Wednesday, 17 November 2021

The SPEAKER (Hon. Colin Brooks) took the chair at 9.32 am and read the prayer.

Announcements

Acknowledgement of country

The SPEAKER (09:32): We acknowledge the traditional Aboriginal owners of the land upon which we are meeting. We pay our respects to them, their culture, their elders past, present and future, and elders from other communities who may be here today.

Business of the house

Notices of motion

The SPEAKER (09:33): I wish to advise the house that general business, notice of motion 44, will be removed from the notice paper unless the member wishing their matter to remain advise the Clerk in writing before 2.00 pm today.

Petitions

Following petition presented to house by Clerk:

Camperdown social housing

This petition draws the attention of the House to the proposal by Victoria’s Big Housing Build for the development of 26 homes on a small area at 80 Camperdown–Cobden Road, Camperdown. The Camperdown community supports the need for the development of Social Housing across the Corangamite Shire, however this development will cause unacceptable high density living in lieu of integrated living across the community for those with special needs. There will be limited access and limited off street parking and will be located in a fringe area with limited public transport. The petitioners therefore demand the Andrews Labor Government support the proponent for less dense housing projects throughout other towns in the Corangamite Shire.

By Mr RIORDAN (Polwarth) (446 signatures)

Tabled.

Ordered that petition be considered next day on motion of Mr RIORDAN (Polwarth).

Committees

Integrity and Oversight Committee

Inquiry into the Performance of Victorian Integrity Agencies 2019/20

Ms HENNESSY (Altona) (09:34): I have the honour to present to the house a report from the Integrity and Oversight Committee on the inquiry into the performance of Victorian integrity agencies 2019–20, together with appendices and transcript of evidence.

Ordered that report and appendices be published.

Documents

Documents

Incorporated list as follows:

DOCUMENTS TABLED UNDER ACTS OF PARLIAMENT—The Clerk tabled the following documents under Acts of Parliament:

Auditor-General:

Report on the Annual Financial Report of the State of Victoria: 2020–21—Ordered to be published

Supplying and Using Recycled Water—Ordered to be published

Subordinate Legislation Act 1994—Documents under s 15 in relation to Statutory Rule 129.

Members statements

Political protests

Mr SOUTHWICK (Caulfield) (09:35): In our great Australian democracy everybody has the right to peaceful protest, and we must uphold that right. It is something that those that have gone before us have fought and died for and part of what makes our great country what it is. Our freedoms are important to us, and we must uphold them. However, just like everyone has a right to peaceful protest, nobody has the right to incite hate or violence—absolutely nobody—and I condemn that in the strongest possible terms.

Whether it is Extinction Rebellion protests, CFMEU, Black Lives Matter or the protests that we are seeing today, there is a way for those to be able to present their views and to do it peacefully. I stand with everybody to call out those that incite hate or violence. It is something that I have stood very strongly for in this Parliament, and I have done so on many occasions. Whether it is using hanging gallows, whether it is using those Nazi symbols and using them against people, whether it is to the Premier or anyone—I call that out. I ask for some cooperation from the government on this. This is very important. Victorians are very angry, and rightly so, on being locked down the way that they have been. But there is a way to protest that, and I ask people to do that peacefully, as we have done so before and we should do so again.

Williamstown electorate student achievements

Ms HORNE (Williamstown—Minister for Ports and Freight, Minister for Consumer Affairs, Gaming and Liquor Regulation, Minister for Fishing and Boating) (09:37): I am passionate about listening to the voices of young people in Williamstown and hearing about the changes they want to see and what they want to see in their future leaders. Recently I ran my Williamstown Parliament prize competition in conjunction with the Victorian Parliament Prize, where young people in Williamstown could submit a video of what they would say in Parliament if they had a chance. I was blown away by the amazing range of issues our kids are interested in. I was impressed by every single entry, and it was great to hear such a diversity of interests amongst our young people. In fact I was so impressed by the entries that every single kid who submitted their piece received a book voucher either from the Sun Bookshop in Yarraville or Book and Paper in Williamstown, because it is really great to be supporting local businesses for this prize, particularly after the incredibly tough year that they have had. A huge congratulations goes to each of the participants. I was so pleased with the effort and passion that went into these entries.

I also want to shout out a huge thanks to the parents, teachers and school staff that supported our kids not only for the competition but during the extended periods of remote learning in 2020–21. Many kids spoke about the importance of taking tough action on climate change as well as funding for mental health services, CALD outreach and education. I was pleased to see that so much of this has been delivered through the Andrews Labor government’s budget this year.

Hospital amalgamation

Ms KEALY (Lowan) (09:38): The Andrews Labor government’s health megamerger for the Grampians region has been signed off and celebrated by the Minister for Health, but already we are seeing the impacts of a deterioration of health care when it is being managed out of Ballarat, with dental services cut from Edenhope hospital within a week of the new merger taking place. This leaves the region with no dentists within an hour of travel, which is a disastrous outcome for a region with limited access to public transport to travel elsewhere and limited options to access dental care, with the South Australian border still closed to residents who live or have travelled outside the 70-kilometre zone into Victoria. With big promises made by the government around improved health services for the region if the government’s megamerger was to go ahead, the minister must explain how cutting Edenhope’s local dental service is helping to give locals access to the health services they need and deserve.

Telehandler training

Ms KEALY: After years of unacceptable delays the Andrews Labor government has again stepped back from the development of a separate telehandler licence, instead saying developing a specific course is now only under consideration. Years ago the then minister indicated that WorkSafe were consulting with the industry to develop a specific training option for telehandlers, but now this commitment appears to be history and is being put in the too-hard basket. The current training course is completely irrelevant for farm use of telehandlers, and given the rate of deaths on farms it is essential that a specific training course is developed as soon as possible. The minister cannot walk away from this requirement. Other states have been able to implement it. Why is Victoria behind yet again?

Kyneton District Soccer Club

Ms THOMAS (Macedon—Minister for Agriculture, Minister for Regional Development) (09:40): I would like to congratulate Kyneton District Soccer Club, who have been recognised as Football Victoria’s regional club of the year. Kyneton soccer prides itself on growing participation across the board, and its committee, led by president Ron Cole and vice-president Jason Tusa, has worked to make every member feel welcome. Incredibly, the club has grown its women’s participation by over 100 members, with plans to introduce an all-abilities program in the near future. Congratulations to all coaches, players and volunteers for this well-deserved recognition.

John Reid

Ms THOMAS: I would also like to thank the Melbourne Food and Wine Festival for their fitting posthumous induction of local baking hero John Reid into the Legends Hall of Fame. John was best known for the famous RedBeard bakery, but John’s generosity and skill meant his influence stretched far beyond the walls of his Trentham bakery. Thank you to the festival committee and thank you, John. This induction is a fitting tribute to a life lived in service of craft and community.

Dennis Ingemann

Ms THOMAS: I also wish to acknowledge the life of Mount Macedon resident, friend and Labor Party activist Dennis Ingemann. Dennis lived a full and generous life. His professional career spanned contributions in urban planning, housing and international development. Dennis will be missed by all who knew him. My condolences to Dennis’s family, particularly to Jim, Lucy and Jenny, and to his many friends all around the world.

Electoral boundaries redivision

Ms STALEY (Ripon) (09:41): Last week I met with the mayor of Golden Plains shire, Cr Helena Kirby, and the CEO, Eric Braslis, to talk about the unmet needs of the northern part of the shire. What I learned is that there is much left not done by the current Labor member. Key economic recovery projects are not being addressed; streetscape enhancements in Linton, Scarsdale and Smythesdale have council and private funding but need state government support; the Linton oval needs a complete reconstruction; and the Woady Yaloak rec reserve needs lights. Transport has not kept pace with population growth in the north of the shire. For example, extending the Ballarat public bus service to Smythesdale would enable the majority of its 1000 residents who work or attend school in Ballarat to get there and home. Roads, especially the Glenelg Highway, need investment. The Ballarat link road needs to be more than a line on a map. Labor has been in power for the past seven years, and the lists of its local failures is long.

Apart from meeting with Cr Kirby and Mr Braslis, I also visited Skipton in Corangamite shire as well as Linton, Smythesdale, Haddon, Scarsdale and Napoleons. I am so looking forward to getting to know these communities and delivering for them as their MP. I will further be in those communities over the coming months, listening and learning and getting ahead of the projects that these growing communities need—unlike the current Labor member for this area, who has clearly abandoned these towns already and will not be seen there again.

Bendigo TAFE

Ms EDWARDS (Bendigo West) (09:43): Between 2010 and 2014 Bendigo TAFE suffered from outrageous and detrimental cuts. TAFEs across Victoria were brought to their knees, including Bendigo TAFE. In the seven years since, the Andrews Labor government has steadily rebuilt our TAFE system with record funding and structural change. Last week I was thrilled to attend the opening of the $60 million Bendigo TAFE redevelopment, a transformational project that has cemented Bendigo TAFE as a trusted and valuable education and training centre in the heart of Bendigo. The redevelopment includes two new buildings, refurbished heritage buildings and the relocation of the Bendigo technical education campus. The new campus also includes a new learning hub, an Indigenous education centre and modern, flexible teaching spaces where students can connect with industry and community. The campus will open to students in 2022, with courses including health and community services; Indigenous support studies; business, hospitality and tourism; education; hair and beauty; creative industries; and IT.

This new precinct builds on this government’s previous investment in Bendigo TAFE, the new $17.7 million health and community services centre of excellence and the $7.8 million Food and Fibre Centre of Excellence. This campus will be a place of learning for the next generation of workers to get the skills they need for in-demand jobs in our region and across the state. Thank you to the Premier and the Minister for Training and Skills in the other place for their commitment to rebuilding our TAFE sector through the TAFE facilities modernisation program that has supported this significant redevelopment, and for the introduction and expansion of the free TAFE courses.

LinC Church Services Network Yarra Valley

Ms McLEISH (Eildon) (09:44): LinC Church Services Network Yarra Valley fresh food program and their 60 volunteers have done incredible work over the past nine years and throughout the pandemic. Each Friday the organisation provides food supplied by SecondBite and Aldi in Seville with other donations to those in need in the Upper Yarra.

Over the past year 79 tonnes of food has been distributed from the Yarra Junction program, with over 140 000 tonnes across their four distribution sites. That is over 1000 food parcels to families and individuals. Times have been tough, and the generous work LinC does along with its army of dedicated volunteers makes a huge difference in the community.

Marysville community art

Ms McLEISH: I was delighted to see the new unique sculpture and mosaic art additions to the already stunning Marysville streetscape. Driven by Triangle Arts Group and lead artist, the talented and energetic Jane, together with community members and artist Sue, they created flowerbeds, the police station sign and the memorial seat in the heart of the town. Jane organised and rallied community members to complete parts of the mosaic at home during lockdowns. It gave people a strong sense of purpose and belonging during these difficult times while creating one-of-a-kind community art—just another reason to visit Marysville. I look forward to the next creation.

Angela Merkel

Ms McLEISH: I would like to recognise the incredible contribution that German Chancellor Angela Merkel has made as one of the most successful world leaders over her 17 years as Chancellor. She has helped pave the way for women in politics on a global scale and has been a constant role model for stable and successful leadership.

Remembrance Day

Mr J BULL (Sunbury) (09:46:246:): I am grateful Victorians could gather in person again this year, with Remembrance Day services at the Shrine of Remembrance, across the state and in my local community of Sunbury. Thank you to the Sunbury RSL for organising our local service at the memorial hall. It was fantastic to see our community come together to commemorate those who have served our country. We honour the memory of all those who have served in war, and we reflect on their sacrifice. Lest we forget.

Tony McMahon

Mr J BULL: I also acknowledge with sadness the passing of Sunbury local Tony McMahon, premiership player with the Sunbury footy club in the 1970s and 80s and secretary in 1982. In 2016 Tony received the Kiwanis Club Australia Day Citizen of the Year award for his outstanding service to the Sunbury community. He was also a Sunbury Agricultural Society committee member for 22 years. Many will remember Tony’s milk cart, which would do laps of the Sunbury Show. It was a huge hit with local families. I pass on my sincere condolences to his family and his friends, and I acknowledge the incredible work done in our community.

Sunbury bus interchange

Mr J BULL: I was very pleased that the $3.22 million that has been allocated by this government to upgrade the Sunbury bus interchange was the subject of a terrific community survey done by my local youth advisory council—138 responses. I want to thank Jesse, Ryan, Breanna, Sasha, Foley, Emma, Noah, Sophie and Angus for all the work they have done in creating this terrific survey. It is always and only the Andrews Labor government who gets things done.

Angie O’Hare

Ms VALLENCE (Evelyn) (09:47): It is with great sadness that I pay tribute to Angie O’Hare, the much-loved principal of Mount Evelyn Primary School, who passed away suddenly last week. Angie was a wonderful and highly respected educational leader, thoroughly committed to high-quality education and outcomes for the nearly 400 students at Mount Evelyn Primary School. Angie had a lovely smile, and she was lovely to chat to when I visited the school. She will leave an indelible legacy, and she will be missed. The entire Mount Evelyn Primary School community has shown immeasurable resilience. When I visited there last week there were beautiful floral tributes and much sadness, but there was also a sense of getting on with things, as Angie would want them to. My deepest sympathies to Angie’s family, the staff, the students, their families and the entire Mount Evelyn Primary School community. Vale, Angie O’Hare.

Roger Boness

Ms VALLENCE: I gives me great pride to, on behalf of the local Mount Evelyn community, pay tribute to Roger Boness, the past president of Mount Evelyn RSL and a Vietnam veteran. On Remembrance Day last week, Mount Evelyn RSL unveiled a plaque to honour Roger, who has been an absolute pillar of the local community and the Mount Evelyn RSL for a long time and was recently instrumental in obtaining a howitzer cannon, which now lives in the Mount Evelyn Memorial Gardens. It was truly wonderful to see Roger achieve this recognition for his tremendous efforts in the Mount Evelyn community. Congratulations, Roger.

Tarneit revitalisation project

Ms CONNOLLY (Tarneit) (09:49): I am so proud to inform the house that the Tarneit revitalisation project is moving full steam ahead to deliver fantastic local projects for the Tarneit community. With another round of projects valued at just over $307 000, we are showing no signs of slowing down to fund small projects right across Tarneit that help breathe life back into our suburb. This is all about creating civic pride in our community and making it an even better place to live and raise your kids. We have already done great work with this program, creating local murals at shopping centres, reinvigorating parks and lighting up the Cowies Hill water tower. It is all about beautifying our local community sites.

