that is involved here is difficult. The planning approvals that have been given by the Minister for Planning often do not pass muster when you dig into them and you look closely. The process of consultation has been very poor, and it has got worse, Mr Hayes, through this COVID cycle that we are faced with now. In many cases people have not been able to get proper engagement, because they may not be technically literate. So the Engage Victoria website will suit some people but it will not suit others. The electronic communications that have been sometimes used for this consultation will suit some but not others. But this gives more control, sadly, to the LXRP, which is able to do as it wishes on many of these key points because people are not in a position to see all the information. Much has not been released.

I am going to just make a further comment about this corridor where we will lose so much environmental value along the Lorne Parade area. Only 5 per cent of trees in that corridor have been confirmed—that they will be retained. I am reading from material sent to me by the Lorne Parade group. In Lorne Parade reserve only 5 per cent of the trees have been recorded as ‘will be retained’. The avenue of honour is under review. I am told that trees have been cut down nearby to the avenue of honour, but those nine trees along that avenue of honour were planted in 1965 on the 50-year anniversary of Gallipoli for nine young men who volunteered, one of whom was killed in the first day of the Gallipoli landing. This family, some of whom still live locally, are very attached, naturally, to these nine Anzac trees in this avenue of honour in Churchill Street.

So, you know, the government’s processes have been shocking. The government’s attitude to the community has been shocking. The government will not reveal material to the Surrey Hills Progress Association. They will not reveal material to the councils. Dr Ratnam and I have talked before in this chamber about the propensity of the government agencies now to require people to sign confidentiality agreements. Well, they are trying to bind all the councils on these, but I think this gives you some idea of what is actually occurring there.

On the weekend when I was in this Lorne Parade area there was a tawny frogmouth. This is just perhaps one very small example of some of the issues that we are talking about with environmental values inside our suburbs across our metropolitan area. There is a 120-year-old ironbark in that Lorne Parade Reserve, and there is a tawny frogmouth family that have been nesting there for at least 25 years. Now, the government—

Ms Symes: Do tawny frogmouths live for that long?

Mr DAVIS: No, no. There are people over the road who have been monitoring this year by year by year.

Ms Symes: I was just wondering.

Mr DAVIS: Well, I was just explaining. There are people in those areas who have lived there for many, many decades, and they have actually monitored this family. Descendants of the same family have been there, and there is a group of tawny frogmouth babies that are actually nesting there at the moment.

Ms Terpstra interjected.

Mr DAVIS: It is a serious point, Ms Terpstra. I would actually encourage you to go down to Lorne Parade and have a look at it. It is very close for you; you can just nick down there and have a close look at it. It is your electorate. That bit is your electorate, and my electorate is just a little bit across. But my point is you should go down and meet some of the people at Lorne Parade. You should actually understand the damage and the destruction that is being wrought there. The failure of the government to stick to its election promise of two stations and instead—

Ms Terpstra interjected.

Mr DAVIS: You could actually intervene in this and make sure that the government sticks to its promise of two stations, not one. The one station is being put on the Lorne Parade Reserve, so this is one of the problems. And as I say, I am proud of the fact that Dick Hamer intervened in the 70s to save that reserve. I am proud of the fact that Joan Kirner intervened in the 80s to save that reserve. But I do say one thing: if it is a different Hamer who is responsible for the ending of that reserve, I do not think that will sit well for him or the Labor Party in that area. I do not believe that people will be happy with that outcome—losing two stations that have been there since 1890.

Ms Terpstra: So we do nothing?

Mr DAVIS: No, no. You actually do what your election promise was, which was to build two stations, as you are required to do under your own election commitments from 2018, when you committed to two stations, not one. You did not say to the people in that area, in Box Hill and in Eastern Metro, that you were actually going to take one station out, and you did not say that you were going to actually destroy, Ms Terpstra, the Lorne Parade Reserve. So these points are quite significant, and I say across our suburbs we have actually got to be standing up and actually protecting canopy. We have actually got to be making sure that we do not lose these large, established trees.

Ms Terpstra interjected.

Mr DAVIS: You may not think this is important, but I actually do and I know many in this chamber actually do. This is why I understand where Mr Hayes is coming from here. He is actually trying to get these protections in place which are not satisfactory. I mean, the planning system at the moment is a shambles and the damage that is being done is profound, so I get where he is coming from. He has just got the wrong solution, to be fair.

A member interjected.

Mr DAVIS: No, no. I am not being critical of the motivation of where he is trying to go.

Ms Terpstra interjected.

Mr DAVIS: No, no. It is the actual situation. So I am not going to say more, but I do say this need to protect environmental values across our suburbs is a very significant objective.

Dr RATNAM (Northern Metropolitan) (15:51): I rise in support of Mr Hayes’s bill that he has brought before the chamber today, and I thank him for the work that he has done in this area to advance this issue, which is an issue that I and the Greens also share very serious concerns about. The bill introduces a requirement that an applicant for a planning permit has to complete an environmental impact assessment, which has to be included with their application and then considered through the permit process. In many ways this is a really simple bill which really highlights that the current act is completely failing, and what it does make abundantly clear is that the environment needs to be considered at every stage of the planning system, which currently it is not. The protection of both the environment and our native species is critical when we think about the future of our neighbourhoods and our planning system.

Just in terms of some of the details—just to reiterate and just for the benefit of the debate today, because I feel like some details of this are being exaggerated to hide why people are not supportive of this—and why it is worth supporting, it is adding protection of the environment and native species into the objectives and purposes of the act. Planning authorities have a duty to protect the environment and conserve native species, and they have to look at the environmental impact statements. It involves including environmental impact statements in the list of things that have to be prepared and exhibited as part of a planning amendment process. A planning panel cannot make a recommendation to adopt an amendment unless they consider and respond to the impact statement. The minister’s approval is subject to the consideration of and response to any measures recommended in the environmental impact statement. Applications for permits need to be accompanied by an impact statement. Before deciding on an application, responsible authorities have to consider the environmental impact statement and the extent to which the proposed use or development would minimise any negative environmental impacts or enhance the location. Permits can include conditions to minimise negative impacts identified, and permits can be cancelled for substantial failure to consider and respond to the environmental impact statement.

Why we need this bill: it is more urgent than ever. Development keeps ignoring the environment or destroying it totally. You do not have to look far to see countless examples of this occurring every single day right around us and statewide. I repeatedly hear from constituents and from people right across Victoria who are dismayed at the level of environmental destruction happening in their suburbs. They are getting in touch, begging us to help save their trees, grasslands, open space and habitat for native species. The Planning and Environment Act 1987 as it is currently constituted has not been reformed significantly for decades, and it is clearly failing our environment and actually resulting in really poor urban planning outcomes at the same time. We have also then got this kind of centralisation of power by the Minister for Planning over the last few years particularly, and that is not helping build any confidence or trust that the local community can have a say in protecting their local environment. It shuts out communities and denies them having a say in the shape of their neighbourhoods and their environment.

The arguments the government have used to oppose this bill are really weak and seem to be more about making excuses than engaging with the substance of what this bill is trying to achieve. Exaggerating examples where planning permits are needed and where they are not and to say that environmental impact statements are needed is not helpful for this debate because some of the examples cited do not actually need planning permits, so they will not have this process kick in. So it seems like a weak attempt to distract the debate from where it is actually going.

If we are going to protect our environment in the long term, we are going to have to rethink the systems in so many ways, and that includes our planning and urban development system. My own experience at local government was that there were so many systems that were so rigid, but if you started to move them, you actually started to see really big impacts. For example, changing the format of how a planning application report came to council—making sure it ticked off a number of areas and ensuring the planning office had asked the applicant to consider these matters—started to have a big impact on the applicant actually saying, ‘I’d better do some work here because the council’s going to ask me and it’s going to be aired in a public forum’. We know if you introduce elements to change the system, you actually have direct results on the outcomes. And that is what this bill is seeking to do.

We also need it because we have to start thinking about climate change mitigation given the climate crisis that we are experiencing. We cannot think about urban development without thinking about climate change. We have to start shifting development in Victoria to adaptation—for example, keeping trees and tree canopy cover, creating more open space and responding to and preparing for the urban heat island effect. We must think about our native species. We have sat on the Environment and Planning Committee for the last eight months and heard damning evidence about the destruction of our environment and the extinction crisis that Victoria is facing, and we have heard so clearly that our laws and regulations and those frameworks have to change significantly if we are going to protect these species that are on the brink of extinction. This is what this bill is attempting to do: start to improve those laws and regulations, which is clearly what we have been told at the inquiry we should be doing as well.

The environment effects statement, EES, process as it currently stands is a big sham. It basically rubberstamps major projects, it denies community a voice, it fails to prevent bad projects and it cannot issue binding conditions for the improvement of projects. An environmental assessment process should actually be assessing the impact a development or project will have on the environment. So we are pleased to see that Mr Hayes’s bill will be addressing this failing by introducing the EIS for all permits and planning scheme amendments, which should consider all the impacts, including the seemingly minor ones, because we know minor ones have major consequences at the end of the day.

Just lastly and in conclusion in the time I have available, this is a precursor to what I hope this Parliament will consider in terms of more substantive work to our Planning and Environment Act, both on the planning grounds and the environmental grounds. The Greens and I have long been calling for an overhaul of the Planning and Environment Act because it is just not fit for purpose anymore. It has not modernised, it has not adapted to the conditions that we are in. There are so many gaps, and our councils are crying out for support rather than this sort of patchwork, patch-on type of approach that the minister seems to be taking. Instead of saying, ‘Actually, the system isn’t working; let’s rethink this system as a whole’, what they seem to be doing is centralising power, saying, ‘We’re going to take more power away from you. We’re going to usurp local councils, not give you third-party appeal rights’. Councils and residents are now feeling more and more powerless because they are losing control of their urban development, their neighbourhoods and their environment with really devastating consequences.

So I hope the Parliament in the context of this bill starts thinking about how we can actually improve planning and environmental outcomes through both revising the Planning and Environment Act and the committee inquiry that we are starting very soon where we will deep dive into these issues. But as a starting point we should support Mr Hayes’s bill because it is an attempt to fix what is a really broken system where our environment is the one that is suffering.

Sitting suspended 3.59 pm until 4.13 pm.

Ms TERPSTRA (Eastern Metropolitan) (16:13): I rise to make a contribution on this bill, the Planning and Environment Amendment Bill 2021, as proposed by Mr Hayes. In rising to make this contribution, I just want to acknowledge the ongoing interest in this area that Mr Hayes has. I know he is a passionate advocate for all things planning, given his local government background and, as I said, not only his interest in this area but also his service to local government in a previous incarnation, I can say.

I think there have been some really good contributions previously on the government side around why there are what we say are problems with the bill. I note Mr Davis also touched on the view of those opposite about this bill and that whilst they might agree with the direction of it, they say the finality of what is being proposed is a problem.

Having said that, I want to talk a bit about some of the other reforms the government has in place to actually address some of the things that Mr Hayes is raising. Ultimately what this bill is aimed at doing—and Ms Taylor touched on this earlier—is to introduce an environmental impact statement, an EIS, process that must be included in all planning applications and amendments to a planning scheme. That in and of itself is a huge undertaking. That would mean for everything that you want to do under the Planning and Environment Act 1987, whether it is a planning application or an amendment to a planning scheme, you would have to have an EIS, so it would be a huge undertaking.

I understand the intent that Mr Hayes is proposing and that he is wanting to look at some of the environmental impacts of planning, but a key aspect of the bill that has been proposed would be to include the protection of the environment and native species as an objective in the framework for the Planning and Environment Act 1987. This is important, but I will go in a minute to some of the things that already exist and some of the things the government is doing to ensure that these things are already taken into account.

Before I do that I just want to touch on the fact that there has been a lot of focus from Mr Davis earlier on how the planning framework is in such a mess and is diabolical and all these sorts of things, and there was a long list of complaints and how we are not doing this or not doing that. They are the usual things, but I think the point about all of that is that really the opposition has no credibility on planning. Fishermans Bend is still a debacle, and to then lecture everybody in this chamber about planning is just a little bit rich, as I said, coming from those opposite. It is easy to criticise. It is easy to say that we should do more, but then, what is the alternative? What are the offerings? There is not much other than criticism from those opposite.

Anyway, having said all of that, I just want to go through some of the detail around how what we have already done is actually addressing some of the concerns that Mr Hayes has. We have delivered lots of environmental reforms. For example, we did a major reform to the Environment Protection Authority through the Environment Protection Act 2017 and the Environment Protection Amendment Act 2018. We banned cattle grazing in the alpine and river red gum national parks. We have banned fracking in Victoria. We removed the power to grant 99-year leases over national parks and other parks under the National Parks Act 1975. We have delivered the Climate Change Act 2017. We added parts of the Anglesea Heath to the Great Otway National Park in 2017. These are just a few things. As I said, I could go on. There are lots more, but they are just a few major things and just in terms of parks and protections for the environment.

But then when we drill down into biodiversity—and I know Mr Hayes is on the Environment and Planning Committee with me; at the moment we are looking into biodiversity decline, so this is quite a salient and relevant point—the decline in biodiversity is a global challenge, and it is exacerbated by climate change. We know that there are major drivers to biodiversity decline, and climate change is certainly one of those. We have invested nearly $500 million in biodiversity since we came into government, and this is the largest investment by a Victorian government, ever, in the history of our state. We have provided more than $270 million in the past two state budgets to waterway and catchment health initiatives, and we have introduced new legislation to better protect the biodiversity in Victoria. We have also amended the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988—and that was passed in 2019—which will help flora and fauna from becoming threatened, restore the conservation status of these threatened species and provide longer term protection for critical habitats and improved enforcement powers and penalties for all offences. We also created a nation-leading, 20-year strategy to improve and protect Victoria’s biodiversity, which is Biodiversity 2037, and many in this chamber will know about that, having sat on the committee looking at this. This strategy brings together the latest conservation and social sciences to achieve a clear vision, and that is to protect and preserve Victoria’s biodiversity and its health values and to make sure it is actually actively cared for.

We also completed the Wildlife Act 1975 review, and there is further work to be done on that. This was in response to a number of high-profile incidents of wildlife crime. For example, 130 wedge-tailed eagles in Violet Town were poisoned, and the government took strong action in regard to that. Also the Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change announced a comprehensive review of this act, because it was introduced more than 45 years ago and we want to make sure that it keeps pace with contemporary issues. Again, that is in stark contrast to some of the contributions that Mr Davis made. It is simply not accurate for those things to stand. Also, as part of the Wildlife Act review, we have implemented benchmarks in wildlife legislation in other jurisdictions that include things like the rehabilitation of wildlife and strengthened frameworks around private and commercial keeping and trade of wildlife.

So there are a whole range of things, and the government is going to continue to work on this. The government will issue a directions paper in 2022. So we are working pretty hard on this side, on the government benches, to ensure that more protections are put in place and that these things can also be included as part of the planning process. We have set ambitious targets on climate change. We have also implemented new recycling reforms, investing $515 million to transform our waste and recycling sector, and lots more. There are many, many things there. I could go on—there are new national parks in the central west, and we are implementing our Victorian Forestry Plan. All of these things have impact in terms of protection and preservation.

As I said, I think that the main thrust of this bill, what Mr Hayes wants to ultimately achieve, is better protection or consideration of biodiversity issues under any planning scheme applications and the like. I understand the intent and I understand Mr Hayes’s keen interest in this area, but again I think implementing a framework that would mean that you would have to do an EIS on every application would simply be unworkable. I fear that we would in many respects actually see a situation where planning applications would bog down and not be able to be attended to in a very timely manner. There would be many, many hours of review of these applications. With some of these processes you have the opening up of submissions, for example—and I will talk about some of those in a minute—particularly under the EES processes. I will just go through, as an example, the Warburton mountain bike destination project. There was an EES process on that, and that attracted 255 submissions. So clearly people in the community cared about that—cared enough to make a submission and wanted their voices to be heard—and that is a wonderful thing. The community in that sense were also invited to comment on a completed EES. This is just another example: over 6500 submissions were received for the Crib Point gas facility, and 909 were received from the Gippsland community alone in response to Fingerboards.

We know the community has a keen interest in planning. That is why these things are opened up and people can make a submission. But if we did that for every planning application, as Ms Taylor talked about earlier—you know, if someone wants to put in an application because they want to build a pergola or want to add a room onto their house or those sorts of things—I think some of the level of detail may not have been fleshed out perhaps as clearly as it could have been.

Here is another example as well: the public hearing to consider the Crib Point gas facility hosted 33 groups and businesses and 141 individuals to express their views on the project and its potential environment effects. This shows that the inquiry process is actually a very powerful way to allow the community to express its views and to be involved, and that way the proponents of these projects can then sometimes take on some of the suggestions or whatever of the community. Quite often proponents do adapt their projects in response to public and stakeholder concerns.

At the moment we receive approximately 10 to 30 EES applications per year, and at the moment we have 20 active EESs in preparation, exhibition or post-exhibition inquiry. But, as I touched on earlier, and hopefully I have demonstrated in just running through that, those things take time. There is a process that needs to be worked through. The opening up of the ability to make submissions needs to be advertised, then you need to allow time for people to make their submissions, then submissions close, then someone has to look through them and the like. So look, that just shows that it is not an easy thing to do. Of course the government can stand on its record—as I just said, we have got 20 to 30 EES processes running at the moment. So it is not like we try and lock things up and say to people, ‘You can’t have your say in planning applications’. That is not the case at all.

I just want to comment and focus a little bit on local planning for a moment—things like houses, applications to put on a pergola or whatever. I note, for example, there is some discussion at local government level around neighbourhood character and the like. I have heard Mr Hayes in this place talk about heritage and neighbourhood character, and I understand that those things are very important to Mr Hayes in his part of the world.

But I would also like to perhaps be a little bit of a devil’s advocate for a moment. Perhaps not everyone sees things in the same way. Victoria has done an amazing job of protecting many heritage aspects. I think it is one thing that you can certainly say about Victoria when you travel up to Sydney, for example, and you compare the protection and the way in which Victoria, and Melbourne in particular, has hung on to some of its heritage architecture. It is amazing. Sydney really did not do that, so it is actually quite a stark contrast. Nevertheless, not everyone sees their neighbourhood character in the same way that others do. There are certainly issues around housing affordability and the like. Why shouldn’t people who are, say, perhaps from lower income status be able to live in wealthy suburbs such as Brighton and the like? The answer to that is housing affordability. And how do you make housing affordable? Well, you build homes that are affordable—and some of those homes that are in those areas that I touched on are not affordable. And does that inevitably mean that we need to change the neighbourhood character? Does it mean we trash neighbourhood character? What does it mean? These are all really interesting questions, and depending on where you come from on this you can come up with a whole multitude of answers.

As I touched on before, what the government does whenever there is a planning application that we know is going to have significant impact on the community is allow people to express their views. People get the opportunity to express their views. But then to what level do we drill down and say for every single application there will be that type of process? I do not know whether councils across Victoria would necessarily agree or support some of the mechanisms that Mr Hayes is proposing in his bill. For example, it would disproportionately affect some councils more than others. I am not sure that you would have the same level of planning applications, for example, in regional or country areas with regional councils and the like. Certainly it would be an issue in metropolitan areas, for example, where you might find many. So there are lots of questions that remain unanswered with some of this.

I do appreciate and understand where Mr Hayes is coming from. As I said, it is about looking at how we can better protect our flora, our fauna and our biodiversity, and there are things that people can do anyway, even in their own planning applications. You know, why does everyone want to build on 80 or 90 per cent of the block? You do not have to have a house that big, do you? There are things like that that people actually have the ability to influence within their own remit. I think I will leave my contribution there. There are others who wish to speak on this. But again, we will not be supporting this bill.

Ms CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan) (16:28): I am very pleased to be standing and speaking to Mr Hayes’s bill, which he has introduced in the Parliament today. I want to congratulate him on doing so, because this is an area that Mr Hayes has been primarily elected upon, in terms of planning issues, Sustainable Australia, which is the name of the party that he represents, and his advocacy. We share the same electorate, and I am very aware of what Mr Hayes is doing in the electorate around these issues. We have attended some community events together, talking about the concerns of local groups who have got concerns around what is happening, and I will come back to one particular aspect of those in a moment. But I know that he is very committed to this, and I want to, as I said, acknowledge and congratulate him on bringing the bill to the house.