With this next round of projects, we are building upon that by lighting up 1.2 kilometres of pathway along the Melbourne Water Pipe Reserve, creating a lovely space for families to walk at night-time. We are also funding the Penrose community garden activation project, and we know that Tarneit’s Pasifika community loved creating this garden space at the community centre. This project is going to support their continued use with the installation of a barbecue, a fire pit and the associated facilities that we need to support their future events at the local community centre. There is so much more to come. This is such a great project for Tarneit, and I cannot wait to have the minister join me next week to come out, have a look at what we are doing, what we are delivering, and discuss even more projects that I am hoping to kick off within 2022.

Mornington Peninsula

Mr MORRIS (Mornington) (09:51): I have raised the issue of the metropolitan status of the Mornington Peninsula in this place on numerous occasions. I have tabled petitions with more than 3000 signatures on them in the last 12 months. The pandemic has heightened the visibility of the metropolitan status, and it has certainly brought it to the attention of many more residents. Many residents are asking, ‘Why is that the case?’. It is a basic matter of fairness. Geelong is considered to be regional; the Mornington Peninsula is not. Geelong is eligible for a range of support measures—the Regional Jobs Fund, the Regional Jobs and Infrastructure Fund, the Investment Fast-Track Fund and a range of others. But significantly, Geelong businesses are eligible to pay half the payroll tax rate that businesses on the Mornington Peninsula pay.

Ms Britnell: That is not fair.

Mr MORRIS: That is not fair in any way, exactly as the member for South-West Coast says. We have also seen disgraceful scare tactics where members of the Labor Party and their fellow travellers are running around saying that if we go to regional Victoria, we will not have the green wedge protections. That is complete and utter rubbish—absolute rubbish. The only reason that would occur is that the government allowed it to occur. It is in the hands of the government of the day. The scare tactic is a complete and utter furphy. The peninsula has suffered enough at the hands of this government. It is time we had some balance.

Altona electorate road infrastructure

Ms HENNESSY (Altona) (09:52): I rise today to share with the house and update the house on some very important projects that are occurring in my local constituency and also to thank the Minister for Roads and Road Safety and Minister for Public Transport, the member for Niddrie, for coming out despite all the wild winds last Friday to inspect some of the very, very challenging pedestrian and road-access issues in my electorate. We were delighted at the last budget to finally get funding for signalisation and the widening of the roads on the corner of Point Cook Road and Sneydes Road, which is a very well known, challenging piece of road. Improving pedestrian and cycling access is a really important part of that project. At the top end of that road, however, where that intersects with Central Avenue in Altona Meadows, there remain some really significant safety risks, and I was delighted that the minister came to inspect firsthand what they looked like.

The Newland Street exit from the freeway again is a great concern to members of the local community. Graffiti, clean-ups—for many years I have been advocating for people to take responsibility and to share with the community what the maintenance program is, so it was great to be able to raise those issues of concern firsthand with the minister. And last but not least, the Queen Street pedestrian overpass again has been the subject of some funding in the most recent budget to do some early design works, but there is nothing like getting a minister who cares and is committed to those issues to come out and see firsthand what the impact is. I will keep advocating for those projects.

Political protests

Mr HIBBINS (Prahran) (09:54): I rise to condemn the inciting of violence, the parading of gallows and the torrent of racist, sexist and transphobic abuse that has been directed at my parliamentary colleagues. Peaceful protests, demonstrations and even some direct action are the hallmarks of a democratic society, but what is occurring is threats of violence, threats to kill, and racism, sexism and homophobia. And it does not happen in a bubble—conspiracy theories and far-right ideology are mainstreamed or given comfort by politicians and political parties who are also spreading or allowing misinformation to spread. The failure of massive social media platforms to properly moderate their content, dog-whistle politics and comparisons to Nazi Germany all play a role, and we can see what this leads to: violence, and worse, misinformation and conspiracy theories resulting in people dying from preventable diseases when they do not need to.

The past two years have been incredibly difficult. And, yes, we will need to heal, but there will need to be a renewed effort over the next year to tackle the division, the conspiracy theories and the far-right ideology and not give comfort to them or incite them—and we do need a wideranging inquiry to get to the extent of it and to see what the government can do to address it.

Dingley Village Men’s Shed

Mr CARBINES (Ivanhoe) (09:55): I was pleased last Friday to open the new $50 000 extension to workshops at the Dingley Village Men’s Shed. Can I say a very positive talking point—an enthusiastic talking point—was actually the Mordialloc bypass. I would just like to flag for the member for Mordialloc that people are champing at the bit to get onto that new infrastructure, which I understand is only a mere week or weeks away. So that was a particular talking point for the colleagues down there, but I want to thank John and the team on the committee and the several hundred men’s shedders there at Dingley Village for the great work that they have done and the ongoing efforts that they put in. They recondition bikes for the needy, they have got a photographic group and there is the artwork that they have in the other part of their group there. And then of course they have got a flight simulator—that was raging in the background, and I thought, ‘Well, I suppose it is Dingley’. That is sort of par for the course out there. This is a huge group of guys out there.

I was pleased to also be there with Steve Staikos, the re-elected mayor for the City of Kingston. He is a good mayor, and I want to congratulate him. He was almost carried in, in fact. I was really pleased to see him, and it was good to share the stage with him and check out the great work of the men’s shed. There are some 277 men’s shed that our government has supported through a range of grants, and the 2021–22 men’s shed funding program grants are open. The Banyule Men’s Shed in my own electorate do great A-frames for a good price at election time—my thanks for their work as well.

Margaret Briggs

Mr WELLS (Rowville) (09:57): It is with great sadness that I rise to pay tribute to Marg Briggs. Marg Briggs became my first electorate officer in 1992 at the young age of 65. Marg helped me set up my office and pulled me into line as a new MP. Marg was brilliant in everything that she did, and we established a lifelong close friendship.

Marg encouraged a group of us to walk the Kokoda Track in 1995. Her brother Claude Nye was killed on Brigade Hill during World War II. Marg was a wealth of knowledge about the Kokoda campaign. After the trip, Marg and I along with Marg’s veteran contacts discussed building a memorial on Brigade Hill on the Kokoda Track. After 11 months of tedious negotiation with the people of Efogi, Marg’s son Rod joined us to build the memorial. On our return Marg rallied the support of the Kokoda battalion associations to build a replica of the Kokoda Track at the Thousand Steps in Upper Ferntree Gully. The opening of this memorial in 1997 was one of Marg’s proudest moments, apart from her beloved family.

With my parents in Bairnsdale and Judy’s in South Africa, Marg stepped in for our children on grandparents day at kinder and school, which they loved. To Marg’s incredible, dedicated adult children, many grandchildren and great-grandchildren, we share your great loss. Rest in peace, Marg Briggs, for a life well lived.

Anne Tudor

Ms ADDISON (Wendouree) (09:58): Congratulations to Ballarat’s Anne Tudor, OAM, on being awarded Victorian Senior of the Year. Anne has been recognised for her tireless work in campaigning for dementia awareness and inclusive aged-care services for the LGBTIQ+ community. Anne’s wife, Edie Mayhew, was diagnosed with dementia at the age of 59. Sadly Edie died last year at the age of 69. Together Anne and Edie launched the Bigger Hearts Dementia Alliance project in Ballarat with the goal of alleviating the stigma and hardship experienced by those battling dementia. Anne’s advocacy for those with dementia has included giving evidence at the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety regarding the treatment of older LGBTIQ+ Australians. This is a well-deserved award for an outstanding Victorian.

Steve Moneghetti

Ms ADDISON: Congratulations to Ballarat sporting icon Steve Moneghetti on being inducted into the Sport Australia Hall of Fame. ‘Mona’ represented Australia at four Olympics, four Commonwealth Games, six world championships and 10 cross-country championships. He won four medals, including gold in the 1994 marathon at the Commonwealth Games in Victoria, Canada. Steve has never forgotten his Ballarat roots and has continued to compete at a local level. His 16 minute 10 second lap of Lake Wendouree while representing the YCW Harriers is the stuff of folklore, and his record still stands today. Steve continues to serve in numerous roles, including on the boards of Commonwealth Games Australia and Sport Australia, and he was three times chair of the Victorian Institute of Sport. He is also an ambassador for the Ballarat Foundation’s Run for a Cause.

Thoa Tran

Ms SULEYMAN (St Albans) (09:59): Today I rise to acknowledge and congratulate Ms Thoa Tran from Sunshine North. Ms Tran is a recipient of a Victorian Senior of the Year Award for 2021. Ms Tran gives back to the community and contributed significantly during the COVID pandemic.

Errington Reserve sports facilities

Ms SULEYMAN: On another matter, I had the pleasure of joining the Brimbank mayor, Cr Rasic, to officially open the Errington Reserve sporting complex. Many in St Albans would know that Errington Reserve is the hub of the community. It is also home to the St Albans Football Club, St Albans Cricket Club and the much-loved St Albans East Tennis Club. We know the value of our sporting clubs and the contribution they make to the community. With the new buildings, which have been a partnership between Brimbank council and our government, there will be an increase in participation but also the facilities that St Albans deserves.

Mark Viduka

Ms SULEYMAN: On another matter, I would like to congratulate Mark Viduka, who has been inducted into the Sport Australia Hall of Fame. Many would know Mark Viduka, a westie, a Brimbank local who paved the way for football, originating from the Melbourne Knights Football Club. His contribution to soccer and the west has been tremendous.

Mordialloc electorate transport infrastructure

Mr RICHARDSON (Mordialloc) (10:01): Seven years ago we were elected to get things done. The Andrews Labor government came with a bold vision to transport our state for generations to come. This week and into next week we celebrate a significant milestone, with the 50th level crossing removal and station openings at Edithvale, Chelsea and Bonbeach. This is an extraordinary effort for our local community, a year ahead of schedule. The Chelsea level crossing removals were to be done by 2025. They have been done four years ahead of schedule.

In the next couple of weeks we will see the Mordialloc Freeway completed. This is a project that was talked about for decades. We announced it as the Mordialloc bypass in 2017. In 2018 it became the Mordialloc Freeway, and to see the work that has been done to transform our local community and south-eastern suburbs has been incredible. I want to thank our local community for their patience during that time as we have got on with this project and the thousands of workers that have been supported during the COVID pandemic and into the recovery as we build back even better.

I am really excited to see that consultations will get underway very shortly in Parkdale. There is a clear choice: we will remove level crossings. These intersections are dangerous. They are congested. They need to go. Others who attend rallies and say that these intersections are not busy and turn around and say—

Ms Staley interjected.

Mr RICHARDSON: The member for Ripon might say, ‘I was on a street stall for 5 hours with my local community’. The Heatherton community is still waiting for you. The Heatherton community is still waiting for you, member for Ripon. (Time expired)

Suburban Rail Loop

Mr FOWLES (Burwood) (10:03): Soon it will be easier than ever to commute to and from Burwood as it becomes an even better place to live, work and study. The Suburban Rail Loop is a city-shaping project. Travel times to and from Burwood will be slashed: to Box Hill in 4 minutes, Monash Uni in 8, Clayton in 12. The benefits cannot be understated. That is why we committed to delivering the Suburban Rail Loop. An important milestone is the handing down of the environment effects statement, which took place a few days ago on 5 November. This EES is the most comprehensive and transparent planning and environmental assessment submission in the state’s history. It is also the first to be delivered digitally. Users can access the material based on geography, interest area or profession. This critical digital document will guide the planning and delivery of SRL East and give us an exciting insight into the future of Burwood.

This is more than just a rail project. We are delivering a new bus and tram interchange, a pedestrian overpass to Deakin Uni and 750 new bicycle storage spaces as well. There has been a lot of community feedback on the importance of sustaining access to green open spaces and the local flora and fauna around the proposed station. We have listened and now we are acting on what our community wants. That is why we are getting on and naturalising the concrete-lined channels of Gardiners Creek between Burwood Highway and the bridge at Sinnott Street Reserve. This naturalisation will improve community green space, protect biodiversity and enhance waterway management. The EES will be on display until 16 December.

Extremism

Mr SCOTT (Preston) (10:04): I rise to join other members in this place in condemning the association of violence, violent imagery and threats with what could otherwise be legitimate political discourse. There is no place for violence within a democratic society. There is no place for members of this house or the other house to be subjected to threats of violence, discrimination and bigotry because of the political positions they take. Democracy is a fragile thing and free societies rely on elected representatives being able to conduct their business without threats. I note the member for Prahran and in fact the member for Caulfield from other parties raised this matter, but this is very serious.

In another jurisdiction—in fact the mother of the Parliament to which we belong, Westminster—two MPs have been murdered in recent years related to their work in their constituencies. There is an ongoing process of radicalisation where persons are not seeing the common humanity that we all see and in fact are being radicalised through particularly the use of social media into discourses where people of different ideologies and different viewpoints are irredeemably evil. This is not true, of course, but there are forces of darkness in our community who wish to spread dissent, chaos and hatred, and we must all stand against them for peace against violence.

Statements on parliamentary committee reports

Legal and Social Issues Committee

Responses to Historical Forced Adoptions in Victoria

Ms SULEYMAN (St Albans) (10:05): I rise today as the chair of the Legal and Social Issues Committee to speak on the committee’s report into responses to historical forced adoptions in Victoria. The report was tabled in September, and I appreciate this is now the first opportunity to speak in the house in relation to this report. I know many today will be participating and of course watching this contribution. I wish to acknowledge their ongoing advocacy for justice and recognition. I would also like to acknowledge everyone who generously shared their time and their ideas with the committee, especially the many individuals who bravely and generously shared their experiences and their journeys with us, both the mothers of forced adoptees and forced adoptees themselves. It is because of your courage and honesty that the committee tabled a robust report with 56 recommendations to government. It was your evidence that broadened our understanding of this significant and devastating period in Australia’s history.

The report developed by our committee is a landmark piece of work for our state. According to the Department of Justice and Community Safety, around 40 000 adoptions were arranged in Victoria between 1958 and 1984. The evidence received indicates that many mothers who gave birth during this time were subjected to the policies and practice of historical forced adoption. This included sending mothers to maternity homes with harsh conditions, forcibly restraining mothers that gave birth, immediately separating newborn babies and their mothers against their will, and pressuring mothers into signing consent forms. The committee heard of policies and practices that were illegal, unethical, immoral and unjust.

The Victorian Parliament first acknowledged and apologised for the profound harms that past adoption practices caused mothers, fathers, sons and daughters on 25 October 2012. Throughout this inquiry the committee heard time and time again how these harms have continued and how long-term and meaningful action is long overdue. All organisations need to take responsibility, and people need support to address the trauma and the injustices of the past. To achieve this, some of the committee’s recommendations include the removal of the statute of limitations, the establishment of a redress scheme for mothers and the consideration of a similar scheme for people who were adopted, a specific inquiry into experiences and the effects of adoption on adopted people, and of course integrated birth certificates. There are so many other recommendations that I know my committee members will go through. There needs to be ongoing and flexible funding of VANISH to provide post-adoption support and specialised mental health services. There need to be support services and we need to make sure that mothers can access the support services quite easily.

In the remaining time that I have I do want to thank my colleagues and fellow committee members, in particular the member for Geelong, who is in the chamber, and also the member for Clarinda, the member for Buninyong, the member for Gembrook, the member for Caulfield and the member for Brighton for their contributions and dedication to this inquiry during the pandemic.

On behalf of the committee I would also like to thank sincerely the secretariat for their hard work, as I said, during the pandemic. I thank Yuki Simmonds, Katherine, Richard and Rachel for all the hard work and support they provided us committee members during this inquiry.

I strongly believe that this report will further contribute to healing and justice for many Victorians who have been impacted by historical forced adoptions in our state. The time has come. I commend this report to the house.

Legal and Social Issues Committee

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

Mr WAKELING (Ferntree Gully) (10:10): I wish to deal with the committee report on the inquiry into the government’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic. I specifically wish to address the excellent minority report that was tabled as part of that report.

Hotel quarantine, as you would well be aware, led to this state’s worst health and safety disaster. It led to the deaths of over 800 Victorians, shut down our state for many months and significantly impacted on the economic, social and emotional state of tens of thousands of Victorians. The excellent work that was undertaken in this inquiry helped to identify the failures and the fact that the government had been intimately involved in the decision-making regarding the fateful use of private security guards in that program.

We know that the evidence that was presented to the committee identified a range of significant errors, both in terms of evidence to the committee but also evidence that was led to the inquiry that operated outside of the Parliament, by Justice Coate. In regard to that there is clear evidence, as stipulated here in the committee’s report, that Mr Chris Eccles, who at the time was the head of the Department and Premier and Cabinet, maintained he had no recollection of telephoning or speaking to Mr Ashton, then head of Victoria Police. However, Mr Eccles was able to categorically state that he would not and could not have said anything to Mr Ashton in relation to engaging private security guards to manage hotel quarantine. As the committee minority report rightly points out, this evidence is hard to believe. It defies all logic that on the one hand Mr Eccles could say that he could not remember the phone call but on the other hand could say with absolute certainty that the phone call did not relate to the engagement of private security guards, despite it being 1 minute after Mr Ashton’s text message about the very topic.

Now, the report goes on to a whole range of other issues. In regard to the Premier’s assertion that he—famously—was unaware of the decision-making process, the committee rightly points out that it was clear that the Premier was aware and did know that private security guards would be used to manage the hotel quarantine program, as identified at a press conference given by the Premier on 27 March 2020 at 3 o’clock, when he said, and I quote:

Police, private security, all of our health team will be able to monitor compliance in a much easier way, in a static location, one hotel or a series of hotels, as the case may be

Then also former Minister Mikakos very importantly stated to the hotel quarantine inquiry in her submission that the board, and I quote:

… ought to treat with caution the Premier’s evidence where he sought to explain the reference to the use of private security in the Hotel Quarantine Program made by him during his media conference that commenced at 3 pm on 27 March 2020. It is submitted that had the decision not already been made by that time, the Premier would not have announced the use of private security in the program.

So what this report—and I congratulate those members of the committee; the member for Evelyn, the member for Polwarth and the member for Gippsland South were involved in the preparation of this report—does is it highlights the fact that there were failures in hotel quarantine at the hands of this government. It was from the top that the decisions were made, and Victorians are expecting that as a consequence of the report and other actions appropriate action will be taken by WorkSafe in regard to prosecuting those who were responsible.

If hotel quarantine had been a private company that had killed 800 Victorians, shut down the state for months and caused significant economic, social and emotional grief, not only would those directors have been investigated, they would have been charged and probably would already be in jail. So it behoves those in government, those responsible agencies, to do the work to ensure that prosecutions are put in place appropriately. I commend the work of those committee members who put this minority report together, because again it highlights very starkly the failures by this government in relation to hotel quarantine.

Legal and Social Issues Committee

Inquiry into Responses to Historical Forced Adoption in Victoria

Ms COUZENS (Geelong) (10:15): I am pleased to rise to speak on the Legal and Social Issues Committee inquiry into responses to historical forced adoption in Victoria. I want to acknowledge and pay my respects to all of the courageous women, the mothers, who experienced forced adoption and importantly to those who gave evidence during the 11 days of hearings in Melbourne and regional Victoria—thank you. I know many of you are watching today. Thank you for sharing your experience. It was a privilege to be taken into your trust, to witness your trauma and your bravery and courage to tell us what happened to you and your baby. Some of you have never spoken out loud of what happened to you until you were in front of the committee. We also read your submissions, reading of the life impact of forced adoption on you and your babies. The 114 submissions received from individuals, community and social service organisations, advocacy and support groups, peak bodies and non-government organisations also formed the recommendations to this report.

To the amazing secretariat—Yuki, Richard, Rachel, Katherine and Catherine—I want to thank you for your commitment and compassion throughout this inquiry. The feedback from women who gave evidence at the hearings expressed their appreciation for your support in what was a very challenging time for them. Thanks to the committee chair, the member for St Albans, who led this important inquiry and provided such a supportive approach to the hearings. And again, thanks also to the parliamentary colleagues who were on this committee.

The committee heard from mothers harrowing and heartbreaking accounts, the pain of their experience and the secrecy imposed on them that has deprived them of their chance to speak out. We heard from mothers who were shunned, shamed and treated with contempt by their families, communities and staff at maternity homes and hospitals. They were treated cruelly by staff, provided with substandard medical care, and many were left traumatised by the birthing experience and having their babies taken from them. Mothers were consistently not informed of their legal rights and many reported being given drugs that impaired their ability to make any decisions.

The committee heard of the trauma experienced by mothers and the lifelong impacts on all aspects of their lives—the grief, sadness, shame and guilt has stayed with them. It was clear to the committee that the need for acknowledgement and recognition of the horrific experience of what the mothers had been through is a key issue for this inquiry. We heard from mothers of the trauma experienced during and after birth. Brenda told us:

… it is about human lives. Mothers, including Indigenous and young migrant girls, did not give up their babies, they were already gone—babies abducted, motherhood exterminated to make mothers dead to their own newborn babies.

We heard from Robyn, being young, scared and vulnerable:

… I felt powerless to assert myself to seek support.

The committee heard that mothers were given drugs before and after birth, without discussion or approval:

I was induced and sedated. I have no memory of my baby’s birth. I was only ever told that it was a boy, and I was never allowed to see him. I was alone and scared.

Another mother told us:

I do not remember having her. I was in a ward, in a dark room, and a man kept coming in every now and then, and he gave me needles up and down my spine. I think that is why I am frightened of needles now, because—I do not know what they were. Yes, I just do not remember being in labour. I do not remember having her.

Mothers told the committee about being told they were disgusting and treated with disdain by medical staff. Lynda told us:

My beautiful baby (I only found out later, after I asked, that I had a son) was born and taken from me so quickly. I was not prepared for the speed in which he was taken. It was brutal. I did not see my son as he was taken away … I can still hear his cries as he was taken. I was left bereft, torn and bleeding.

The committee heard from Barbara:

I never saw my son. I never held my son. I was just a child a victim of the system. I felt like I was there to be punished and have my spirit broken.

These quotes are only a few of the many contained in the report. The report contains 56 recommendations, and I do not have time to go through each one of them, but in summary I will touch on some of the key elements—and I am going to run out of time. This report I recommend to all in the chamber. Take the time to read this report. I commend the report to the house.

Public Accounts and Estimates Committee

Report on the 2019–20 Budget Estimates

Mr D O’BRIEN (Gippsland South) (10:20): I acknowledge the contribution of both of the previous speakers, including the member for Geelong, on that very difficult issue. I would also like to briefly acknowledge the work of Brenda Coughlan, from Sale in my electorate, as an advocate for independent mothers in regional Victoria who was also a victim of the forced adoptions of the past and has been a tireless campaigner for their rights and for recognition of what went wrong.

But today I would like to get up to speak on the 2019–20 Public Accounts and Estimates Committee budget outcomes report and particularly focus a little bit on the issue of performance measures for our departments and the question, I guess, of delivery versus outcomes. You might look at inputs versus actual outcomes and delivery, which is one of the key focuses of the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee. We had further discussions last week on the 2020–21 budget outcomes as well, and I look forward to that report being finalised in coming months and tabled in this Parliament. One of the things that I am particularly concerned about is the emphasis on inputs, as I said, and particularly when it comes to the public service. It is a concern to all of us, particularly in regional areas, that the work that is supposed to be done is not always done, and yet we are seeing, particularly under this government, a constant escalation in the number of public servants on the taxpayer payroll, which would be a good thing if we were getting better outcomes.

I was concerned last week to see the annual report for the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP), where the number of field staff, according to the annual report, has actually dropped by 133 people, so field staff actually out doing the work. The vast bulk of them, we heard in the hearings, were actually firefighters, so the contract firefighters and seasonal firefighters. But the number of Victorian public sector staff actually went up by 444 staff, the number of executives went up by 20 and the total number of staff—so in total when you net that all out—saw a 340 increase. Now, if we were getting better outcomes, that would be a good thing, but I can tell you as a rural member of Parliament, and I am sure many of my colleagues would say the same, that we are not getting better outcomes, particularly on the issue of management of public land and the issue of planning, which is a separate issue. I just digress for a moment. We heard last week that planning processes are taking 184 per cent longer than they were the previous year—

Mr Battin: A record.

Mr D O’BRIEN: It was absolutely a record, and clearly COVID has had an impact. But as we have been told by numerous departments over the past couple of years, people are still working; they are just working from home. Well, that sort of increase is not good enough. Whether it is the failure to meet targets for fuel reduction burning or mechanical treatment of high-risk areas; whether it is weed and feral management control, particularly in national parks but, again, on Crown land more broadly; whether it is firewood collection areas and their availability and their preparedness for the community to come and collect firewood; and more particularly whether it is bushfire recovery, we have got this significant increase in the number of staff, but I would very strongly argue that we are not getting the outcomes. There is no further evidence needed than in the questioning we went through last week on bushfire recovery, on replacing a bridge at Thurra River in Croajingolong National Park. Both the Thurra River and the Point Hicks campgrounds are just nearby, and the department is taking four years to replace that particular bridge.

This is just one of many. I know of the issue of the boardwalk at Salmon Rocks, and there have been other parts of Cape Conran that have taken a long time and continue to take a long time for the government to recover. The question, really, when you have got that huge increase in the Victorian public service and a reduction in field staff, is: what are we actually getting for our money? That is a significant concern for the community, particularly in our rural areas where people know the impacts of mismanagement of public land.

I note, again from the annual report last year, that 57 per cent of DELWP staff are situated in the Melbourne CBD. This should be an outward-focused, public-land-focused organisation, and I do not think it is good enough. It is one thing to be putting on these extra staff and getting more work done, but I do not believe we are getting that and I do not believe we are getting value for money under this government.

Public Accounts and Estimates Committee

Report on the 2020–21 Budget Estimates

Mr McGUIRE (Broadmeadows) (10:26): I refer to the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee’s inquiry into the 2020–21 budget estimates and the contribution from the Minister for Economic Development on how Victoria is trying to strengthen economic performance with a range of mechanisms. Combating the existential threats of our times is vital and urgent. Acting globally and acting locally is the strategy I have adopted on climate change; the worst pandemic in more than a century; the fast-tracking through deindustrialisation to new green, blue and technology-driven jobs; and connecting the disconnected to create opportunities from adversity for greater equality and social inclusion. This is the change-politics strategy required in a new period of counter-enlightenment when facts, instead of being stubborn and cherished, have been declared alternate and when the virus of hyper-partisanship and hyper-factionalism threatens Australian’s body politic. I have established the Broadmeadows Revitalisation Board 4.0 as a new model to counter such forces by coordinating the three tiers of government, business and civil society. Broadmeadows is the prototype for change. The investment attraction strategy has inspired an estimated $1 billion in new investments for industries and jobs where they are needed most, at no cost to taxpayers.

The biggest investment in social and affordable housing in Australia’s history will now be delivered in Broadmeadows. The Victorian government’s $5.3 billion Big Housing Build is crucial to the revitalisation plans. To reimagine this valuable and resilient state district, new housing is crucial. The first investment is $29 million to deliver 90 new comfortable, modern and energy-efficient homes across the state district within a year. That is a great delivery. Homes Victoria is also examining the redevelopment of the Banksia Gardens estate, which I put on the agenda for the Broadmeadows Revitalisation Board 4.0. Hume City Council and community stakeholders on the board have endorsed such initiatives with full-throated support. Next, I am campaigning for the redevelopment of Broadmeadows to provide affordable homes for community heroes. First responders, nurses and teachers, crucial in fighting the worst pandemic in a century, deserve affordable homes in the community manufacturing more than 50 million doses of life-saving vaccines. This initiative also delivers intergenerational fairness so more young people and first home buyers can attain the great Australian dream.

The investment attraction strategy is critical and links the new industries and jobs. Then we have brought in the University of Melbourne, and we have co-authored the Broadmeadows breakthrough model to coordinate such opportunities with better planning to maximise value and deliver community benefit from the Victorian government’s landmark projects, including the Big Build. So here is how we bring in the enlightenment on the planning. The planning decisions are always for the local council, but this will give a much bigger picture insight into what can be done. Investments from industry superfunds in Broadmeadows and other postcodes of disadvantage, advocated for since 2016 in Creating Opportunity: Postcodes of Hope, are vital and urgent to add value by improving the quality of life and delivering lifelong learning and jobs where they are needed most.

A world-first opportunity to improve the lives of women is being established, and this is by getting the microfinance program that won Muhammad Yunus a Nobel Peace Prize established for the first time in Australia. Starting in Broadmeadows, this plan is to expand nationwide, creating 6000 jobs for women in the next two years, and I am delighted to report to the Parliament that the Nobel laureate has committed to coming to Broadmeadows next year.