Basically what Mr Hayes is saying with this Planning and Environment Amendment Bill 2021 is that it will amend the Planning and Environment Act 1987 to ensure the environment is given a high priority in all planning decisions. It aims to enhance the Planning and Environment Act by strengthening the objectives to protect the environment. I will not go through all of them, but it is looking to include the protection of the environment and native species as an objective in the framework. It introduces an environmental impact statement that must be included in all planning applications and amendments to a planning scheme. The proposed EIS will need to cover any negative impacts on flora, fauna, threatened species, protected grasslands or any potential degradation to the soil, land, air or water. It will aim to ensure that the effects of planning applications on the environment are minimised, managed on site or addressed by the applicant. It requires the responsible authority to take into account any minor or incremental environmental effects of the application and respond to any issues identified by the EIS. It gives the tribunal the power to cancel or amend a planning permit which does not address or report the findings of the EIS. And finally, it includes the ability for the applicant, if there are no environmental impacts, to simply include this as a statement in their application.

Now, I do read all of that in, because I think it is important to get the understanding of Mr Hayes’s bill and what he is trying to achieve here. The bill is looking at those aspects around the protection of the environment. It seeks to elevate those concerns about the environment, the protection of flora and fauna and other aspects that I think we all want to preserve and want to do what we can for. This bill is aiming to do that.

Ms Terpstra made some points around the EIS, the impacts and, I think she said, what it will mean for any planning application. I have to agree with Ms Terpstra regarding that, because I do think about the application process and the additional burden it will place on any applicant. I suppose that is the concern of the opposition—where it is not just a large estate that might be developed but also some of those smaller planning applications that will go ahead and the red tape and therefore the cost that will be associated with that and the burden that would put on the applicant. So I think that is the major concern here, but I do want to again acknowledge the work of Mr Hayes in this.

As I said at the outset, there are developments that are going across the Southern Metropolitan Region where the community’s concerns are largely being ignored. I think that is an incredibly disappointing aspect of what is happening with some of these developments. I have spoken, as Mr Hayes has, to many people who have raised with both of us their concerns about how developments are proceeding across these suburbs, where the amenity is being lost. The nature of the suburbs is being lost, and others have spoken of this.

Mr Hayes in his second-reading speech spoke about the tree canopy within our suburbs and the amenity, and that is very important. I spoke out a lot on the Metro Tunnel developments and the devastation down St Kilda Road, our world-famous boulevard, when the beautiful trees were knocked down for that project. They did not need to be knocked down. If they had gone deeper, a lot of those trees could have been preserved. That has changed that whole wonderful boulevard that is world renowned, and I think that is extremely disappointing. There were so many people that really worked hard on convincing the Andrews government of the importance of the heritage around St Kilda Road, around that boulevard and around the tree canopy. We are seeing this happening. Mr Davis and Dr Bach I think have spoken about the issue at Surrey Hills with 500 trees gone—just gone. The government say that they are the only ones that care, but in actual fact they are not listening to the community. They are not listening to the concerns of even the council with some of these developments that are going on.

I have raised in this house the concerns around the Bills Street development in Hawthorn. Mr Hayes knows this only too well too, because he has been there with me speaking to those residents and community members who have got really big concerns about what the government is doing. What the government is doing is taking away any process from council to appeal and for the community to have a say about these developments. On the one hand the government are spruiking that they are leading the way, but they are actually destroying a lot of this amenity, and they are going to do what can be perceived as just too much development in a space. Nobody is suggesting—not the residents, not Mr Hayes, not me—that the development should not proceed, but it is the scale of it when the council cannot even have any say in the scale of the development, when it is taken out of their hands, when they are completely ignored and when the residents have no capacity or ability to appeal.

Under the Andrews government it is ‘my way or the highway’ on a lot of things, including some of these developments. So when you are looking at the impacts down at that site, they are massive. Trees are taken out, there will be a huge impact on that local amenity, and I think that is again something that this government has failed to recognise. Yes, the community do support and understand the need for developments and renewal of social housing estates. Nobody is denying that, whether it is Markham, New Street in Brighton or Bills Street in Hawthorn. But when you get these large-scale developments that are taking out trees and being so huge, that is going to have such a devastating impact on that local community. It actually does not achieve what it is setting out to achieve—to have a good environment where the environment can work and those people that will be in that housing will have that amenity there. But when the parkland is taken, when there is no ability to have access through public transport, when none of that is taken into account, then those people are going to lose, because they will not have the amenity to support them for where they live. And that is I think going to be a detrimental impact to the Bills Street development in particular.

This is an important issue, and I am pleased that we are debating it this afternoon. As I said, the intent of this is to elevate those environmental concerns into the planning framework, and I think that, as some have said—I am not a planning expert—part of it is already recognised. I will not be commenting to be the expert in that area by any means. Others will know better than I. But there are aspects that I think we are concerned about, and one is the burden of that red tape application and what that would mean to the home owner who would just want to put up a back shed as opposed to large-scale developments, which obviously go through a critical planning application process. And that is the right thing—they need to. You cannot have big developments just going up without due consideration. So I do understand those elements, and I think that we must be doing as much as we can to support and protect those areas around our flora and fauna. Especially around Southern Metro we have not only the bay, we have the Yarra River, we have lots of waterways that are critical and we have got lots of beautiful parklands. For our forefathers who planned the city, to have those wonderful lungs of our city—the greenery and the parklands—was incredibly important.

Mr Finn: Albert Park Lake.

Ms CROZIER: Well, we have got Albert Park Lake. Quite right, Mr Finn. It is magnificent—a magnificent part of Melbourne. And all of those aspects I think we do want to preserve and we need to protect, so I have got absolutely no criticism of any of that.

I will conclude on future planning. I would hope and think that part of the intent of what Mr Hayes is saying is not only about areas where these large-scale developments are going up without much consideration, where lovely old heritage homes are being knocked down and lots of the local community are very concerned about that, but also about new estates. Where are the gorgeous parklands that our forefathers thought about? These wonderful open spaces and the green spaces that have been the lungs of the city are absolutely critical for any future planning. All governments of all persuasions need to be constantly considering that. I will leave my contribution there.

Mr BARTON (Eastern Metropolitan) (16:39): I rise to speak in support of the Planning and Environment Amendment Bill 2021 from Mr Hayes. The Planning and Environment Act 1987 has been for a long time weighted towards planning and development, with little regard for the environmental impacts of a project. It has focused on the benefits of social and economic reasons rather than the environmental costs. This bill puts some priority back into making sure that the environment is one of the factors to consider when applications are submitted. The first part aims to enhance the act by strengthening the objectives to protect the environment. This may include consideration of native species on the site, protection of flora and fauna, native grasslands and tree canopies et cetera. It introduces the requirement for an environmental impact statement, which strengthens the requirements for decision-makers to focus on the environment. It will assist authorities to make informed decisions about whether a project has a negative, neutral or positive environmental impact. It will not add red tape, as proposed by some. As for the majority of smaller projects and the ones that have no environmental impact the applicant can simply state that to address this. I am told there has been broad support from councils across Victoria, resident and community groups, environmental groups and Parks Victoria. Currently there is no guiding force across any of the departments or state government agencies that puts the environment first. This would be a great step towards it. I certainly will be supporting Mr Hayes on his bill here, and that is all I have to say.

Ms VAGHELA (Western Metropolitan) (16:41): I am standing here today to make a contribution to the Planning and Environment Amendment Bill 2021, which Mr Hayes has brought before us. I thank Mr Hayes for his work and interest in the planning space. I understand the intent of the bill; however, I will not be supporting this bill today.

Victoria is at the forefront when it comes to environmental policy. The Andrews government has done a lot to make sure that the environment remains protected. This Planning and Environment Amendment Bill 2021 introduces a new requirement to provide an environmental impact statement for all planning permits and planning scheme amendments. At present Victoria already has processes for considering environmental values in planning matters. These processes are fit for purpose and robust. We have made a point of cutting red tape so our state systems can work more efficiently; however, this bill adds unnecessary overlap and duplication. This is just adding to the regulatory burden. There is a framework already in place which this bill does not recognise.

Victoria has a complementary system of legislation to protect environmental values, including the Wildlife Act 1975, the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 and the Environment Protection Act 2017. There is other legislation in place as well—for example, the Environment Effects Act 1978, which provides a comprehensive assessment process for projects that have the potential for significant impacts on the environment; the Planning and Environment Act 1987, which provides for the assessment of environmental values through planning schemes, which include policies, zones, overlays and particular provisions; the 2017 guidelines for the removal, destruction or lopping of native vegetation; and the Crown Land (Reserves) Act 1978, which sets out the process for reserving, actively purchasing and managing land to protect environmental values. If a project has the potential to impact nationally significant flora, fauna or communities, it may also require approval under the commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. This system provides comprehensive coverage. This already existing legislation underpins a wide range of obligations and regulatory activities. It also embeds environmental values in the decision-making process. It provides a framework for regulating and monitoring behaviours and development, including offences for damaging the environment.

The approach outlined in this bill will create a huge regulatory burden. It proposes to impose an environmental impact statement on all planning permits and planning scheme amendments. This is unwarranted as there is significant overlap between what is already present and what is being proposed. The existing assessment pathway already captures the level of assessment outlined in the bill, and on many planning matters this level of assessment is not necessary. The imposition of an environmental impact statement for every permit application presents an unnecessary overlap and costly duplication of regulatory burden. Where do you think this extra cost will end up? It will be passed on to everyday residents.

The proposals in this bill are uninformed. The issue is that this bill does not address the actions that matter. The Andrews Labor government has delivered more for environmental reform than any other government. We banned cattle grazing in the alpine and river red gum national parks in 2015. We removed the power to grant 99-year leases over national and other parks under the National Parks Act 1975 in 2015. We delivered major reform of the Environment Protection Authority through the Environment Protection Act 2017 and the Environment Protection Amendment Act 2018. We banned fracking in Victoria, securing agricultural productivity and a strong, healthy environment into the future. We delivered the Climate Change Act 2017, a world-leading legislative foundation to manage climate change risks, maximise the opportunities that arise from decisive action and drive our transition to a climate-resilient community and economy with net zero emissions by 2050.

Climate change has led to an exponential decline in biodiversity across the globe, so we have invested heavily to prioritise conservation of biodiversity. Biodiversity is all components of the living world, the number and variety of native plants, animals and other living things across our land, rivers, coast and ocean. Victoria has a natural environment that is rich, diverse, unique and very precious. However, there is an obvious need for on-ground action. Therefore we have invested nearly $500 million into biodiversity since we came to government in 2014. This is the largest investment by a Victorian government ever. Our government has also provided more than $270 million in the past two state budgets to waterway and catchment health initiatives. We introduced new legislation to better protect biodiversity in Victoria. The Flora and Fauna Guarantee Amendment Act was passed by the Parliament in 2019. We also created a nation-leading 20-year strategy to improve, protect and work together to support Victoria’s biodiversity, Protecting Victoria’s Environment: Biodiversity 2037. A healthy natural environment is the most important thing to our existence. This long-term plan will stop the decline of Victoria’s unique biodiversity and ensure that our natural environment remains healthy.

We have also taken a strong stance on making sure that we do what we can to make sure that climate change is addressed appropriately. The Andrews Labor government has set ambitious interim emissions reduction targets, halving emissions by 2030 on a path to net zero emissions by 2050, but we must also adapt to prepare for the impacts of changing climate. Our solar grants are a massive hit, and their adoption by the public has been amazing. The Andrews Labor government has invested a record $515 million to transform Victoria’s waste and recycling system, including $380 million to deliver Recycling Victoria: A New Economy, to move Victoria to a truly circular economy. Our new container deposit scheme is set to start in 2023. By 2023 we will also ban certain single-use plastics.

The Andrews Labor government is providing more opportunities to enjoy the great outdoors. We are also making it easier for Victorians to get out and take advantage of our beaches, rivers, forests and bushlands. Before the 2018 election the Victorian government committed $105.6 million in a historic boost for camping by building new campgrounds, upgrading facilities and tracks and making family holidays more affordable. Recently we announced $5 million for 500 000 new trees in Melbourne’s west, creating cooler spaces for families in the western suburbs to enjoy for generations to come. I am really proud of this particular announcement. We have also developed the Victorian Forestry Plan to ensure a long-term and sustainable future for Victoria’s forestry industry and for the Victorian workers who rely on it. Victoria’s central west will have 65 106 hectares of new national parks, further protecting the area’s unique environment and giving Victorians and tourists more opportunities to enjoy the great outdoors.

The Andrews Labor government appointed an independent expert advisory panel to lead a review of the Wildlife Act 1975 to further protect and manage our state’s unique wildlife. The Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change announced the most comprehensive review of the Wildlife Act since its introduction more than 45 years ago to ensure that it keeps pace with contemporary issues, changes in policy settings and community expectations.

It is important that Victoria’s wildlife legislation is modern, fit for purpose and includes all the necessary safeguards to punish and deter wildlife crime. The proposed bill creates extensive overlapping and duplicating of regulations, which disregard the existing framework to protect the environmental values of Victoria. Our government has made record investments to address environmental changes in the right way. I do not support this bill.

Mr QUILTY (Northern Victoria) (16:51): I will be brief. This bill amends planning regulations to add additional roadblocks to building and development. The government’s planning and development regime is already needlessly burdensome. Mr Hayes, who has proposed this legislation, is concerned with overdevelopment and his aim with this legislation is to slow down and prevent planning approvals—to throw more grit into the gears. I can understand where he is coming from, but the Liberal Democrats take a different view.

We want people to be able to get things done. We want people to have places to live and we want people to be able to afford a home. We like it when people build new houses and businesses on their own property. Moreover, we like it when government respects property rights and allows owners more control over what they do with their own land. We need to cut through red tape and green tape to allow people to afford to live in our country. This bill will not help us to achieve that goal. It will do the opposite.

I am sure that the green leafy suburbs are great for those who can afford to live in them, but many cannot. People might choose to move out of Melbourne and live in the regions for the lifestyle, but in regional Victoria one of our pressing issues is a massive shortage of available housing. It was interesting to hear the Greens trip over themselves to support this bill. Earlier this day Dr Ratnam chastised the Liberals for interfering in council-level decisions, which is exactly what this bill does. The Liberal Democrats will not support this bill.

Dr KIEU (South Eastern Metropolitan) (16:53): I rise to speak to the private members bill proposed by Mr Hayes. The bill is named the Planning and Environment Amendment Bill 2021 and proposes to introduce a new requirement for providing environmental impact statements for all planning permits and planning scheme amendments. I understand where Mr Hayes is coming from for environment protection, particularly in this climate of climate change, and I will come back to that later on. But at the outset I have to say that this private members bill is extraneous and indeed is unnecessary.

This proposed bill is unnecessary because of the heavy overlapping and indeed duplication of already existing regulatory requirements that we have as a framework by the government. It further introduces a very heavy burden on the people who are planning or applying for permits to do planning. Victoria already has robust and fit-for-purpose processes for considering environmental values in planning matters in order to approve or to not approve permits for planning and construction. My colleagues have gone to various acts such as the Environment Protection Act 2017, the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988, the Wildlife Act 1975 and also the Environment Effects Act 1978.

It is a fact that this government is doing more than any other government in order to protect the environment. We have delivered more for environmental reform than any previous government. With the time given I will not go to all the bills I have just mentioned; I just want to say that the situation we are facing is climate change, and it is an existential threat to the environment and in fact to humankind. So we have to take decisive action and drive our transition to a climate-resilient community and an economy with net zero emissions by 2050. Indeed the Andrews Labor government has set ambitious interim emission reduction targets, namely to halve emissions by 2030, going forward to net zero emissions by 2050.

It has to be said that the federal government’s response to climate change, announced just very, very recently, is to say the least disappointing and fails to address the existential problem that we as humankind are facing. There is a commitment by the federal government to have net zero by 2050 but with no details, no policy of how to achieve that. In fact only a slideshow was available, but the slideshow is not a plan to create jobs, to deliver bills or drive down emissions. More disappointingly there is no meaningful target in the meantime towards 2030. In fact the federal government is content with going on with what we have had. But the scientific fact is and some of the reports have pointed out that with the rate we are going, by 2050, even if we get to net zero emissions, the temperature of the atmosphere will have risen by 2.7 degrees, not just 1.5, as we all hope for and are trying to achieve. In fact the reduction of emissions Australia-wide so far has been riding on the states’ and territories’ efforts rather than any concerted effort by the federal government.

So our Victorian government is, as I have just mentioned, leading the nation, and we have done more than any previous government in order to protect and maintain and preserve the environment. Our existing network of legislation embeds environmental values in the decision-making process, underpins a range of obligations and regulatory activities and provides a framework for regulating and monitoring behaviour and development, which also includes offences and penalties for damaging the environment.

I would like to conclude with a summary of the blanket approach as proposed by this bill by Mr Hayes. An order to impose an environmental impact statement on all planning permits and planning schemes will put in place significant regulatory burden, including on many planning matters where that level of scrutiny and assessment is not needed, and on the other hand our network of legislation is appropriately capturing the only assessments that are needed and is sufficient for that. So the proposed bill is an overlap and duplication of regulatory burden which disregards the framework that we already have in place. We cannot support this bill.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Bourman): Ms Shing, I might just remind you we need at least 5 minutes.

Ms SHING (Eastern Victoria) (17:00): Yes, I am going to be very, very quick in relation to my contribution today, Acting President. And thank you for the latitude afforded to me by other members of the chamber.

I want to make a contribution today in response to this bill proposed by Mr Hayes in reference to the need for our statute book to keep pace with changes to our environmental, social, community and socio-economic circumstances across the state. In doing so I want to put on the record the work being undertaken by the Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change, Lily D’Ambrosio, particularly as it relates to some pretty devastating—and in the minister’s own words, appalling—conduct relating to large-scale deaths of wildlife, and in particular wedge-tailed eagles. I know that in Violet Town there were more than 120 eagle deaths occasioned as part of a huge operation by one particular person, after which 300 charges were laid. I also know that in my own area Mr Murray Silvester and another gentleman by the name of Mr Auer came before the courts in relation to the deaths of more than 400 wedge-tailed eagles. It was revealed, as a consequence of judicial proceedings immediately after those charges being laid for a period between 2016 and 2018, that the statute of limitations was a fetter and a limitation and that further challenges and changes were needed to the Wildlife Act 1975 through a review that was announced by Minister D’Ambrosio. This is a representation of the way in which our statute book needs to better reflect the changes and needs and demands of our communities and to take account of what is happening to compromise, to threaten, to diminish or otherwise to derogate from the quality and standard of living that people enjoy right from the middle of metropolitan Melbourne through to our interstate borders and boundaries.

In this sense I commend Mr Hayes for putting this bill before the house. I think it is really important that we are in a position to have controls and checks and accountabilities in place which allow for a really acute focus to be placed before decision-makers around the impacts of change upon our environment, including natural and historical environments, and to make decisions accordingly. For reasons outlined by Mr Davis and indeed by others, however, the scope of this bill is something which puts it beyond the reach of this Parliament, in my view and in the government’s view, because of the way in which it will operate to really limit and constrain the quite minimal changes proposed in relation to planning and permit approvals whereby environmental impact surveys, statements and processes will need to be completed as a precursor to in fact embarking upon those changes. Others have used the term ‘red tape’, but it is in fact a using of resources from within local and state governments which involves duplication but which also serves only a very limited utility in those circumstances as it relates to providing a better community benefit as a consequence. I would say also that in commending the inquiry process which already exists and has existed through this Parliament—including as it relates to the banning of onshore unconventional gas extraction, to the Crib Point gas facility, to the way in which the Fingerboards mining process and applications have been assessed and to other things, including bike trails and other recreational facilities—these processes are an important way to gather and to understand community sentiment and to understand the impact of decision-making in any eventuality.

It is for those reasons that this bill, in the government’s view, does not adequately acquit the need to balance resourcing demands on the one hand and the resources required in order to generate additional environmental planning approvals for every application against the utility and the benefit that would be derived from that additional work. So the government does not support the bill. However, I do commend Mr Hayes on bringing this bill before the house for precisely the reasons that he has outlined and put in support of his bill and in addition to that the reasons which have been outlined by Dr Ratnam and Mr Davis.

So I find myself in curious agreement on a number of the principles that have been listed in the chamber today around the rationale for the bill, but again it is these challenges around scope which do present the practical realities of a scheme that cannot reasonably operate without there being an exponentially enormous increase in resource allocation without the same exponential benefit derived in decision-making, in consistency and in an understanding of the environmental impacts of planning and permit approvals in the terms sought.

So the government will not be supporting this bill, as others have confirmed today, but I do really want to congratulate Mr Hayes and also put on the record that the work to improve our environmental controls, oversight, integrity, accountability and transparency goes on and that this government has a proud record, from which we will not resile, on acting in a proactive way not always popular with everyone in this chamber or indeed the community but with a proactive history and legacy and a proactive agenda on everything from emissions targets and controls through to the changes to our recycling system through to the changes in energy and the available mix of resources. We do not support this bill, but thank you, Mr Hayes, for, as always, your really insightful contributions.