The other proposition we need is the brain-gain strategy, and we require committees informing the board on innovation, digital economy, future work and social cohesion. We also need a committee on transparency and accountability for decision-making, as I have referred to in previous contributions, and we need representation from the Victorian government’s and the Australian government’s treasury departments, which I am continuing to pursue, so we have the central agency of both governments to help coordinate opportunities and deliver investments where they are needed most in the national and community interest. Hume City Council are soon to announce major investments as well to unlock the value of these communities. It is the major revenue-raising centre for the City of Hume, and this is a welcome change and advancement.

Public Accounts and Estimates Committee

Report on the 2021–22 Budget Estimates

Mr HIBBINS (Prahran) (10:31): I rise to speak on the 2021–22 budget estimates report from the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee, of which I am a member. In particular I refer to page 83 relating to the accessibility of the tram network. The committee found that despite 73 per cent of tram stops in the network being non-level access, just four tram stops were funded to be upgraded in the next budget. That leaves still more than 1200 non-level tram stops to be upgraded. Furthermore, the report states that:

The Committee notes that the Next Generation Trams project that will deliver 100 new low‑floor trams is not due for completion until quarter 4 of 2028–29.

Now, when you compare that to the rolling stock strategy, it is still going to leave over half the trams on the network inaccessible and well behind what was planned for in that strategy.

The Disability Discrimination Act 1992 requires that all tram stops must be fully compliant by 31 December 2022, and all trams must be compliant by 31 December 2032. It is clear, as it has been for a long time, that the government simply will not meet these targets. This has the biggest effect of course on people living with a disability, people who use a wheelchair, who really do not have any other form of readily available transport. It has been stated by members of the community during one of the Disability Resources Centre’s many campaigns that it is just not public transport unless everyone can use it, and they have been campaigning for decades—decades—to get this fixed.

During the 2020 lockdown advocates ran the Lifelong Lockdown campaign to highlight the inaccessibility of Melbourne’s transport network, which highlights just how people with a disability feel about not being able to access public transport and the impact that it has on their lives. This is a statewide issue, from people in the inner city to those needing to catch regional public transport. Level-access tram stops are part of a modern network. They have wider benefits. They can contribute to the revitalisation of shopping strips and neighbourhoods. Just look at, say, High Street in Northcote or Acland Street in St Kilda, and the safer connections between trams and trains like are now at South Yarra station. Whilst I certainly appreciate the government is developing a strategy for the rollout of accessible tram stops, we are now at the point or will be at the point where significant and rapid investment needs to be put in place. I note that advocates have met with the minister, but certainly that rapid and significant investment is required to make the public transport network accessible for all.

We have had the Auditor-General’s recent report into the accessibility of our tram network. When you look at both the inaccessible stops and inaccessible trams, just 15 per cent of the tram network is accessible. The current situation is a mishmash of accessible trams and stops, so even if you have an accessible tram stop, certainly there is no guarantee the next tram will be accessible. There have been some missed opportunities, as has happened across Melbourne, when tram tracks have been dug up and replaced. You have had entire roads shut down for a considerable time, a week if not more, but the opportunity has not been taken to upgrade the tram stops alongside those works. I think that would have been an opportune time to do so. The estimated cost of upgrading the tram stops is around $2 billion, and that comes from the Victorian Auditor-General’s Office report. It may be less, because often when the tram stops are upgraded some rationalisation occurs. But I think when you put that figure into context, it is certainly less than some of its bigger projects but very much similar to the investment in many of the government’s other infrastructure projects.

So it is certainly not a figure that is unachievable or is out of reach. And certainly given the length of time that disability advocates and people living with a disability have been advocating for this, now is the time for that significant and rapid investment to upgrade our tram stops and in fact to make the entire tram network and the wider public transport network accessible for all.

Bills

Major Events Legislation Amendment (Unauthorised Ticket Packages and Other Matters) Bill 2021

Statement of compatibility

Mr PAKULA (Keysborough—Minister for Industry Support and Recovery, Minister for Trade, Minister for Business Precincts, Minister for Tourism, Sport and Major Events, Minister for Racing) (10:37): In accordance with the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 I table a statement of compatibility in relation to the Major Events Legislation Amendment (Unauthorised Ticket Packages and Other Matters) Bill 2021.

In accordance with section 28 of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006, (the Charter), I make this Statement of Compatibility with respect to the Major Events Legislation Amendment (Unauthorised Ticket Packages and Other Matters) Bill 2021 (the Bill).

In my opinion, the Bill, as introduced to the Legislative Assembly, is compatible with human rights as set out in the Charter. I base my opinions on the reasons outlined in this statement.

Overview

The Bill amends the Major Events Act 2009 (the Act) to:

• prevent the unauthorised advertising and sale of ticket packages for sports ticketing events or ticketed events where a major events ticketing declaration applies;

• require sports event organisers and ticketed event organisers to keep a public register of authorised ticket package sellers for sports ticketing events or ticketed events where a major events ticketing declaration applies; and

• require ticket sellers to provide the face value price; intended sale price of the ticket; and seating allocation of a ticket in any resale advertisement for sports ticketing events or ticketed events where a major events ticketing declaration applies.

Human Rights Issues

The Bill engages a range of human rights under the Charter, discussed below. However, to the extent that the Bill limits any Charter rights, such limits are reasonable and justifiable in accordance with section 7(2) of the Charter.

Right to Privacy

Section 13(a) of the Charter provides that a person has the right not to have their privacy, family, home or correspondence unlawfully or arbitrarily interfered with. An interference will be lawful if it is permitted by a law which is precise and appropriately circumscribed, and will be arbitrary only if it is capricious, unpredictable, unjust or unreasonable, in the sense of being disproportionate to the legitimate aim sought.

New sections 160A and 182GA, inserted by clauses 5 and 19 of the Bill, require the sports event organiser of a sports ticketing event and the ticketed event organiser of a ticketed major event to keep a register of authorised ticket package sellers for each event. The register must include the name or business name of the seller, their ABN or ACN, the Internet site where tickets are authorised to be sold, and, if the seller ceases to be an authorised ticket package seller, the date the authorisation ceased. The organiser must also publish the register on the official Internet site of the event. If there are no authorised ticket package sellers, the organiser must publish that fact on the site.

Under new section 160B and 182GA, inserted by clauses 5 and 19 of the Bill, the organiser of the event must also provide the register to the Minister as soon as practicable after the completion of the event.

New sections 160C and 182GC, inserted by clauses 5 and 19 of the Bill, provide that in any advertisement or offer for sale of tickets in a ticket package for a sports ticketing event or ticketed event to which a major event ticketing declaration applies, the authorised ticket package sellers must include their full name or business name, their ABN or ACN, and a statement that they are authorised to sell or distribute tickets to the event in a ticket package.

These clauses engage the right to privacy by requiring certain information about authorised ticket package sellers to be collected, published and shared. Where that information concerns individuals, it may interfere with the privacy rights of those persons. However, any interference will be authorised by law, and will not be arbitrary. The relevant information is minimal in nature, and requiring its collection, publication and sharing in the circumstances set out in the Bill is necessary to ensure that ticket package sellers can be effectively identified and appropriately regulated. I therefore consider that these clauses are compatible with the right to privacy.

Right to freedom of expression

Section 15 of the Charter provides that every person has the right to hold an opinion without interference and has the right to freedom of expression which includes the freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds. Section 15 also provides that lawful restrictions may be reasonably necessary to respect personal rights and reputations, or for the protection of national security, public order, public health or public morality.

New sections 166D and 182GE, inserted by clauses 9 and 19 of the Bill, prohibit a person from advertising or offering for sale tickets for a sports ticketing event or a ticketed event to which a major ticketing event declaration applies in a ticket package, unless authorised to do so. New sections 166E and 182GF also prohibit a person from falsely claiming to be authorised to sell tickets in a ticket package for such events.

New sections 166F and 182GG, inserted by clauses 9 and 19 of the Bill, require that any advertisement or offer for resale of tickets for a sports ticketing event or an event to which a major event ticketing declaration applies must include the asking price or intended sale price of each ticket, as well as its face value price and the seating allocation of the ticket. New sections 166G and 182GH make it an offence to include inaccurate or incomplete information about those matters in an advertisement or offer. Penalties apply to persons, other than authorised ticket package sellers, for breaching these provisions, with higher penalties applying where six or more tickets are offered or advertised.

These provisions may engage the right to freedom of expression by prohibiting a person from engaging in certain forms of advertising expression or claiming certain things. They may also engage the right to freedom of expression by mandating that certain information be included in advertisements or offers for sale. However, I consider that these measures are lawful restrictions reasonably necessary to protect public order and the rights of others by ensuring that persons do represent themselves as being able to sell ticket packages when they are not authorised to do so, and ensuring that consumers have appropriate and accurate information. I therefore consider that these provisions are compatible with the right to freedom of expression.

Right to Property

Section 20 of the Charter provides that a person must not be deprived of their property other than in accordance with law. This right is not limited where there is a law that authorises a deprivation of property, and that law is adequately accessible, clear and certain, and sufficiently precise to enable a person to regulate their conduct.

New sections 166C and 182GD, inserted by clauses 9 and 19 of the Bill, prohibit a person from selling or distributing tickets in a ticketing package for a sports ticketing event or a ticketed event to which a major event ticketing declaration applies unless authorised to do so.

These provisions engage the right to property by preventing persons from dealing with tickets to certain types of events in a particular way. This may be considered a ‘deprivation’ of property to the extent that a person may be deprived of the right to deal with their property as they wish. However, to the extent, if any, that a person may be deprived of property rights, that deprivation will be lawful as it is authorised under legislation. I therefore do not consider the right is limited.

Sections 167C to 167F of the Act provide for powers relating to surrender, seizure, retention, return and forfeiture of tickets in circumstances where certain offences have been committed, or may have been committed, under the Act. Clauses 12 to 15 amend those provisions to apply those existing powers to the offences provided for under the Bill. These amendments may interfere with the right to property by depriving persons either temporarily or permanently of their property. However, any deprivation will be lawful, as the provisions of the Act set out clear parameters and processes for the use of the relevant powers. The powers are necessary for the investigation and enforcement of the offence provisions, and to ensure appropriate forfeiture of tickets where a person is found guilty of an offence relating to dealing with those tickets in a prohibited manner. I therefore consider that the application of those powers to the new offences under the Bill is compatible with the right to property.

Presumption of Innocence

Section 25(1) of the Charter provides that a person charged with a criminal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. The right is relevant where a statutory provision shifts the burden of proof onto an accused in a criminal proceeding, so that the accused is required to prove matters to establish, or raise evidence to suggest, that they are not guilty of an offence.

The Bill introduces a number of new offence provisions that contain ‘reverse onus’ elements (sections 166C to 166G and 182GD to 182GH). By creating ‘reasonable excuse’ exceptions, these provisions may be viewed as placing an evidential burden on the accused, in that they require the accused to raise evidence as to a reasonable excuse. However, in doing so, the offences do not transfer the legal burden of proof. Once the accused has pointed to evidence of a reasonable excuse, which will ordinarily be peculiarly within their knowledge, the burden shifts back to the prosecution who must prove the essential elements of the offence. I therefore do not consider that an evidential onus such as this limits the right to be presumed innocent.

THE HON MARTIN PAKULA MP

Minister for Tourism, Sport and Major Events

Second reading

Mr PAKULA (Keysborough—Minister for Industry Support and Recovery, Minister for Trade, Minister for Business Precincts, Minister for Tourism, Sport and Major Events, Minister for Racing) (10:37): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I ask that my second-reading speech be incorporated into Hansard.

Incorporated speech as follows:

Ticket scalping laws are important to protect passionate fans from paying exorbitant prices to attend declared major event as well as protecting event organisers from others unfairly leveraging off the risk undertaken to stage such events. And that is why the Government is introducing these amendments to strengthen our existing laws.

In 2018 the Victorian Government expanded its ticket scalping regime to encompass major cultural events as well as major sporting events. A total of 29 declarations have been made since then to cover a diverse range of events such as the:

• AFL Grand Final

• Australian Open Tennis

• Boxing Day Test Match

• Harry Potter and the Cursed Child

• Hamilton

• Moulin Rouge! The Musical

• Melbourne International Comedy Festival

• Meredith Music Festival; and

• Melbourne Winter Masterpieces: French Impressionism.

Major Events hold a pivotal place in the very fabric of Melbourne and Victoria. The Eventful Year Report undertaken in 2018 found that Victoria’s major event calendar delivers an estimated $2.5 billion annually to the Victorian economy, through the visitation and expenditure of interstate and international visitors. With the easing of restrictions and opening of travel as part of the National Plan to transition Australia’s National COVID-19 Response, major events will be at the forefront of Victoria’s economic recovery.

An important revenue stream for major event organisers is the capacity to make agreements with authorised sellers to bundle together tickets into packages with such add-ons as travel, accommodation, and hospitality. However, the selling of unauthorised ticket packages has been an increasing area of concern for consumers and event organisers.

The practice of unauthorised ticket packages impacts negatively on event organisers and artists who carry the financial risk of hosting events. Media reports have regularly focused on the practice occurring for the AFL Anzac Day match between Collingwood and Essendon and the Australian Open. Tennis Australia has provided examples of unauthorised sellers advertising misleading ‘hospitality’ tickets at substantially inflated prices where fans received hamburger vouchers, rather than the full hospitality package they were expecting.

The Major EventsAct specifically refers to the offence of the selling of a ticket to a major declared event, at more than 10% above its face value purchase price. However, the Act does not explicitly address the application of this to tickets that are contained in packages. This has led to some ticket resellers creating their own ticket packages without authorisation from the event organiser, as an attempt to circumvent the ticket scalping laws.

It is inconsistent that an individual is prohibited from reselling a ticket to a declared major event on the secondary ticket market at a price mark-up of more than 10 per cent above the face value purchase price, yet another individual or company is able to use the same ticket as part of a package and re-sell it with a far higher mark-up.

It is proposed to amend the Act to prevent the sale of unauthorised ticket packages for declared major events but continue to allow ticket packages authorised by event organisers to be sold. It is important not to impact legitimate ticketing packages authorised by event organisers, which may constitute a key part of their financial and ticketing strategy for staging an event. The amendments also intend to place only minor administrative requirements on event organisers.