Mr HAYES (Southern Metropolitan) (17:06): First of all I might just start with a few red herrings that have been raised today. This is about the EIS process applying to planning permits. Now, in most cases you do not need a planning permit for a patio or a deck in the backyard, for a carport, for a driveway or even in most cases to add a room to your house. These are all as of right. You may need a building permit but not a planning permit, and this applies to planning permits.

Secondly, most small-scale changes would not be covered by this. Once again, if you are going into the area of doing a dual occupancy, yes, you would need to complete an EIS, if needed, but if you pulled down an old house and built something on that existing footprint, you would not need an environmental impact statement because it would arguably have no effect on the environment. Once you start removing the surrounding trees, though, you may well be affecting habitat, and that would trigger the need for an impact statement.

Much has been said about it adding red tape, but this is not so much of a problem for councils because it puts the primary responsibility for the assessment on the applicant and not the council. You say, ‘Poor old applicant, burdening the applicant with more work’. The applicant is the one who is going to benefit from the damage to the environment, so this should be taken into account. We make the applicant go into a lot of detailed work on the height of the project, the setbacks, the shadow diagrams, traffic implications, parking implications, flood plain implications. If it is in a heritage area, the applicant has to do a heritage report. We are saying an environmental report is required too. I do not think that is overloading the applicant really. We have sent this out to all the councils in Victoria. We have had no negative pushback from councils.

I think that a lot of what has been raised today is a bit of fearmongering around this provision. I think it was Ms Terpstra who said it is a huge undertaking. I do not really think it is a huge undertaking, but it is a huge change because we want to put the environment up as a primary consideration in the planning scheme. At the moment the economic values and the social values get well considered, but often the environment is pushed to the bottom. Nearly all the government speakers have said, ‘Don’t worry; it is all covered already under existing acts. All these overlapping acts protect our native environment very well in Melbourne’. It has been talked about as a patchwork. Dr Ratnam talked about there being a patchwork of overlapping acts, but really it is a patch-up. There have been various patch-up jobs done on the planning scheme, but the trouble with all patch-ups is that there are holes. And there are many loopholes.

The Environment Protection Act 2017 talks about avoiding and minimising damage to native vegetation and providing offsets. This is very poorly enforced and very poorly policed, especially by small rural councils who have trouble funding and resourcing compliance with little or no help from the government. Our Environment and Planning Committee has heard that better outcomes are achieved when the applicant works with councils. Well, this gives them the opportunity to do that—to present their impact statement to the council.

And despite all those patchworks of acts, the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning in reporting to the Environment and Planning Committee inquiry into ecosystem decline noted that environmental data indicates that native vegetation across Victoria has continued to decline. Well, this has been especially so in the city where I was mayor, Bayside. We were losing canopy trees at a double-figure percentage rate over several years when I was mayor there. So our native vegetation is on the decrease. At the moment there are loopholes. According to DELWP, native vegetation can be removed without a permit or offsets on urban land of 4000 square metres or less. That is an acre, or four to seven house blocks in size, which can be and is being to this day moonscaped. Completely every scrap of vegetation is being removed from those blocks before any development takes place—grass and everything. Ms Sharon Terry, manager of environment at Greater Shepparton council, says:

… if you are dividing up land of 4,000 metres square or less, you do not require an exemption to—you do not require a permit to remove native vegetation.

And as our committee hearing on ecosystem decline and species extinction heard, it is not species decline—our species are falling off the cliff.

Across the board there is support for this bill. We have sent it out to all councils. In fact I have not had one person or one group contact me with a negative opinion or with opposing views. There has been broad support from councils both city and regional, environmental groups, resident action groups and local community members and a large number of letters of support from big organisations like the Victorian National Parks Association and Planning Backlash and from regional Victorians. I have even received support from local Greens councillors. Some examples include Dr Simon Lockrey from RMIT, a senior lecturer—‘Great initiative’; Alison Joseph—‘Well done, great bill’; and Vicki Karalis of the Sandringham Foreshore Association—‘Please support the bill’. That is my final word. Thank you very much. Please support the bill. I look forward to seeing how you vote.

House divided on motion:

Motion negatived.

Business interrupted pursuant to sessional orders.

Statements on reports, papers and petitions

Department of Treasury and Finance

Budget papers 2021–22

Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan—Leader of the Opposition) (17:20): I want to make some points in this statement on reports about the state budget, and in particular I note the section on page 37 of budget paper 2:

Inflationary pressures remain subdued, although inflation has been somewhat volatile …

It goes on:

For 2020–21 as a whole, the Melbourne consumer price index … is forecast to rise by 1.50 per cent.

Looking ahead, inflation is expected to rise only gradually over the forecast period. This reflects the outlook for subdued wages growth for several years, as spare capacity in the labour market will take time to be absorbed.

It then goes on to say:

The appreciation of the … dollar since mid-2020 will put some downward pressure on inflation over the medium term … inflation expectations remain well anchored.

It is important to note that on page 22, in table 2.1, they forecast a 1.5 per cent CPI for the whole of 2021–22. Clearly these forecasts are off track, because the CPI figures out today suggest that for the year ending September 2021 the CPI was 2.9 per cent. The CPI rose 0.8 per cent in the September quarter, underpinning that higher annual rise of 2.9 per cent in Melbourne, and that is far away from the sort of estimates that we would be expecting to see if the state government’s budget forecasts in the state budget were to be realised.

We have already seen more than half of the estimated CPI rise, and I think that this is a significant point. Fuel rises obviously contributed to it at 7.4 per cent. Property tax is up 3.4 per cent. New dwelling purchases by owner-occupiers are up 3.6 per cent. These point to increases that will hit consumers and put further pressure on the state budget. The idea that the state budget has inflation expectations that remain well anchored, which is what they said in May this year, clearly is something that is going to need to be significantly re-evaluated.

Auditor-General

Management of Spending in Response to COVID-19

Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan—Leader of the Opposition) (17:22): I also want to draw attention to spending on COVID. The Victorian Auditor-General’s Office (VAGO) report released today, Management of Spending in Response to COVID-19, October 2021, is a devastating report. This state government cannot manage money. It cannot actually get control of the budget in a proper way. One of the conclusions is:

However, not all departments effectively managed their spending leading to waste in some instances.

It goes on to say:

… COVID-19 procurement, such as poor documentation and inadequate consideration of conflicts of interest. Without strong processes, departments cannot be certain that material fraud or corruption did not occur.

We saw in the report clear instances of conflicts of interest not being managed. We saw clear instances reported in this report of significant waste and a failure of the state government to actually manage these costs. Now, it is well understood that in a crisis of this type—for example, Transparency International makes this point very strongly—the opportunity for waste and for corruption and for fraud grows significantly. These conflicts of interest that have not been managed by government departments are an area that we need to put significant focus on. And Ms Crozier, no doubt, will say something about the mismanaged procurement of PPE and the wrong PPE material being—

Ms Crozier interjected.

Mr DAVIS: Well, the state budget—this is about the state budget and COVID spending. But we have got an update today through the VAGO report, which shows $172 million squandered because of the wrong PPE, and it makes it clear that the Auditor’s recommendations are absolutely critical and need to become a central focus for government steps. We cannot have money being wasted in this way.

Two departments were singled out for the mistakes and blunders that occurred through this period. The Department of Health and Human Services, now the Department of Health, and the Department of Jobs, Precincts and Regions did not have in place fraud controls at the inception, and:

Although they later tried to improve controls, an internal review found DJPR still had gaps that risked fraud and waste.

…

This made it difficult for the Department of Treasury and Finance (DTF) to gain an accurate picture of whole-of-government COVID-19 spending.

I mean, this is shambolic. This is hopeless. We actually need to get a grip on this. DTF did not issue its guidelines until well in. DTF was not using the COVID-19 spend data it had collected from departments to monitor whole-of-government spending. (Time expired)

Sunraysia Institute of TAFE

Report 2020

Ms TERPSTRA (Eastern Metropolitan) (17:25): I rise to speak on the Sunraysia Institute of TAFE report 2020. SuniTAFE has campuses in Mildura, Swan Hill and Robinvale. Their vision is to be a leading regional training provider, building community capacity through collaboration. In 2020 they had 5048 students studying with them. The areas of study are horticulture and agriculture, health, and transport and logistics. They are the three key areas where they have the most significant enrolments. SuniTAFE is a major employer in the region as well with over 335 employees as of 2020. Now, 2020 was SuniTAFE’s 40th birthday. It has had a fantastic 40 years in the region delivering fantastic outcomes for students.

A new heavy automotive training facility opened in Mildura, which was co-designed by the industry to build the pipeline of skilled workers they need. The Andrews Labor government provided SuniTAFE with $4.4 million, as part of the 2020 TAFE Asset Maintenance Fund, which has seen upgraded learning spaces at the Mildura campus. SuniTAFE received a licence to grow industrial hemp at their SMART farm, and they are undertaking research on hemp that will play an important role in this area. Their skills and job centre supported 1244 students in 2020, which is a mammoth effort. The first graduates of the newly registered diploma of nursing completed their course—30 graduates.

SuniTAFE is also kicking goals in terms of student satisfaction, being the top provider in the state. 85.1 per cent of students would recommend SuniTAFE, up from 83.2 per cent in 2019; 83.1 per cent of students were satisfied with SuniTAFE, up from 78 per cent in 2019; and 86.6 per cent of employers were satisfied with SuniTAFE, up from 82.6 per cent in 2019.

SuniTAFE continued its collaboration with La Trobe University in 2020 as well, with formal pathways from TAFE into La Trobe University. SuniTAFE held its fifth instalment of artworks created by students studying the certificates II and III in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultural arts. The exhibition was called Weaved To-Gather and showcased the work of seven students. It was the first time the exhibition was held outside SuniTAFE.

While COVID-19 has had a major impact on all of us, SuniTAFE stepped up and continued to deliver high-quality training online. Courses continued and teachers put in a lot of work, evident in the strong satisfaction surveys mentioned previously. SuniTAFE gave all staff a thankyou gift at the end of the year to recognise the outstanding work undertaken by everybody, and student engagement was ramped up to keep them supported and engaged. I just want to give a big-shout out to Sunraysia Institute of TAFE for the fantastic work that they did during 2020, and I know they will continue to do great work through the remainder of 2021 and into 2022.

Animal welfare

Petition

Mr BOURMAN (Eastern Victoria) (17:28): I rise to speak on the petition I presented earlier on to classify pet grooming as an essential service, which may seem like a strange thing for someone like me to do until you start to think through the whole thing. Everyone, regardless of their political beliefs or ideologies, who likes animals wants to take care of them as best they can. One of the things we noticed during the course of the pandemic was the way that pet grooming became a problem. Pet grooming may seem like something a bit trivial, but for some of the animals, if they are not trimmed and looked after properly, it can become quite a serious health issue.

I think by Friday it is not going to be an issue, but as we go into the future we need to look at how we can look after our companion animals and how we can do things like dog grooming, because with a little bit of forethought I think there would have been very easy COVID-safe ways of making this happen, not just for the mobile pet groomers but for the shop-bound pet groomers as well. I think it was an opportunity missed, and it is one of those things I hope we never have to deal with again. But I guess we are going to have the opportunity to speak on the Public Health and Wellbeing Amendment (Pandemic Management) Bill 2021 at some point in time. This will be a very minor part of it, but if we are going to end up in a position, for whatever reason, where we are stuck and cannot go outside, grooming for dogs and other animals needs to be able to be done without having to go to a vet.

Legal and Social Issues Committee

Inquiry into the Closure of I Cook Foods Pty Ltd

Ms CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan) (17:30): I rise to speak again on the inquiry into the closure of I Cook Foods, the second report, which obviously you are fully aware of, Acting President Patten, because you chaired the committee into this. We heard various evidence regarding what happened with the closure after information came to light through the public domain that Mr Christy and others had provided information to the department that in fact I Cook Foods were not the sole supplier, as was indicated by Dr Sutton in the first hearing.

The house has heard me speak on this before. I have raised the issue about the woeful, woeful attempts by the government and department to avoid scrutiny on this issue by rejecting FOIs, but I actually had to go to VCAT last week. I was given some documents relating to the FOIs that I made. In those FOIs there are just slabs of redacted information yet again—redacted information from emails regarding the very issue that we should have heard about in that inquiry and what had happened. You look at the subject line, ‘I Cook Foods Pty Ltd closure order pursuant to section 19 of the Food Act’, and there are the likes of Sean Morrison, DHHS; Brett Sutton; Angie Bone—all redacted. Look at that. It is fully blacked out, fully redacted. This just goes on and on and on with the emails from the department. They are very willing to provide the information from the I Cook solicitors—that is fine, I am happy to see that—but the information from the department is fully redacted. This is from Angie Bone to Melissa Skilbeck and Brett Sutton. ‘Listeria update’ was the subject:

We agreed I’d send you some dot points following our incident management team meeting today.

Fully redacted; nothing there. This just goes on with this FOI, and it shows the secrecy and the lack of accountability by the Andrews government. Again from the minister’s office on 18 March:

Hey Team,

Can I please get an update, ahead of the Listeria story tonight, on the following …

Fully redacted; nothing there. But information from Dr Sutton’s emails to—well, they are all blanked out; I cannot see who they are to, but they are from him. The subject is ‘RE: Listeria’:

Angie is on leave now so copying in the Food Safety team involved in this.

Fully redacted; no information. Well, how the hell does that help anyone? This is about accountability and transparency and telling the truth and understanding what went on. We should have had that, Acting President. I see you nodding in agreement, and I am pleased you are, because this goes to the heart of what we found. There were some issues in there that we were not satisfied with and that we all agreed upon. The Liberals wrote that minority report because there were still outstanding issues that I believe need to be investigated.

I am very pleased that Robert Richter has taken up this cause. That will be interesting. He has taken up this cause because clearly there is something that stinks with this whole issue, and it has been going on. I just hope that Mr Richter actually looks at some issues that I obviously cannot disclose, but I want him to look at all of the medical records, the admission notes and the physical appearance and physical condition that the patient, Mrs Painter, was in when she was admitted to hospital. What happened in hospital? The food charts—they will be all there in her patient record. I want to know about the autopsy. She did not have an autopsy. You cannot, as Dr Sutton told the committee, determine the cause of death conclusively without an autopsy. And the pathology results—all of those pathology results. The blood cultures on admission—where were they? We were given selected documents in our committee. We were not provided with those results, and the results of the blood cultures are what we did receive, but in actual fact you have to have a series. With blood culture you need a series of reports that are conducted on those pathology tests. They were not provided to us. Did Mrs Painter actually have listeria in her system when she died? I hope Mr Richter looks at all these issues, because the Parliament has done its job. Others will now do theirs on this very important issue.

Department of Premier and Cabinet

Report 2019–20

Mr TARLAMIS (South Eastern Metropolitan) (17:35): I rise to speak on the Department of Premier and Cabinet annual report 2019–20, specifically in relation to the veterans portfolio, and acknowledge the important contribution of our veterans as we approach a significant occasion during the Second World War. That occasion is the commemoration of Oxi Day, 28 October, the day 81 years ago when the Greek people shouted no in response to Mussolini’s invasion ultimatum. What followed were five long years of resistance by the Greek people to both the Italian and German invasions, followed by their valiant fight against the terrible years of enemy occupation and famine. In commemorating the day, we recognise its significance not only for the many Victorians of Hellenic heritage but also for many Victorians in the wider community who have personal family connections to Greece’s fight for freedom. The fight touched Victorians in many ways, and I will talk about some of those now.

The news of Greece’s response to the Italian ultimatum was reported in Melbourne’s newspaper the Argus the next day. A meeting was held at the Melbourne town hall expressing support for Greece. A member of our own Parliament, World War I veteran Norman Martin, MP, expressed his admiration for the victories over the Italian invader by referring to ‘the valiant armies of Greece’. In reference to the victories that aided the cause of the Allies, he added, ‘In defending her own freedom, Greece was helping to keep our own country free’.

It was also on this day that our great wartime leader John Curtin joined with the government of the day on the Advisory War Council set up to oversee Australia’s war effort. Local committees were soon established throughout Victoria to raise funds to assist the Greek civilians who were facing the tragedy of war. On 13 December 1940 the Frankston mayor, Cr Wells, explained that the local Greek Day fund was aimed at, and I quote, ‘giving a lead to people who desire to give some material expression to their gratification to Greece for that country’s successes against the enemy’. Local events were held all over Australia, but none was bigger than that held in Melbourne on 14 February 1941. An estimated 100 000 Melburnians flocked to Swanston Street to celebrate what became known as Greek Day, with fundraising stalls and activities set up throughout the city, all centring on a march throughout the city by 4000 Australian soldiers of the 23rd Brigade. Photographs from the time show the cheering crowds waving Greek and Australian flags.

And thousands would serve, whether as soldiers, sailors or nurses, many of them from Victoria, during the Greek campaign itself in April–May 1941. One of these was the son of Greek migrants, like me, Private James Zampelis, a 26-year-old waiter from St Kilda, whose father had migrated to Melbourne from the Ionian island of Lefkada and who joined the 2/2nd field artillery. He served at the Battle of Brallos on the mainland and would be killed during the German invasion of Crete, his body never found. A few years ago it was my honour to stand at the Memorial to the Missing in Athens, where James’s service is commemorated.

Another was Lance Corporal Skip Welsh of the 2/6th Battalion, from my own electorate, who worked as a poultry worker before the war. Skip was one of those brave young men who would never give up. Captured on Crete, Skip was taken to the German POW camp at Thessaloniki, from where he escaped and with the help of brave locals returned to Allied lines in Egypt, carrying with him important information on German installations and movements at Thessaloniki. As Skip said, ‘The Greek people opened their arms to us’.

Another was 20-year-old Sergeant Reg Saunders, one of our brave Indigenous soldiers from Western Victoria, who served with the 2/7th Battalion throughout the Greek campaign, who successfully evaded capture on Crete, surviving on the run for months with the help of locals until he was evacuated to Egypt. Reg never forgot the help that he received from the brave women of Crete, who faced terrible reprisals if discovered. As he said after the war, ‘Their courage and generosity never ceased to amaze me’.

Finally, I mention 20-year-old Private Syd Grant of the 2/8th Battalion, also from Western Victoria. Syd recorded his campaign experiences in Greece with his own camera, writing notes on the back of his photos, adding to these after the war in interviews with his daughter, Catherine. It was my pleasure a few years ago to meet with Catherine at our own State Library of Victoria when she was donating her father’s unique collection to the public, assisted by my good friend and historian Jim Claven. I thank her and the rest of Syd’s family for their kind and generous donation.

Recently it was my pleasure to present a new photographic book on the Greek campaign to the Minister for Veterans, the Honourable Shaun Leane, and I will soon make a similar donation to the Premier and the parliamentary library. The book was recently published by the Australian embassy in Greece as its contribution to the 80th anniversary of the campaign, with Mr Claven assisting in the selection of the photographs and in writing the historical overview of them. I commend the Australian embassy for its work and the Australian and Hellenic governments for their support of this important project, which showcases many of the iconic photos of the campaign, including a number by Syd.

As I have pointed out, this day is not only of significance to the many hundreds of thousands of Victorians of Hellenic heritage, such as me, but also to the many more Victorians whose forebears served in Greece. On this day we honour these brave Hellenes and those Victorians who stood by them in the Second World War, like James, Skip, Reg, Syd and their helpers, facing and ultimately defeating the fascist threat and in defence of freedom. Their service and sacrifice are a lesson to us all. Lest we forget.

Environment Effects Act 1978

Petition

Mr HAYES (Southern Metropolitan) (17:40): I rise to support e-petition 382 asking the government to review the Environment Effects Act 1978. The petitioners claim that the Environment Effects Act, which was legislated in 1978, has had only one review in over 40 years. This review in 2011 made 50 recommendations, not one of which has been enacted. In the past 40 years we have seen Melbourne’s population grow over this time from 2.8 million to over 5 million people. To accommodate these extra people, along with the additional infrastructure associated with this increase, a huge demand has been placed on our environment, and now we are facing an extreme climate crisis combined with mass species extinction.

Victoria is the most cleared state in Australia, and over 700 of our native animals are facing extinction. Our canopy trees are in serious decline and the suburbs are facing heat island effects, decreasing open space and overdevelopment. Wildlife corridors are being decimated and native fauna and flora are disappearing at an accelerated rate.

We need an act to protect Victoria’s environment for its people, plants and animals. We need an act which can assess the current situation as well as the full, long-term cumulative effects of our building projects and monitor our resource depletion. The Environment Effects Act, as it stands, is failing us. It is a farce. It is showing its age and clearly failing the environment. Geoff Ralphs, principal adviser for impact assessment at the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning, calls it a paradox. He said it was underpinned by traditional and arguably out-of-date legislation, open to interpretation and flexible approaches to impact assessment being adapted to suit the circumstances. He goes on to say that reviews identified a need for further legislative hooks and obligations to help ensure the system remains defensible, robust and transparent.