Each event organiser of a declared event will be required to publish a register on their event website which will list the authorised sellers of ticket packages for each event. Authorised sellers of ticket packages will be required to state they are authorised to do so in their advertisements. It will be an offence to falsely claim to be an authorised seller of ticket packages to a declared major event.

Requirements for Additional Information in Resale Advertisements to Declared Major Events

Presently, there are few requirements relating to ticket information to be provided by ticket resellers in their advertisements or offers for sale. Often these advertisements provide extremely limited information and consumers are unaware of the original face value of tickets, as well as the location of the seats they are purchasing. This limits the ability of consumers and Authorised Ticketing Officers to identify if a ticket is being sold at 10 per cent above the face value price for declared major events. It can also mislead consumers as to the value of the ticket they have purchased based on the seating location at the venue, for example a front row seat compared to a seat high up in the grandstand or at the back of a venue.

The Bill will amend the Act to require ticket resellers in any advertisements or offers of resale to declared major events to provide:

• the original face value price of the ticket;

• the price at which the tickets are being offered for resale; and

• information such as seat details and location.

This will provide valuable information for consumers and allow them to assess the value of a ticket on the secondary ticketing market. It will also assist Authorised Ticketing Officers in enforcing the Act by making monitoring of breaches easier.

Similar provisions were contained in the recent Western Australian ticket scalping legislation and the proposed amendments are also similar to the ticket scalping provisions in the United Kingdom’s Consumer Rights Act 2015.

Victoria faces ongoing strong competition to maintain its status as Australia’s major events capital. Robust anti-ticket scalping laws are an important factor in protecting this position and encouraging event organisers to stage events in Victoria, strengthening our position as a global events destination.

I commend the Bill to the house.

Ms McLEISH (Eildon) (10:37): I move:

That the debate be adjourned.

Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.

Ordered that debate be adjourned for two weeks. Debate adjourned until Wednesday, 1 December.

Service Victoria Amendment Bill 2021

Statement of compatibility

Mr PEARSON (Essendon—Assistant Treasurer, Minister for Regulatory Reform, Minister for Government Services, Minister for Creative Industries) (10:38): In accordance with the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 I table a statement of compatibility in relation to the Service Victoria Amendment Bill 2021.

In accordance with section 28 of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006, (the Charter), I table this Statement of Compatibility with respect to the Service Victoria Amendment Bill 2021 (Bill).

In my opinion, the Bill, as introduced to the Legislative Assembly, is compatible with human rights as set out in the Charter. I base my opinion on the reasons outlined in this statement.

Overview

The Bill aims to enable the Victorian Public Sector to be more accessible, adaptable, fairer, innovative, and simpler, while enhancing safeguards on information protection. The Bill also aims to support digital transformation in the Victorian Public Sector so it is a digital-ready part of a thriving Victorian digital economy, and to improve the delivery of digital services to Victorians and Victorian businesses, in partnership with governments of other Australian jurisdictions.

To achieve this, the Bill will make important reforms to address barriers to service delivery and digital transformation within the Service Victoria Act 2018 (Service Victoria Act).

Specifically, the Bill will amend the Service Victoria Act to:

• provide for improved and new mechanisms to empower Service Victoria and the Service Victoria CEO to deliver public services with government departments, entities and agencies (service agencies) (clauses 4, 5, 7, 9–11, 13–15, 17, 28, 29 and 31);

• expand the types of services and functions that Service Victoria and the Service Victoria CEO can deliver to include a broader scope of Victorian public services, as well as services of the Commonwealth and other States and Territories (clauses 4, 5, 7, 9–11, 13–15, 17, 28, 29 and 31);

• support the digital transformation and innovation of services across government by:

⸰ enabling the use of digital tokens in Victoria, such as digital licences and permits, via Service Victoria (clauses 4 and 21);

◦ ensuring that a customer can use an electronic identity credential issued by the Service Victoria CEO as evidence to verify their identity for a government transaction (clause 23); and

◦ allowing the Service Victoria CEO to require the use of a Service Victoria accounts for specific transactions, where it is necessary to support the delivery of customer services (clause 16);

• enable government departments and agencies to access Service Victoria’s cost-effective and fast data storage capabilities by allowing the Service Victoria CEO to hold service agency data in a segregated database (clauses 4, 13, 28 and 31);

• clarify and expand the data protections under the Service Victoria Act, and ensure they are more consistent with other privacy and public record laws (clauses 4, 18–20, 22–23, 25–27 and 30–31); and

• make a range of minor and technical amendments to support the operation of the Service Victoria Act.

Human rights issues

The Bill engages the following human rights under the Charter:

• privacy and reputation (section 13);

• recognition and equality before the law (section 8);

• freedom of expression (section 15(2)); and

• taking part in public life (section 18).

For the following reasons and having taken into account all relevant factors, I am satisfied that the Bill is compatible with the Charter and, if any rights are limited, the limitation is reasonable and justified in a free and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom in accordance with section 7(2) of the Charter.

Right to privacy and reputation (section 13 of the Charter)

Section 13 of the Charter states that a person has the right not to have their privacy, family, home or correspondence unlawfully or arbitrarily interfered with and the right not to have their reputation unlawfully attacked.

Subsection 13(a) of the Charter contains internal qualifications on this right, being that interferences with privacy only limits the right if it is unlawful or arbitrary. An interference will generally be lawful where is it precise and appropriately circumscribed, and will generally be arbitrary only where it is capricious, unpredictable, unjust or unreasonable, in the sense of being disproportionate to the legitimate aim being sought. Therefore, the right to privacy protects a person from government interference, and excessive and unsolicited intervention by other individuals.

Privacy is a right of considerable breadth and is difficult to define. The fundamental values which the right to privacy express are physical and psychological integrity, individual and social identity, and the autonomy and inherent dignity of a person. It protects the individual’s interests in the freedom of their personal and social sphere. It also encompasses the right to establish and develop meaningful social relations.

However, this broad right can still be subject to reasonable limitation under section 7(2) of the Charter. Further, interference with privacy will not be arbitrary if it is reasonable in the circumstances and in accordance with the Charter.

A number of the reforms in the Bill engage the right to privacy and reputation, each of which is discussed below.

Minimum standards and information handling

The Bill amends the minimum standards in the Service Victoria Act, which specify the circumstances in which the Service Victoria CEO can collect, use, disclose and retain different categories of information under the Service Victoria Act.

These amendments clarify the Service Victoria CEO’s obligations to protect the privacy of individuals transacting on the Service Victoria platform and ensure individuals can control how the Service Victoria CEO handles their information.

Specifically, the Bill amends the Service Victoria Act to clarify that the Service Victoria CEO may:

• collect customer service information, account information and identity information from an individual that relates to another individual where is it is necessary to perform a function under the Service Victoria Act (for example, to register a child’s birth, information may need to be collected from more than one parent when registering with Births, Deaths and Marriages), and for account information and identity information, only where the individual has also consented to the collection (clauses 4, 18 and 25);

• use and disclose customer service information, account information and identity information where the individual to whom the information relates has provided their consent (clauses 4, 19 and 26); and

• retain information in relation to incomplete applications, customer service information and account information, for as long as it is necessary to perform a function under the Service Victoria Act, or to satisfy any requirement to retain that information under law (clauses 4, 20 and 27).

These amendments expand the situations in which the Service Victoria CEO may collect, use, disclose and retain information, which may give rise to a prima facie interference with an individual’s privacy.

However, the reforms do not breach or interfere with the right to privacy, as they allow for the collection, use and disclosure of information for the purpose of delivering public services to Service Victoria’s customers (specifically being the persons whom the information has been collected from), and are generally consistent with the information privacy principles under the Privacy and Data Protection Act 2014 (Privacy and Data Protection Act) and the health privacy principles under the Health Records Act 2001 (Health Records Act).

In addition, the interference is not unlawful or arbitrary, as the Service Victoria Act provides a legislative framework to handle information for clear, tailored purposes that are necessary to enable the delivery of public services to individuals choosing to transact with Service Victoria. This includes continued compliance with the Privacy and Data Protection Act and Health Records Act and retaining oversight by the Victorian Information Commissioner and Health Complaints Commissioner.

The Bill further protects the right to privacy by increasing the scope of information that is subject to the additional protections and minimum standards under the Service Victoria Act.

This is achieved by expanding the definitions of authority, customer service function, customer service information, identity verification function, official information document and transaction, and allowing the performance of non-statutory functions and additional methods of conferring or performing functions under the Service Victoria Act.

This enables the Service Victoria CEO to perform a broader range of functions and increase the scope of information that receives the additional protections afforded by the Service Victoria Act, and by ensuring that the minimum standards also apply to information collected when delivering those functions to businesses and other organisations.

Further, these provisions are supported by the existing offence provisions in the Service Victoria Act which provide an additional layer of privacy protection by creating offences for the unauthorised access to, use of, or disclosure of data or information by or under the Service Victoria Act by the Service Victoria CEO, and Service Victoria’s staff, agents or contractors.

Customer accounts

Clause 16 of the Bill amends the Service Victoria Act to permit the Service Victoria CEO to require a person to create a Service Victoria account to access certain services, where it is reasonably necessary to deliver a function under the Service Victoria Act—for example, to deliver a digital licence or permit using the Service Victoria mobile application.

The requirement to create a Service Victoria account to access a public service may limit the right to privacy to the extent that a person needs to provide information to the Service Victoria CEO to establish the account to access the public services. This is because, in some situations, a person may have no choice but to create an account if they want to access a specific service and as such may not be providing voluntary consent to the collection and use of information for the purpose of creating the account and the storage in that account of any information required to deliver that service.

However, any interference with privacy will not be unlawful or arbitrary as the Bill will provide a legislative framework to permit the Service Victoria CEO to require an account to be created only where it is reasonably necessary for the delivery of a particular function.

To the extent that this may limit or interfere with the right to privacy, the limitation or interference is reasonable and proportionate because:

• a person will still be able to transact using a guest account for transactions that do not require an account and can choose to close their account at any stage;

• the reforms do not:

◦ require any particular information to be provided in any particular manner or time to the Service Victoria CEO to establish an account; or

◦ prohibit public service delivery directly by a service agency or mandate service delivery by Service Victoria;

• information that the Service Victoria collects, uses, discloses or retains for these functions will be subject to the information protections under the Service Victoria Act, and will be handled in accordance with the Privacy and Data Protection Act and the Health Records Act; and

• Service Victoria and government agencies will work together to ensure that, where appropriate, there are alternate ways to access public services, including non-digital delivery.

Segregated databases

Clause 28 of the Bill amends the Service Victoria Act to provide clear legislative authority for the Service Victoria CEO to establish and maintain a database:

• on behalf of a service agency, subject to the approval of the Minister for Government Services and with agreement of the relevant service agency; or

• when directed by the Minister responsible for the Service Victoria Act, where it is necessary to support the delivery of a function that the Minister has directed the Service Victoria CEO to perform.

This will enable Service Victoria to provide quick, cost-effective solutions when responding to government priorities, including where service agencies do not have the required technology or capability to store date. It will also enable Service Victoria to rapidly roll out new services or programs, for example, as it did for the travel voucher scheme or QR code program to support the COVID-19 pandemic recovery response.

This engages the right to privacy because the databases may hold information that includes personal information and health information about individuals who are transacting with Service Victoria or service agencies to access public services. Service Victoria could also hold other information held by service agencies that is not personal or health information, or that otherwise information that is sensitive information. Increasing the amount of data that is held by Service Victoria may also increase the cyber security risks, which may increase the risk of interference with the right to privacy.

In addition to Service Victoria’s stringent cyber security and data protection framework, the Bill protects the right to privacy by creating the following obligations and limitations in respect of the database:

• Service Victoria is required to keep each data set relating to a particular public service separate from any other data that is held by Service Victoria, and is prohibited from collecting, using, disclosing or retaining information held on behalf of a service agency, except where necessary to perform its functions under the Service Victoria Act (for example, to develop or perform maintenance on the database); and

• in addition to the data protections afforded by the existing offences under the Service Victoria Act and Service Victoria’s obligations under the Privacy and Data Protection Act, Health Records Act and the government’s data protection and security policies, the Minister can issue mandatory guidelines relating to the handling of data by Service Victoria which Service Victoria must comply with.

Services performed with or on behalf of other jurisdictions

The Bill enables Service Victoria to deliver functions for or on behalf of government agencies in other jurisdictions. Where it does so, it will be required to comply with the Service Victoria Act, other applicable Victorian laws and any applicable laws of other jurisdictions.

For these reasons, to the extent that the reforms described above may limit the right to privacy in section 13 of the Charter, any such limitation is lawful, not arbitrary or capricious, reasonable and necessary to allow Service Victoria to operate with a legitimate defined purpose to support Victorians by providing public services with government agencies effectively and efficiently.

In addition, the reform may promote the right to privacy by driving privacy and data security improvements in circumstances where government agencies’ existing processes or systems do not adhere to current best practice principles.

Therefore, the Bill is consistent with the right privacy in section 13 of the Charter.

Recognition and equality before the law (section 8 of the Charter)

Section 8(3) of the Charter establishes what is generally known as the right to equality, stating that every person is equal before the law and is entitled to the equal and effective protection of the law without discrimination. This right ensures that all laws and policies are applied equally, and do not have a discriminatory effect. Measures that assist or advance persons or groups of persons disadvantaged because of discrimination do not constitute discrimination.

However, the right is not absolute and can be subject to reasonable limitation under section 7(2) of the Charter.

For the right to equality to be interfered with, there must be discrimination within the meaning of the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 (Equal Opportunity Act) on the basis of an attribute of a person as set out in section 6 of that Act, such as age, breastfeeding, disability, employment activity, gender identity, industrial activity, marital status, parental status, personal association, physical features, political belief or activity, pregnancy, race, religious belief or activity, sex or sexual orientation, or status as a carer (noting many of these attributes have defined meanings in the Equal Opportunity Act) .

Discrimination against a person can be direct, or indirect, and relates to impermissible differential treatment that results in less favourable treatment based on one or more of the attributes above. Under the Equal Opportunity Act, indirect discrimination occurs where there is a requirement, condition or practice that has, or is likely to have, the effect of disadvantaging a person with a protected attribute, and the requirement, condition or practice is not reasonable. Discrimination may be justified if the criteria for differentiation is reasonable and objective, with the aim of achieving a legitimate purpose.