One of the main flaws is that when an environment effects statement is ordered, the entire investigation is prepared by the developer or applicant. A prime example of this was the Western Port gas project, proposed by AGL with the EES process run by AGL. How is it possible for AGL to do an impartial evaluation as they were banking on getting approval for the project? It is madness. If this is not the biggest conflict of interest, then I do not know what is. How could anyone rely on the applicant, who is fighting for their project to be approved, to give an honest and fair dinkum evidence-based evaluation of how their project will damage the environment? There must be proper oversight of this.

A clear failing of the EES process was also evident in the Western Highway duplication project, where incorrect identification of Indigenous sacred trees resulted in the minister approving the road on flawed and invalid environmental data. According to the Age in April 2021, VicRoads also admitted it had severely underestimated the number of large, old trees it would cut down for the road, claiming in the EES that it would be fewer than 221 when in fact it was 885. This was also the case for the North East Link Project, where the EES underestimated the tree reduction by 80 per cent. The EES also overlooks the habitat of threatened species that are protected by federal government legislation. An example of this was the Mordialloc Freeway extension, which has all but decimated the critically endangered Australasian bittern.

The act that was written 43 years ago is clearly not meeting today’s challenges and needs to be updated, so I support the residents’ e-petition. The EES requirement these days does not meet the community’s need for real environmental protection. It fails on biodiversity and ignores climate change. I urge the government to consider reviewing this act as a matter of urgency.

Peter M McCann Memorial Grove

Petition

Mr MEDDICK (Western Victoria) (17:45): Those of us who know the winding, scenic drive along Deviation Road at the end of Aberdeen Street in Geelong will know how that short but picturesque jaunt will land you at the Fyansford pub. Next to the pub on either side and at the rear are some open grasslands interspersed with trees that provide a beautiful, green, open common down to the river. This space has been used by families in the area for generations, long prior to the current, massive housing developments that are springing up right on its doorstep. Part of this space has been the Peter M McCann Memorial Grove, a stand of native trees that provide shade and shelter to an array of native birds and other species but also a calming, beautiful walk through to the river and rotunda. Right now, that stand of trees is fenced off, sold to a developer who has no interest in the value of the land as a green wedge, only in building more retail outlets in its space.

The former cement works purchased the site many years ago, and it was offered to the City of Greater Geelong to purchase. They refused. A 2004 City of Greater Geelong report into the heritage significance of the grove found that it would need to have archaeological presence in any future development. There is also conjecture that Captain Fyans’s huts—for whom the area is named, and an original colonial settler—may be in the area, and also that it may have First Nations artefacts present. So at a minimum, a cultural heritage survey should be undertaken before the bulldozers move in.

To many, 168 people signing a petition might not seem a great deal, but to them and many more this issue should be seen as a watershed moment. Do we allow the constant destruction of the natural environment for the sake of some shops next to a housing estate, or do we seek to preserve what little remains of the natural environment that the same residents of those new houses will enjoy?

The petitioners have called on the government to provide funding to the City of Greater Geelong to purchase the Peter M McCann Memorial Grove, Geelong, and to make the land a permanent part of the Fyansford Common, including the development of a car park and a road to the river—a simple request and a modest one when you come and see what the area is becoming, and one I am happy to put forward.

Adjournment

Mr LEANE (Eastern Metropolitan—Minister for Local Government, Minister for Suburban Development, Minister for Veterans) (17:47): I move:

That the house do now adjourn.

COVID-19 vaccination

Dr CUMMING (Western Metropolitan) (17:47): (1608) My adjournment matter is for the Minister for Small Business, and the action that I seek is for the minister to make more information publicly available for small businesses regarding the vaccine mandates. My office has been swamped with small business owners confused over the vaccine mandates. Who is entitled to ask for your vaccination status? I have had constituents contacting me, as the management of a food market have been asking their tenants for their vaccination status. Are they allowed to do this? Can employers stand people down if they are unvaccinated? Do they have to continue to pay them? Does the mandate only apply for those required to work onsite?

The main source of information is the government’s coronavirus website. However, this does not have a lot of detail, and when I looked at it last week it still had the incorrect road map. It also refers to hospitality staff under retail workers and does not state anything about staff needing to be fully vaccinated before reopening—but that obviously changed. We were told that all authorised workers needed to be vaccinated. Now, our electorate office staff do not need to be vaccinated, even if they are working from the office or at Parliament—yet a number of members have been asking staff for their vaccination status when they are not their employer. If they cannot get it right, how can we expect everyone else to?

If you search for more information, you end up even more confused. When you go to the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission website it states:

Under employment law, employers can direct their employees to be vaccinated if the direction is lawful and reasonable. Whether a direction is lawful and reasonable depends on the circumstances.

Let me be blunt. It is not employers directing their staff to be vaccinated; it is the government mandating it. The Fair Work ombudsman’s website states:

An employer doesn’t have to pay an employee when either the federal or a state or territory government … makes an enforceable government direction that prevents an employee from working.

But employers need more information than this. While they may be happy to stand a good employee down or even pay them leave, they need more certainty to be able to plan for the future and to avoid a court case. They need more information.

Mosaic estate planning

Mr ONDARCHIE (Northern Metropolitan) (17:50): (1609) My adjournment matter this evening is for the Minister for Planning, and it is concerning the estate called Mosaic estate in Lalor in my electorate of Northern Metropolitan Region and particularly a development that is proposed to occur at 50S Gillwell Road in Lalor—or ‘Law-lor’, as my residents call it. When they first moved into this beautiful new estate—I think it is about six to eight years old—they were told that at the end of their estate there was going to be a lovely passive retirement village built, and they thought, ‘That’s nice. That’ll fit into our new estate with our new homes and our new gardens and things like that’, and that was the plan. But things have changed, and it seems that that residential retirement village is not going ahead, to be replaced by a large social housing project.

Now, the people who live in the local area, who live in that estate—and I am told that this social housing project is being overseen by Baptcare, and it is called the Baptcare Affordable Housing proposal, 50S Gillwell Road, in Lalor—are not against social housing. In fact they think that a salt-and-pepper arrangement is a good one for suburbs to make sure that people who need affordable housing can get it. So they are not against that at all, but it has blindsided them because there are aspects of this plan that have not been consulted about with the community. They have been to a couple of sessions online, but the message has been loud and clear that this is not a project that is being done with them, it is being done to them. They said, ‘If they knew this was going ahead, they should have informed us in the first place’. So there is a large concentration of residents in a single area that are worried about the fact that there is going to be this new development with no consultation. There is going to be social housing. They are not certain about what the rules or parameters are around the planning and development.

So the action I seek from the minister on behalf of the many, many residents in the Mosaic estate who have written to me and reached out to me—and some of them are quite concerned about how all of this is going to work out, with 48 little tiny houses in this proposed social housing development—is to stop the project right now and consult properly with the people of the Mosaic estate about what is going to happen in their local area. It is about time the government stopped doing things to people and started doing them with them.

Victorian Homebuyer Fund

Ms VAGHELA (Western Metropolitan) (17:53): (1610) My adjournment matter is directed to the Treasurer, Minister for Economic Development and Minister for Industrial Relations, the Honourable Tim Pallas. This adjournment matter relates to the portfolio responsibilities of the Treasurer. Home ownership is a part of the Australian dream. However, the pandemic has increased the financial pressures on Victorians. The pandemic has highlighted how important it is to have a secure place to call your own. Now it is more important than ever before to have stable and affordable housing. The Andrews Labor government has launched the $500 million Victorian Homebuyer Fund. This fund is a shared equity arrangement which will make it easier for more people to buy a home while reducing the financial burden of lenders mortgage insurance. The Victorian Homebuyer Fund is available to Australian citizens or permanent residents who are over the age of 18 years. There are some eligibility requirements that need to be met in order to qualify.

Being able to save a deposit is the biggest challenge many Victorians are facing. It takes several years to get the deposit amount. Through this fund eligible participants only require a 5 per cent deposit, and the Victorian government provides up to 25 per cent of the purchase price in exchange for an equivalent share in the property. Home ownership among the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community is low compared to the rest of the population. Through this fund the government is also supporting Indigenous homebuyers, who can buy with a deposit as low as 3.5 per cent and receive a government contribution of up to 35 per cent in exchange for an equivalent share in the property.

I am proud to be a part of a Victorian government that is helping Victorians realise their dreams. The action I seek from the Treasurer is to provide me with an update on how the residents of the Western Metropolitan Region are being made aware of this fantastic program.

Multipurpose taxi program

Mr BARTON (Eastern Metropolitan) (17:55): (1611) My adjournment tonight is for Minister Carroll in the other place. I have been inundated with responses from those in the commercial passenger vehicle industry who watched the committee hearings for the inquiry into the multipurpose taxi program last week. While I will not comment myself, I have received a lot of feedback from those in the industry who were somewhat bemused. Certainly in my discussions with the industry, at the forefront is the role of the regulator. Commercial Passenger Vehicles Victoria (CPVV) readily acknowledges that of almost 90 000 registered CPVs only approximately 35 000 are actually working. The question has been posed, given the increase in the wheelchair-accessible vehicles was only about 300 to begin with, that it is not an unreasonable assumption that there could easily be 500 wheelchair-accessible vehicles included in the dormant 55 000 CPVs which are inoperative.

I had one taxi operator contact me to inform me that they are no longer in a position to continue to offer cross-subsidised services that remain unrecognised by this government. Wheelchair-accessible vehicles cost up to $100 000; operators often make only a marginal profit at the best of times from offering these vehicles to Victoria’s wheelchair community. They have only been able to continue to offer these services for so long because they have been able to cross-subsidise with their usual sedan work. This taxi operator has had to reduce their fleet and divert their resources to protect the profitable sedan work. We are looking at the very real possibility—this is coming home to roost now—of limited wheelchair-accessible vehicles being available, especially in regional communities. So the action I seek is: will the minister instruct CPVV to collect updated and accurate data on the number of wheelchair-accessible vehicles that are currently active in the industry?

Keilor Downs development

Mr FINN (Western Metropolitan) (17:57): (1612) I wish to raise a matter this evening—this afternoon, almost—for the attention of the Minister for Planning. It concerns a number of items of correspondence that I have received from constituents in Keilor Downs who are deeply concerned about a development at 21A Copernicus Way in Keilor Downs. I know that is not how it is pronounced, but it is the best I can do late on a Wednesday afternoon. They are very, very concerned about the 47 units that are going to be built on this site.