It is possible that the Bill engages the right to recognition and equality before the law by enabling or increasing the delivery of digitised public services, for example by:

• expanding the scope of the definitions of customer service functions and identity verification functions and consequently the scope of functions that the Service Victoria CEO can perform (clause 4);

• making it easier for service agencies to engage with Service Victoria, by adding additional mechanisms to enable the Service Victoria CEO to perform functions on their behalf (clauses 4, 5, 7, 9–11, 13–15, 17, 28, 29 and 31); and

• allowing the Service Victoria CEO to require customers to create a Service Victoria account in some circumstances (clause 16).

This could indirectly discriminate against people if they cannot access or use, or have difficulty accessing or using, digital technology due to a protected attribute, as it may result in people having difficulty accessing some public services. These potential barriers may be addressed by Service Victoria and service agencies administratively, such as providing alternative means of accessing public services (e.g., through non-digital means) and additional guidance and support to vulnerable Victorians seeking to engage with government.

In my view the reforms are reasonable and do not constitute direct or indirect discrimination under section 9 of the Equal Opportunity Act, and therefore do not breach the right to equality under the Charter, as they seek to have a legitimate purpose to support the delivery of accessible, equitable and fair services for all Victorians (including disadvantaged or vulnerable Victorians) by broadening Service Victoria’s ability to deliver government services.

Therefore, the Bill is consistent with the right in relation to recognition and equality before the law in section 8 of the Charter.

Freedom and expression (section 15(2) of the Charter)

Section 15(2) of the Charter provides that every person has the right to freedom of expression which includes the freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds orally, in writing, in print, by way of art or in another medium of their choice.

Section 15 also provides that special duties and responsibilities attach to this right, and that lawful restrictions may be reasonably necessary to respect personal rights and reputations, and to protect national security, public order, public health or morality. The right is not absolute and can be also subject to reasonable limitation under section 7(2) of the Charter.

A number of clauses in the Bill engage the right to freedom of expression by requiring a person to do certain things, such as:

• Clause 16 permits the Service Victoria to require a person to create a Service Victoria account for the purposes of performing a function under the Act if the Service Victoria CEO believes it is reasonably necessary for the performance of that function. This may practically mean a person needs to provide necessary information in a format acceptable to the Service Victoria CEO to establish the account to provide them with a public service, and satisfactorily protect their information provided, which is a justifiable limitation on the right

• To the extent that this may limit or interfere with the right to freedom of expression, the limitation or interference is reasonable and proportionate because the Bill and the Service Victoria Act:

◦ does not require any particular information to be provided in any particular manner or time to the Service Victoria CEO to establish an account;

◦ a person’s consent is still required for the collection, use or disclosure of relevant information by the Service Victoria CEO;

◦ does not prohibit public service delivery directly by a service agency or mandate service delivery by Service Victoria; and

◦ a person will still be able to transact using a guest account for transactions that do not require an account and can choose to close their account at any stage.

• Clause 21 inserts new Part 5A which permits the Service Victoria CEO to provide an authority or official information document to a person in hard copy, electronic document or digital token. This is to enable a broad range of authorities or official information documents to be provided digitally to Victorians. This may require a person to receive an authority or official information document, that was previously in another format, in a format determined between the Service Victoria CEO and a service agency head (or as otherwise granted in accordance in the new Part 5A).

To the extent that this may limit or interfere with the right to freedom of expression, the limitation or interference is reasonable and proportionate because the Bill and the Service Victoria Act:

◦ requires the relevant document to include all information required to be contained in or displayed in the document under other laws; and

◦ does not prohibit the public service delivery of a particular authority or official information document directly by a service agency or mandate their delivery by Service Victoria.

Although these provisions may engage the right to freedom of expression, in my view any limitation is minimal with respect to providing or receiving information and is lawful, reasonable and necessary to allow Service Victoria or the Service Victoria CEO to operate and support the delivery of accessible, equitable and fair services to Victorians. Therefore, the Bill is consistent with the rights in relation to freedom of expression in section 15(2) of the Charter.

Taking part in public life (section 18)

Section 18 of the Charter states that every eligible person has the right, and is to have the opportunity, without discrimination, to participate in the conduct of public affairs (directly or through freely chosen representatives), and to have access, on general terms of equality, to the Victorian public service and public office. This right applies to all people in Victoria.

The right to access the Victorian public service is not defined in the Charter and there is limited Victorian judicial consideration of the full scope of the right (which is modelled on Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights).

It is likely that this right is intended to only apply to a person’s ability to be appointed to or employed in, a public service role or public office, and does not extend to accessing public services provided by the Victorian public service. This means this right is unlikely to be limited by the Bill.

However, if the right does extend to accessing services provided by the Victorian public service, in my view the Bill will significantly enhance Victorians’ right to take part in public life by enabling a broader range of public services to be available on Service Victoria’s accessible and user-friendly platform, which provides people with greater access to public services. In particular, it may make them accessible to persons with a form of disability (being economic security, health, location or otherwise), who may have limited access to participate in public affairs or access public services.

If the right does extend to accessing services provided by the public service it could limit access to public services for some Victorians, if they cannot access or use, or have difficulty accessing or using, some or all types of digital technology.

This could be for a broad range of reasons, including: cultural, economic insecurity (i.e. lack of affordable or regular access to digital technology), family violence (monitored, restricted or impacted access to use of digital technology by victims), health reasons (limited ability to, or unable to use digital technology for any reason), language barriers (limited ability or inability to use relevant digital technology developed by government if they cannot read or interpret the language used) or simply a lack of trust in certain technology or government.

As stated above and considered in further detail below in “Other human rights considerations”, this can be largely addressed administratively by Service Victoria and government, including by Service Victoria and services agencies providing alternative access to public services and providing additional guidance and support to vulnerable Victorians seeking to engage with government.

In my view, the reforms are reasonable, generally enhance, and do not unreasonably limit the right to take part in public life under the Charter, as they seek to support the delivery of accessible, equitable and fair services for Victorians by broadening Service Victoria’s ability to deliver services. Therefore, the Bill is consistent with the right to take part in public life in section 18 of the Charter.

Other human rights considerations

For the reasons above, if the reforms did result in limitations to the rights to take part in public life, freedom of expression, or recognition and equality before the law, it would likely not be a direct result of the Bill’s reforms.

Instead, it would be a result of government, Service Victoria, or a service agency not providing or retaining necessary accessible, alternative, physical or offline services to support Victorians who may have difficulty accessing or using digital technology or providing ease of access for Victorians to necessary digital technology (for example, at a local library or public service office).

This can be addressed administratively, on a case-by-case basis, by Service Victoria and other relevant service agencies for particular services. Service Victoria will work with service agencies to ensure that all Victorians, including disadvantaged and vulnerable Victorians who may not be able to access or use digital services, can still access and engage with public services.

Finally, the Bill’s reforms may also provide opportunities for the promotion by Service Victoria and government of the Charter’s freedoms and rights through improved digital public service delivery.

The Hon Danny Pearson MP

Minister for Government Services

Second reading

Mr PEARSON (Essendon—Assistant Treasurer, Minister for Regulatory Reform, Minister for Government Services, Minister for Creative Industries) (10:38): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I ask that my second-reading speech be incorporated into Hansard.

Incorporated speech as follows:

I am pleased to introduce a Bill that will make it even simpler and easier for Victorians and Victorian businesses to access public services, and ensure the Victorian Government is delivering the highest quality services to them.

Enabling Victorians and Victorian businesses to easily use public services is more important now than ever before. 2020 and 2021 have been years where all Victorians were asked to make big changes in the ways we live and work. With the uncertainties and challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic, Victorians have needed to interact with and rely on essential public services more than at almost any time in recent history.

The government transformed the way public services are delivered in Victoria by establishing Service Victoria and passing the Service Victoria Act 2018 (Service Victoria Act) through Parliament to create a centralised and streamlined digital platform for individuals and businesses to transact with the government for the most popular transactions.

Service Victoria was created as Victorians have no choice but to transact with government for services, so it is important they are served well.

Service Victoria was also created in recognition that Victorian customers and businesses should not have to visit multiple government departments and agencies, online or offline, or fill out paper-based applications to access the services they need. They should be able to access everything they need online, ideally through one simple and easy to use central government platform.

Service Victoria has made great progress in achieving this, by enabling almost every Victorian to access 43 government transactions on its digital platform, which includes its website and mobile app. Service Victoria has made it faster, more convenient and simpler for people to transact with public services by creating an adaptable and innovative data, legal and policy framework to support Service Victoria in its work.

Our investment in Service Victoria ensured we already had the digital expertise and capability in Service Victoria when COVID-19 reached Victoria’s borders. The COVID-19 pandemic further demonstrated the need for user-friendly public services to be accessible online.

Our investment has served us well, as it meant that we were ready to develop and deliver a QR code check-in service, COVID-19 digital certificates, regional and metropolitan travel vouchers, and border permits and exemptions to support Victorians and Victorian businesses.

Service Victoria’s five years of experience and the extraordinary challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic have taught us that we need to keep innovating to ensure Victoria remains competitive and a world-class place to do business and to live.

In particular, there are changes that can be made to the Service Victoria Act to ensure we are prepared to respond effectively to future challenges facing Victoria, such as ensuring Service Victoria is able to expediently deliver services to Victorians on its online platform and to deliver innovative digital service delivery, including through the now almost universally known Service Victoria mobile app.

Service Victoria’s successes mean that there is also an increasing demand for its services by the individuals, businesses and the government. Victorians now expect public services to be as easily accessible as private sector services, such as those provided by banks and telecommunications companies. These demands will likely continue to increase as we implement digital transformations and improvements across all parts of Victoria’s public services. Service Victoria is doing everything it can to meet this expectation. However, Service Victoria is facing barriers in meeting this increasing demand for its services due to unnecessary limitations in the Service Victoria Act.

This Bill enables Service Victoria to make it even simpler and easier for Victorians to get things done with government by removing barriers in the Service Victoria Act that limit or prevent Service Victoria from performing the services that Victorians and Victorian businesses want.

These barriers, while technical in nature, have real consequences for individuals and businesses because they limit the delivery of online public services using Service Victoria’s innovative, customer focused platforms. They are also easily resolved by this Parliament.

The Bill will also ensure that the Service Victoria Act is able to support the vision of the upcoming Victorian Government Digital Strategy 2021–2026 to make life and business accessible, easy, fairer, connected and inclusive for all Victorians now and into the future.

The Bill will also support the government’s digital business licensing program, as well as contribute to the government’s efforts to overhaul government regulation for Victorians and Victorian businesses.

I am therefore pleased to introduce a Bill that will make critical improvements to the Service Victoria Act and ensure Service Victoria is better equipped to flexibly meet the increasing demand for its services; to deliver the level of personalisation and improved experiences Victorians now increasingly expect to quickly respond to urgent government priorities; and to ensure public services are able to keep up with the rate of technological change in Victoria.

I now turn to the important reforms in the Bill.

Summary of the Bill’s reforms

The Bill will amend the Service Victoria Act to:

• provide Service Victoria with a flexible toolkit of improved and new mechanisms to deliver services and transactions;

• expanding the range of functions and services that Service Victoria can perform;

• enable government departments and agencies to access Service Victoria’s cost-effective and ready to go data storage capabilities;

• support the digital transformation and innovation of public services across government;

• clarify and expand the coverage of the data protections under the Service Victoria Act to ensure Service Victoria has the flexibility it needs to deliver services without interfering with personal privacy, and ensure they are consistent with other privacy and public records laws;

• enable the use of digital tokens by Service Victoria with government departments and agencies; and

• resolve other legislative barriers identified by Service Victoria, government agencies and departments since the commencement of the Service Victoria Act, including through a range of minor or technical improvements.

A flexible toolkit of improved or new mechanisms for Service Victoria to deliver its services

The Service Victoria Act authorises Service Victoria to perform certain administrative functions on behalf of other government departments and agencies that they are responsible for delivering, where the function has been transferred to Service Victoria through regulations. This means Service Victoria is responsible for delivering those transferred functions.

The Service Victoria Act regulates Service Victoria’s performance of two types of administrative functions, being customer service functions and identity verification functions.

In certain circumstances, Service Victoria can perform other functions that do not fit within the definitions of these two functions. However, the circumstances in which this can be done are legally complex, which means that it can be time and resource intensive to arrange for appropriate arrangements for Service Victoria to perform even the simplest functions, like receiving information from Victorians and passing that information through to a government department or agency to comply with a legal requirement.

Service Victoria also does not have the full range of powers and clear application of the Service Victoria Act’s information protections when performing these functions that would otherwise be available when performing a customer service function or identity verification function under the Service Victoria Act.

While useful in many circumstances, the current transfer regulation mechanism has proven to be time-consuming and impractical in some circumstances, or not suitable for certain types of functions that Service Victoria may be asked to deliver, particularly in urgent situations.

It is preferable for the Service Victoria Act to clearly set out the ways that Service Victoria can be empowered to perform functions and to ensure the information handled by Service Victoria is protected by the minimum standards and other requirements under the Service Victoria Act.

The Bill will ensure Service Victoria is empowered to deliver efficient digital services for government and Victorians, and the relevant personal or sensitive information is protected under the minimum standards of the Service Victoria Act. The Bill will also provide Service Victoria with greater flexibility by clarifying and expanding the mechanisms by which Service Victoria can support the delivery of public services.

This will allow Service Victoria and government departments or agencies to choose the most appropriate mechanism for Service Victoria to deliver services, depending on the type of transaction the services involve, the government department or agency currently performing the service, delivery timeframes and other relevant circumstances.

Importantly, these mechanisms are used by agreement with the consent of a government department or agency, or where appropriate, the relevant Minister. This means Service Victoria can respond quickly to directions by government and deliver digital public services to meet new and emerging priorities.

In summary, the new or improved mechanisms for Service Victoria will include performing:

• customer service or identity verification functions by written agreement with a government department or agency, including with government departments or agencies of the Commonwealth, other States and Territories, under which responsibility for the functions remains with the relevant government department or agency, and Service Victoria simply assists with delivering services for the government department or agency;

• customer service or identity verification functions under statutory delegation or authorisation provisions of legislation where the Service Victoria CEO is not specifically mentioned;

• new functions in relation to the delivery of public services where the Minister responsible for administering the Service Victoria Act directs Service Victoria, including to deliver services that do not have a partner government department or agency or in circumstances where they need to be urgently delivered, but there is insufficient time to prepare formal transfer regulations or other legal instruments; and

• a broader range of functions and transactions.

These changes expand the jurisdiction, source, scope, and types of functions that Service Victoria can perform. These common-sense changes to Victorian laws remove unnecessary red tape within the Victorian public sector which may prevent government departments and agencies from engaging with Service Victoria to deliver innovative public services.

It also means Service Victoria can deliver more services, more efficiently, and better support Victorians and Victorian businesses when using public services.

By enabling Service Victoria to perform services by agreement with, or on behalf of, government departments or agencies of the Commonwealth, or other States and Territories, Victoria will be able to more effectively link its services with services delivered by government departments or agencies in other jurisdictions. This will provide opportunities to make public services across Australia easier to access for Victorians, including potentially digital national police checks.

Expanding the range of functions and services that Service Victoria can perform

Currently, the Service Victoria Act enables Service Victoria to perform customer service and identity verification functions but defines these functions narrowly. These definitions limit Service Victoria from delivering the broad scope of administrative services requested by government and its agencies.

The Bill will expand the definitions of customer service function and identity verification function to include additional administrative functions that are commonly performed when delivering public services.

It is impossible to predict all the types of customer service functions or identity verification functions that Service Victoria may need to deliver. In recognition of the varied and dynamic nature of administrative functions that government performs for customers, the Bill will also allow additional types of customer service functions or identity verification functions to be prescribed in regulations.

The ability to prescribe additional functions in regulations will mitigate against the need for further reform to the definitions of customer service function and identity verification function over time while still allowing parliamentary scrutiny through ordinary mechanisms.

The Bill also makes it clear that Service Victoria can perform statutory and non-statutory functions where necessary to deliver public services. Importantly, these changes, coupled with the ability to perform functions by ministerial direction, give Service Victoria the flexibility to perform a wide range of customer service and identity verification functions to meet the needs of Victorians and Victorian businesses.

Providing access to Service Victoria’s data storage capabilities

The Service Victoria Act currently prevents Service Victoria from retaining specific types of information once it has been used for the specific purpose for which it was collected.

This was intended to reflect that Service Victoria would typically pass-through data to a relevant government agency, and not need to hold a duplicate copy. However, the limitation prevents government departments and agencies from using Service Victoria’s data storage capabilities and has been found in some circumstances to be impractical to implement.

This includes circumstances where the government department or agency does not have data storage infrastructure of its own to deliver a particular public service or if its existing information technology infrastructure prevents it from operating effectively with the Service Victoria platform.

The Bill will amend the Service Victoria Act to provide clear legislative authority for the Service Victoria CEO, subject to obtaining approval from the Minister responsible for the Service Victoria Act, to hold a separate and secure database on behalf of a government department or agency, which is held on the Service Victoria platform and operated by the relevant government department or agency.

The relevant government department or agency will retain ownership and control over the information in the database, with Service Victoria simply being a custodian or repository for that information unless asked to also provide services using the database by the agency or department.

This cost-effective and fast solution will strengthen government’s service delivery capabilities and maximise the return on investment in Service Victoria by enabling government agencies and departments to utilise existing government expertise and resources.

This ensures agencies can benefit from Service Victoria’s stringent cyber security and data protection measures, including Service Victoria’s security assessments against the Victorian Protective Data Security Standards.

These measures are designed to comply with existing data and privacy protection obligations under the Service Victoria Act, Privacy and Data Protection Act 2014 (Privacy and Data Protection Act), and Health Records Act 2001 (Health Records Act).

The Bill will set a clear process for Service Victoria to follow for storing data of other departments or agencies. In particular, Service Victoria will:

• only hold data of an agency by agreement with the agency or department;

• segregate agency or department data from other data;

• be prevented from accessing or using government agency or department data, except for in limited circumstances; and

• need to conduct assessments against the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 and privacy laws to make sure there are no adverse impacts on customers.

The Bill also empowers the Minister to:

• direct Service Victoria to establish a database to support the performance of a function that the Minister has directed Service Victoria to perform; and

• issue guidelines for establishing and maintaining databases, which will enable additional safeguards to apply if necessary.

Supporting public sector digital innovation and transformation

Enabling the use of digital tokens

The Bill will enable Service Victoria to deliver official documents to a customer digitally through the Service Victoria mobile application or a computer application, called a digital token. For example, a digital token could be a working with children check.

This Bill will allow digital tokens to become a robust and secure technology for transacting with government. Importantly, it also ensures customers can rely on digital tokens obtained through Service Victoria for official purposes under legislation, including proving their identity.

Digital delivery is convenient for customers and supports more customer choice for how to transact with government. As digital tokens are issued through a Service Victoria link to a Service Victoria account, tokens can be accessed anywhere and anytime. They will integrate seamlessly with existing regulatory frameworks, making it easier to collect, access and show government documents.

Digital delivery will also allow regulators to update digital licence details in real time. In time, digital tokens will become an easy way for Victorians to show Victorian licences, permits and other official documents.

Requiring customers to establish accounts to support digital service delivery

Modern-day online services often require a customer account to support digital delivery. Public services are no different. This is because customers need an account to take advantage of digital document delivery and storage through an account.

The Bill clarifies that customers can be required to establish a Service Victoria account where it is necessary for Service Victoria to deliver customer services.

This recognises that a government agency or department often requires an ongoing relationship with a customer through a Service Victoria account to perform a function and avoids the need to create separate account logins across multiple government departments or agencies.

To maximise customer choice, customers will be able to transact as a guest for any services that can be performed without an account and can close their account at any time.

Clarifying and expanding the Service Victoria Act’s data handling provisions

The Service Victoria Act contains provisions that regulate the handling of customer information held by Service Victoria, including in relation to the collection, use and disclosure, and retention of information. These are known as the minimum standards.

These rules apply in addition to protections on the handling of information under other legislation, such as the Privacy and Data Protection Act and the Health Records Act. This means customers can transact with Service Victoria with ease, knowing their personal information is protected.

The Bill will enable Service Victoria to deliver new types of customer and identity verification functions under the Service Victoria Act. By expanding the scope of those functions, the Bill brings more information under the protection of the minimum standards in the Service Victoria Act.

The Bill makes crucial adjustments to the minimum standards to ensure Service Victoria has the flexibility to use information to deliver services under the Service Victoria Act, including new services enabled by the Bill.

These amendments will give Service Victoria’s customers flexibility and choice about how Service Victoria handles their information and whether they would like that information to be retained to make future visits faster and easier.

The Bill will also make technical amendments to the minimum standards to ensure that they are not unreasonably restrictive on how Service Victoria performs its functions under the Service Victoria Act and better align them with Service Victoria’s obligations under other laws. This includes making sure information is retained when required under another law and allowing customers to consent to how their information is used.

Importantly, Service Victoria will remain subject to oversight by the Victorian Information Commissioner and the Health Complaints Commissioner in handling this information, and the offence provisions in the Service Victoria Act in relation to the improper, misuse, or unauthorised access or use of information (as well as applicable offences under other laws).

Conclusion

This Bill will:

• make it easier for Victorians and Victorian businesses to access public services, and ensure the government is delivering the highest quality services to them well into the future;

• improve Service Victoria’s ability to meet the increasing demands from government and the public for Service Victoria’s unique capabilities to deliver accessible, adaptable, efficient, fair, fast and innovative digital public services;

• support a digital-ready public sector for the benefit of all Victorians who are already a part of a thriving Victorian digital economy; and

• better equip Service Victoria to quickly respond to future urgent government priorities, including the delivery of public services in support of the State’s response to, and recovery from, the COVID-19 pandemic.

I commend the Bill to the House.

Ms McLEISH (Eildon) (10:39): I move:

That this debate be adjourned.

Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.

Ordered that debate be adjourned for two weeks. Debate adjourned until Wednesday, 1 December.

Equal Opportunity (Religious Exceptions) Amendment Bill 2021

Second reading

Debate resumed on motion of Ms HUTCHINS:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Mr BATTIN (Gembrook) (10:39): I rise to speak on the Equal Opportunity (Religious Exceptions) Amendment Bill 2021. First of all want to state that the Liberal-Nationals coalition believes that the rights and freedoms of belief and freedom of association are vital to any democratic society. This is an attack by Labor on many of the faith-based schools—particularly through my community—and other organisations, which will deny the right of hundreds of thousands of Victorian parents to send their children to schools that are able to give them the values-based education they are looking for. Labor’s change would also undermine Victoria’s diverse, pluralist, multicultural society, which supports the right of people of many different faiths to found institutions in accordance with their faiths. In effect Labor’s legislation will force faith-based schools and other organisations to hire staff who are fundamentally opposed to what their organisation stands for.

This bill introduced today will impact many schools obviously through Victoria, but I will focus a little bit on the Gembrook electorate. We have got schools in our area and many are faith-based schools. We have got Islamic schools, we have got schools of the Anglican Church and Catholic Church, with Christian beliefs and other values. Parents, when they are looking at sending their children to those schools, are sending them there not just for the education but also based on values of their upbringing, of their family and of the way that they are brought up in their homes. Each and every home in Victoria will be different; we understand that, we accept that. We understand that many families may not believe in any religion at all.

We will have families that have an Islamic faith, and I have had the pleasure of going out to many in our community who have an Islamic background to celebrate with them many of their cultures and celebrations during the year. In my electorate we have got many with a Hindu background. We went out to an event just recently with some of the Indians from east India who celebrate the going down of the sun just the other day with Chhath. These are celebrations from their faith base that are very important to them. The same as their language is important for the next generation to learn, they also want the cultures, beliefs and faiths to pass on to their children.

When we go through some of the other education organisations, including Catholic and Christian, the parents that I speak to want the ability of the school to employ people who support, who believe and have that same faith. I know that the argument from the government will be around ‘a maths teacher is a maths teacher’, and I know most of the schools down there do not discriminate. They actually look out for the best maths teacher, but they want to make sure that the person in there is not someone who is going to be speaking against the faith or the belief of that school.

I think that is important and that is something they should be able to do, so that when someone goes to the maths teacher who is the person they have confidence and faith in when they have got issues at school—they may not want to speak to the minister of the school, they want to speak to someone they have got the faith and confidence in—those people are going to be having the same value set and will promote the same values when they are asking them questions.

I note when we talk about the discrimination in it, which will be raised quite regularly through this debate, that I employ people who have Liberal values. I am sure Labor MPs employ people who have Labor values, and I encourage that. I am sure, I am confident, that no Labor member of Parliament wants to take some of the Liberal electorate officers into their office to do the job that they want them to do in their community.

Mr Walsh: They would be too honest.

Mr BATTIN: They may be too honest, but the reality is it is just not something we are going to do. The Greens are not going to employ somebody from the Labor Party or from the Liberal Party. I just think that is really important; that is part of our democracy. I think it is an important part of our democracy. The new gay pride centre in St Kilda—I would not expect them to employ a former Catholic minister, a former Catholic priest, who has their beliefs to come in because they are the best counsellor for the job that they want. I would not expect that, and I do not think they should have to.

We have an amazing society here in Victoria because we have so many different people, and they have different values and different beliefs. All we say is, those people who have those different values and different beliefs need to be respected. They must be respected.

I note the member in the upper house Matt Bach has gone through and looked at this bill. He has done an exceptional job with putting our position forward, and the position of the Victorian Liberal Party and the coalition with The Nationals is to oppose this bill. Dr Bach went out and consulted quite regularly and spoke to the Islamic Council of Victoria, the Australian Association of Christian Schools, in the Institute for Civil Society, Christian Schools associations, Equality Victoria, the Catholic Education office, the Anglican Diocese of Melbourne and many others. One of the things that has come back in that consultation as we got closer to the debate here today was when the government consulted with these organisations they did not consult with what the current bill form is today. They took a different view to them for that consultation.

That is why we are saying to the government that we believe this bill should be put on hold. They should withdraw this bill from the Parliament and ensure they go back with the actual bill for that consultation. Go back and have the actual consultation.

Mr Pearson interjected.

Mr BATTIN: All I am saying, member for Essendon, is just go through the consultation with the facts, because these organisations want what is on record. They are happy to have those discussions, but it is a shame that the Labor Party did not want to take out the actual bill for the consultation. They took out a different range of opinions, of views, but they did not take the actual bill out there to have that discussion with those organisations. We are saying they should.

I would like to move a reasoned amendment. I move:

That all the words after ‘That’ be omitted and replaced with the words ‘this house refuses to read this bill a second time until there has been more time to consult with affected stakeholders’.

That is a reasoned amendment from the Victorian Liberal Party and The Nationals to ensure that everyone is heard. Now, in that consultation we encourage that every organisation that could be impacted by this legislation be consulted, not just those from faith schools—actually everyone in relation to what would happen with discrimination on who you can employ. Maybe then the bill could be adjusted to ensure it does protect the rights of religious schools and ensures that members of Parliament can continue to do what they need to do to employ people based on the values of what our offices do for our communities.

As I said earlier on, I am very lucky to be the member for the seat of Gembrook. I have been very proud to represent a community that has such a diverse cultural history. Berwick Primary School is a great school in our local area. If you go back just 20 years, Berwick Primary School would have been peopled by mostly Anglo-Saxon kids coming from our local area—and we had a few people from Holland, I think. Number two in the area were people who were born in Holland. But if you go to Berwick Primary School now, 40 per cent of the kids come from Sri Lanka. That is the change in culture going through our communities. Many of these new Australians throughout the Gembrook electorate bring with them their faith-based backgrounds, cultures and history. The number of local community events now that we attend as members of Parliament—and I am sure it is not just me; I am sure it is nearly every member of Parliament in this place—we are so proud to go down to the communities which come from all walks of life and all places around the world.

The member for Essendon would probably say he has got one of the widest range of different cultures from around the world. The member for Dandenong has Little India and Little Afghanistan. So many people are coming here, and we need to respect their values and their faiths, and we need to understand that there is always going to be a difference. I did a tour of our Islamic school, Minaret College in Officer. It is about 300 metres from my office, and the growth in that school has been unbelievable. They have got two campuses locally in Springvale and Officer and the growth means we are now seeing over 1900 kids between those campuses. The school has done everything they can to ensure that they have become part of our community. When they first arrived in Officer, that was difficult. The reality of it was that people were not willing to accept in the very first stages of their moving in that we had a school of the Muslim faith in our area. At first they became a bit segregated, but the staff and management team of that school have made sure that they have led the way in communicating with and ensuring their students go out to other schools in the area of other faiths and state schools. They lead Harmony Day with a week of cultural and faith interaction, explaining what their faith is. Part of their faith, as we all know, is that they pray a lot more during the day than most faiths that we deal with.