It is a social housing development built by Baptcare. They are not opposed to social housing, not at all, but they are very concerned about this particular development, and I can understand that. Having spoken to Cr Maria Kerr of Brimbank council and having received, as I say, a number of items of correspondence on this from locals in the area, I can fully understand why they are expressing their concerns. One of the reasons they are expressing their concerns is that they basically have not been consulted properly. You know, this is something that we have seen time and time and time again under this government. Consultation does not seem to exist, or at least proper consultation does not seem to exist. I am very hopeful that on this occasion we might be able to do something about it, because this is something that affects a great number of people.

Keilor Downs is a great area. A great number of families live there. It is a very, very nice area, and they obviously have concerns about the impact this development, or the size of this development, will have on their lives, and you can understand that. So what I am asking the minister to do tonight is to join me and Cr Kerr to meet with the locals in Keilor Downs. Let me know a date, and I will organise it. Certainly the minister will be given a very warm welcome, but he will leave in no doubt as to the views of local people. As I say, they are not against Baptcare, they are not against social housing; they are expressing their deepest concerns about the size of this development and the impact that it will have on traffic and other utilities. It is something that really they should be heard on, and I am hoping the minister can see his way clear to join us on this occasion.

COVID-19

Mr QUILTY (Northern Victoria) (18:00): (1613) My adjournment debate item tonight is for the Minister for Health, as usual. Coronavirus has come to the north-east border area. After so many months of enduring lockdowns and restrictions when there were outbreaks elsewhere, the virus is finally loose in Wodonga and Albury. In the last week we have seen almost every school in both towns shut down for at least one day. There are massive queues at testing centres in town. Capacity for the day is reached shortly after they open in the morning. People are sitting in line for 8 hours to get tested.

I have talked a lot about how much easier it should be to control outbreaks in regional towns, but part of that process is making sure there is support available for the community. This government has a terrible record of initially managing outbreaks outside of Melbourne, mainly driven by it failing to provide the appropriate resources straight up.

We were told today that extra resources are not needed in Wodonga. I do not believe that is true. Our local community will deal with this and come through it, and we will get over the fear of this, but right now, if we are going to do this without a lockdown, we urgently need more testing capacity. The action I seek is for more resources to be sent for testing, for more sites to be opened up and for capacity to be increased so that we can get through the backlogs and get on top of the outbreaks.

Shepparton paediatric services

Ms LOVELL (Northern Victoria) (18:01): (1614) My adjournment matter is directed to the Minister for Health, and it concerns the need to address the dire lack of public paediatric services in the Greater Shepparton region. The action that I seek is for the minister to give a commitment to provide funding of $30 000 to assist in establishing the new public paediatric service at the Mooroopna integrated early learning centre and recurrent funding of $2000 each year to ensure the operation of the service into the future.

The Mooroopna integrated early learning centre has been established on the grounds of the Mooroopna Primary School and is a partnership between the Greater Shepparton City Council, the Department of Education and Training and the Colman Foundation, a well-known philanthropic organisation. The centre has the potential to be a one-stop shop delivering improved educational health and support services to children and their families. Recent Australian Early Development Census data reveals that Greater Shepparton rates are above the state average in many categories of childhood disadvantage, including physical disabilities, emotional problems, social deprivation and communication. Thankfully the centre will also include a new paediatric service to help address these challenges and improve the lives of the region’s children.

Although there are nine paediatricians based in the Goulburn Valley region, seven of those are based at Goulburn Valley Health and deal predominantly with hospitalised children. The demand for public paediatric services in the area is overwhelmingly high, with children and families waiting a minimum of six months for an initial consultation and in some cases up to two years. To assist with this demand, two paediatricians will commence consultations at the Mooroopna integrated early learning centre on 1 February 2022, delivering a bulk-billed service to ensure no out-of-pocket cost to families. Before commencing operation, the purchase of equipment and other resources is required, including desktop computers, a printer, computer software programs, medical equipment and stationery items. Specific paediatric equipment also required includes infant and adolescent weighing scales, a height measuring scale, blood pressure measuring equipment and other specialised items. Funding of $30 000 will allow for the purchase of this equipment, and recurrent funding of $2000 is required to ensure the continued operation of the service. I urge the minister to provide this funding.

Western Victoria Transmission Network Project

Mrs McARTHUR (Western Victoria) (18:04): (1615) My adjournment debate is for the Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change and concerns the Western Victoria Transmission Network Project. Now, this is a very fraught project—a long line from Sydenham to Bulgana, with towers proposed to be the height of the MCG lights—causing no end of distress to landowners and people concerned about the environment, the amenity, fire issues et cetera. At the moment the minister should no doubt be aware that many landowners had been led to believe that the western part of the project would be a 220-kilovolt line, and they had made their submissions to the statutory processes accordingly. But it now appears that serious consideration is being given to an update of the entire route to 500 kilovolts. While there may be very good arguments for this, and indeed it is likely to make underground high-voltage direct current way more economically viable, the fact remains that residents and landowners have been totally misled.

Dr Bach: Surely not!

Mrs McARTHUR: Yes. You cannot imagine this government misleading anybody! It would not be possible, Dr Bach—but it clearly is. So the action I seek from the minister is for a commitment that should the up-rated route be preferred, the Australian Energy Market Operator’s regulatory investment test for transmission process and all local consultation be reopened. This is a serious material change in circumstance, and all previous justifications are now outdated. I ask the minister to commit to the only just course and to rerun these processes in light of this new and significant change in the project specification.

Level crossing removals

Mr RICH-PHILLIPS (South Eastern Metropolitan) (18:06): (1616) I raise a matter for the attention of the Minister for Transport Infrastructure in the other place, and it relates to consequences of what is believed to be construction work on the Frankston line with some of the level crossing works which is leading to spoil from that construction work being transported by heavy vehicles down the Western Port Highway in Cranbourne near Skye onto Ballarto Road to be dumped at the quarry at Skye.

I have been contacted by a number of constituents who live either along Western Port Highway or on Ballarto Road in Skye who have raised the issue that since the end of the lockout lockdown on the construction industry at the beginning of October there has been a massive increase in the number of trucks bringing spoil to that quarry at all hours of the day, causing massive traffic disruption in Ballarto Road as well as massive interruption to sleep, with trucks running through the night causing considerable noise and disruption to the extent that many residents in the Skye area and that part of Western Port Highway have not even been able to get 6 hours of sleep a night.

The request I have of the minister is that she ensure that the construction schedule, or more to the point the schedule for the removal of the spoil from the works, is conducted at such a time that allows local residents in the Skye area to actually get sleep overnight and that this spoil is removed at a more appropriate time that does not interrupt the basic sleep needs of residents in Skye.

Eltham community hospital

Dr BACH (Eastern Metropolitan) (18:08): (1617) My adjournment matter today concerns the government’s bungled attempts to build a community hospital in the electorate of Eltham, and the action that I seek is for the Minister for Health to categorically rule out compulsory acquisition of the Apollo Parkways site. Some community groups have now been told that it is not the government’s current intention to acquire this site in a compulsory fashion. I want it in black and white from the Minister for Health.

Before the last election Labor promised the voters of Eltham that they would have a new health centre but that the details would be worked out at a later date. They spent the better part of the last three years scrambling to find an appropriate site, and ultimately, now that an election is on the horizon, the government has settled upon the much-loved Apollo Parkways site in Greensborough. So many local residents and community groups have reached out to me with their concerns about the government’s decision. Put simply, the government has chosen the site because it is the cheapest and fastest way to build the hospital to fulfill an election promise utterly regardless of the merits of the site.

The Apollo Parkways is enjoyed by residents and community sports groups and provides much-needed parking for the Diamond Valley Sports and Fitness Centre. The Minister for Planning, would you believe it, actually rezoned this land in February last year as a public park and recreation zone. It is not suitable for a hospital. It is almost entirely inaccessible by public transport. Due to the road conditions leading up to its access point on Civic Drive it is impossible to route buses to this site. For those arriving from the north of the site the nearest bus stop is 10 minutes walk away. Thus over 1500 residents have signed a petition objecting to the site. If the government could be bothered doing the most basic due diligence, responding to community need, they would have learned that there are numerous other sites that could work well—for example, the old shire offices in Eltham that I have spoken about before and sites in Greensborough town centre.

Now, last week Nillumbik Shire Council, on so many levels a fine council, released its long-awaited analysis of the site and recommended that shire councillors should not proceed with the sale of this land to the state government. And I can inform the house and inform the Minister for Local Government that just last night Nillumbik councillors listened to what both council officers and local residents had been telling them and voted against the sale of this land to the state government. The government now has two options: a messy compulsory acquisition process to, yes, Minister, run roughshod over the wishes of local residents and the local council; or admit defeat, start taking the concerns of the community seriously and find an alternate site. The minister must choose the latter.

Hemp industry

Ms PATTEN (Northern Metropolitan) (1618)

Incorporated pursuant to order of Council of 7 September:

My adjournment matter is for the Minister for Agriculture and relates to hemp.

The National Farmers Federation has set a target of $100 billion farmgate production by 2030. The current production level is just above $60 billion.

The director of CSIRO agriculture and food, John Manners, has said:

We need to create an innovation ecosystem in Australia that can take the excellent science that our public institutions do and take it further down the commercialisation track, making it more accessible to further commercialisation by both new and established players.

Industrial hemp offers an opportunity to play an integral part in these aspirations. It can significantly advance the Victorian economy, but the industry is severely inhibited just in the way it is regulated.

Hemp is not cannabis, yet the current status of industrial hemp in Victoria is that it is being treated in the same way as a drug within the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act.

Logically, not being a drug, it should be treated in the same way as wheat, barley or any other crop.

Just like a mushroom grower is not required to be licensed despite the fact that there are hallucinogenic or psychotropic mushroom varieties, hemp production does not require policing because it has a psychoactive cousin.

A more productive approach would be to identify low-THC cannabis varieties for Victorian conditions and schedule those as exceptions to the definitions within the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act. This approach has been used in Canada for many years.

So the action I seek is that the minister commission sufficient research to identify and list suitable low-THC varieties and harmonise hemp cultivation with other Australian jurisdictions.

Responses

Mr LEANE (Eastern Metropolitan—Minister for Local Government, Minister for Suburban Development, Minister for Veterans) (18:11): There were 10 adjournment matters from 10 MLCs in the chamber directed to seven different ministers, and they will receive those adjournment matters.

The PRESIDENT: The house stands adjourned.

House adjourned 6.12 pm.