They also explain to other students at other schools the importance of having that diversity through our area.

I went with one of the members from the school and had a look through, in Thornbury, the Islamic museum. It was there that even I learned so much. I learned so much about a group of people who have done so much in our community. I learned about jihadi. I learned about some of the things that have happened within their past and how they have been more and more involved in local sports. I want to make sure that their faith is protected whilst they are at school. They are very strong on the fact that they want to employ people based on faith as well as their outcomes for education. The educational outcomes from these schools, most of the schools, are exceptional. The funding from governments, from all governments, to these schools is to support the fact that they will educate our children, they raise them, but they also put their own values back into what is happening with their students. I think it is essential as a government, as any government, that you make sure they are consulted on this legislation to ensure that they are protected going forward.

As I have said, one of the reasons for this amendment was that faith-based organisations were misled during the government’s limited and skewed consultation. The organisations were not told during this consultation there would still be certain freedoms, through codes of conduct, which has not been the case in this bill’s final draft. As a result, the reasoned amendment is being put forward. The bill in its current form, in the opposition’s view, was about religious freedoms.

Whilst we should be open to some reform, it would be prudent for us to wait for the Australian Law Reform Commission’s ongoing inquiry to have its final report handed down to ensure there is consistency between the state and federal legislation where appropriate. It is far broader and more comprehensive than the state’s flawed consultation. Why can’t the government just put this aside and wait for the Australian Law Reform Commission’s report? Not much is going to change. We have got another year coming up next year. This report will come down in 2022. The consultation is Australia wide, and it will give an opportunity for the states to actually be on the same page as the federal government and to ensure that any protections are there that are needed and make sure that the faith communities have their views heard and we can have consistency in the laws.

It also will prevent—in the future, if laws are brought in federally—having a constitutional issue between state and federal laws when it comes to faith-based Fair Work reports et cetera from there. So when there are any defences we are going to end up saving money in the long term. We want to make sure that we can keep all of these schools, obviously, out of court in the future, we want to make sure that we are protecting people’s rights and we want to make sure that any money going into education is actually ending up in the education system, where it should be.

We have had, as I said, a series of publications come through where there were allegations of some issues with staff members being terminated from religious schools. During the Attorney-General’s second-reading speech she claimed that this will protect the vulnerable children as well as the LGBT+ staff members from discrimination. That is something we do support; we want to make sure that people are protected. But Dr Bach has actually written to the Attorney-General, and he is seeking information regarding the government’s advice on the consistency of his proposed amendments. He said:

[QUOTE AWAITING VERIFICATION]

I have received advice from numerous eminent legal sources regarding the government’s proposed restrictions to the ability of the religious bodies and educational institutions to continue to administer their institutions in accordance with their faith in the Equal Opportunity (Religious Exceptions) Amendment Bill 2021. My advice is that restrictions or several thereof are likely to be inconsistent with the broader exemptions these institutions enjoy under section 38 of the federal act and if tested may well be deemed invalid under section 109 of the commonwealth constitution. Consequently I write to ask if you have sought legal advice on the question of the solicitor-general. If so, I would respectfully seek this advice. In addition, I would seek to know if you have sought advice or are in receipt of advice from other sources on the matter of likely inconsistencies. If so, once again, we would like to see that advice.

This is something that happens quite regularly with this government, where the advice we are requesting does not get released, and we want to make sure that we see all advice given forward, particularly that from the solicitor-general. If the solicitor-general has given advice that there could be inconsistencies with this and it is going to create a constitutional issue—where you are having legal debates around schools, around those who they can employ, around what exemptions do and do not apply within this bill compared to the federal bill—all we are going to end up with is a lawyers’ picnic, which is going to take away money from where it should be spent, which is back into the community and back into making sure that we have the teachers in position and we have funding for schools to ensure they can deliver services—make sure they have got the best classrooms, the best technology.

We want to have the best outcomes for young people. I think that is absolutely essential for us going forward.

With this contribution, as I have said, I will continue to stand up on behalf of those religions, those organisations, who have spoken to us on this side of the house and I know have spoken to many on the other side of the house. There are emails after emails coming through from parents, schools and leaders in those communities who are genuinely concerned. We are asking the government: take this bill away and go through the proper process, ensure that this bill can be consulted on with all of the details and legal advice on how it will impact on education around Victoria and how it will impact on legal costs in the future and impact on our schools; go back with the actual bill rather than a draft that you had originally, which did not have all the facts available for all those in a quandary to have a look at. We need to make sure that we can have faith in it. And we ask: release that advice, attach the advice for the consultation and allow every school here in Victoria, every faith-based organisation, to review this and ensure that they have got all the details so they can either continue their campaign or they can work with the government to make sure that there is legislation brought into this house that is fair for all and protects the rights of all.

As I said at the start, we have an amazing state. We have got people from all over the world. We have got locals who are Christian; Catholic; we have got Hindu; we have got Islamic; we have got Sikh. You do not have to go any further than, as I said, any of our electorates, where you will see the change in the faces of people in your own communities. And they are asking, ‘Please make sure you protect our rights, please make sure you protect the faith-based schools so we can send our children to a school where, if they ask a question around our faith, those working in the school aren’t opposed to the value set of the school where they are’. So I ask the government: withdraw this bill. I ask you to support our reasoned amendment. Otherwise the Victorian coalition will oppose this bill in whole.

Ms HENNESSY (Altona) (10:57): I am very proud to rise today and speak in support of a well-overdue reform, a reform that is about restoring the dignity and the rights of all people in their workplaces. I have got to say the great reveal—as if we needed one—is that the coalition are hopelessly divided when it comes to the rights of LGBTIQ+ Victorians. We have seen it through the leaked tapes of their shadow cabinet meetings. We have seen it here today where we did not have the Shadow Minister for Equality giving the lead speech on this bill. We have had the fig leaf of a reasoned amendment put up. We have had the second fig leaf of ‘Let’s wait until the federal government gets its act together on its religious freedoms bill’ and ‘Let’s try and muddy the waters a little bit and try and bring in section 109, constitutional conflicts, about this’.

This bill is essentially achieving the same sorts of changes as we had in the Equal Opportunity Bill in 2010. It was of course a coalition government in 2011 that took those protections away—and since that period of time we have seen people in the community advocating for these changes. They are long overdue, and be in absolutely no doubt that the Andrews Labor government stands side by side with LGBTIQ+ Victorians. We are not going to come in here and try and make conflated arguments about race versus homophobia. We are not going to do these things, and there are simple, clear, crisp answers to any of those issues that have been canvassed in the course of the lead speaker’s contribution.

I too would like to speak to some of the experiences that have been had in our education system. I would like to share with the house the story of Mrs Rachel Colvin, who is in fact a committed Christian, a mother of three. She had a 10-year unblemished teaching record at a non-denominational Christian school. After the 2017 marriage plebiscite—the two-year anniversary was just the other day; I am so pleased to see people making their commitments, and remind people that the sky has not fallen in as we recognise love in all of its universal forms—she was asked as a teacher at her school to agree with and abide by a statement that marriage can only be between a male and a female.

She was asked to sign up to that statement, and she declined. She declined on the basis that she felt it was inconsistent with her Christian values and her construction of her Christian values. Inevitably—you can guess what happened—there was a whole range of implications for her as a result of her taking that position, and the school essentially took steps to enforce their view.

The second example I would like to share is the story of Evie Macdonald. Evie Macdonald wanted to stand, when asked if girls stand in one queue and boys stand in another queue, with the female students, and her teacher refused and told her that she was a boy and physically dragged her towards the group of male students. In 2015, without her parents’ knowledge or consent, Evie was made to attend seven sessions of chaplaincy counselling by the school, designed to prevent her affirming her gender as a girl. Obviously when her parents found out about that they were furious, and they moved as soon as they could get a placement at another school. Now, I do not know who would kind of defend that kind of action and say that a law that protects kids like Evie and her parents supporting her being who she is is somehow an offensive reform. I would argue it is a long overdue reform, and under these proposed reforms schools like Evie’s former school could not expel or treat a child like that. Those are the sorts of protections that this reform puts in place.

Sam Cairns, another wonderful teacher, worked at a Christian college—it is the same school that she actually went to—and was very concerned about sharing her sexual identity with her school and was not open and resigned. She came back as a relief teacher at some point and was then kind of frogmarched out. She was told by the vice-principal that she had to pack her things because the school had been made aware of her ‘choice of sexuality’. Under these proposed laws, teachers in a similar position to Sam’s could not be fired simply because of their sexuality or their gender identity.

Now, there are stories after stories after stories, and ultimately this is a reform about preserving the dignity and the rights of people to be able to enjoy employment and to be able to access services without being discriminated against on irrelevant grounds. The law is very clear about that issue, and I would just like to speak to the provisions that could reassure those opposite—if I held any genuine view that they had any interest in supporting this reform. But essentially what the bill says in relation to employment is that religious schools and bodies will only be able to discriminate on the grounds of religious belief where conformity with religion is an inherent requirement of the job and the proposed discrimination is reasonable and proportionate in all of the circumstances. Now, I do not actually think that is a controversial limitation. It says that where your religious views are relevant to the delivery of your job, then of course that would be permitted. But what will not be permitted is, where it is irrelevant, people being fired because of their sexuality or people who may become divorced or become single parents being fired because of the changing circumstances of their life, where those are not relevant to their ability to perform the inherent requirements of the job.

I note some of the concerns that have been put forward by some schools, some correspondents and some institutions, and let me assure them that the drafting and the targeting and the provisions of this reform will seek to enable them to ensure that they are able to have people who have those religious views where they are relevant. It is not too much of a stretch to say to a school: if you do decide you want to discriminate against people on the grounds of their sexuality or their status as a sole parent, then, you know, you have got to actually make the argument to. I do not think that is too much of an imposition. We do not live in a world where people should be permitted to discriminate on irrelevant attributes.

We live in a world where people should focus on the capacity, the capability and the character of people, and these reforms are long overdue in promoting and seeking to support that.

I also want to make the very important point that this is often an area of law reform that is characterised as being almost exclusively about LGBTIQ+ people. There are a whole range of attributes, and I have touched on the issues of single parents, of people getting divorced and then being sacked. In circumstances where service providers are funded by Victorian taxpayer dollars, they will not be permitted to take those funds and then deliver services in a discriminatory way. If it is relevant—if a person’s religious beliefs are relevant—then that is permitted, but where it is not an inherent requirement of a job and where it is not proportionate, it will not be permitted. There are a host of examples where people have been excluded from receiving services, and there are examples in many of the materials available about, for example, transgender people being denied access to things like domestic violence refuges on the grounds of their gender identity—all of those issues.

This is about focusing on people and saying that it is at essence the humanity of people that should be given the privilege above the conflicting principles of freedom of religion versus freedom of sexuality. It is not an issue that should be characterised as about religion versus the LGBTIQ+ movement, because it is not. It is simply about what is a permitted form of discrimination, and this government says it is not a permitted form of discrimination for you to discriminate against people on these attributes for irrelevant purposes—where it is not an inherent requirement of the job, where it is disproportionate. That is in my view a long-overdue reform. It is a reform that has been adopted in Tasmania. The Tasmanian government is not always seen as a paragon of progressive policy, can I say, but indeed down in Tasmania I am not aware of any great challenge that has occurred. There is similar law reform that has occurred in New South Wales—again, another conservative government that has taken up this reform. So I wholeheartedly support this reform, and I wish it a very speedy passage through the house.

Mr WALSH (Murray Plains) (11:07): Can I start off by making some comments on the contribution of the member for Altona, the former Attorney-General, about who should lead the debate on this particular legislation in our house. As I understand it, this legislation is a bill that was handled by the Attorney-General for the government, and that makes it appropriate that the Shadow Attorney-General or the representative of the Shadow Attorney-General responds to it in this house. So I think the member for Altona probably should get her facts straight in her contribution.

The other issue, though, taking some exception to the member for Altona, is effectively saying that faith-based organisations do not care and do not deliver services to everyone that comes in the door. If I think about the organisations from my electorate, and I assume it is very similar right across the state, whether it be St Vinnies, St Luke’s in my case or the Salvos, they take all comers and they deliver services for the less advantaged right across the community. They do not pick and choose who they deliver services to. So to have this debate somehow framed by the other side of the house that this is about the discrimination of the delivery of services—it is not about the discrimination of the delivery of services. Those organisations are the ones that really care for the people in the community, who actually deal with the day-to-day issues of those that have a real struggle in caring for themselves, looking after themselves, or they have made some poor choices that have put them at a real disadvantage in society. They are the organisations that give care.

I support the member for Gembrook, representing the Shadow Attorney-General in this house, with his reasoned amendment that this bill should be withdrawn and consultation should happen again. As I understand it, particularly the faith-based organisations that were engaged with through the lead-up to this particular legislation said the government said to them, ‘Trust us’—and we know that is a fundamental flaw in anything the government says. Never, ever trust what they say, because what they say and what they do are two very, very different things. The government said, ‘Trust us; you will have protection under your codes of conduct for whatever may be in this legislation that you are concerned about’—but once the legislation has actually come out, they have not got any protections under their codes of conduct.

So take it back, actually engage with the faith-based organisations that have concerns about this legislation and be factual with them. Actually give them an exposure draft. Be factual with them, tell them the truth for once, rather than smudging it around the edges and then bringing something in here that has got a lot of people upset. Apart from the pandemic legislation this issue would be generating the most emails to members of Parliament at the moment, because there are very great concerns from the faith-based organisations as to what this will do to their ability to deliver, particularly in schools.

Our Shadow Attorney-General consulted with the Islamic Council of Victoria, the Australian Association of Christian Schools, the Institute for Civil Society, the Christian Schools Association, Equality Victoria, the Catholic education office and the Anglican Diocese of Melbourne, and they all came back with concerns about this particular legislation. When I spoke to the Catholic Archdiocese of Melbourne office they had major concerns about this, and Archbishop Peter Comensoli has written a letter to all MPs expressing his concern about that.

Members interjecting.

Mr WALSH: I notice there were some oh’s from other side of the chamber. I am standing here, I am a Catholic, and I am proud of it. I am proud of what they do and the services they deliver for all Victorians. If you look at what CatholicCare does across the state, if you look what they do with their schools, if you look what they do with their hospitals, if you look what they do with their hospices, you should be proud of the services they deliver for Victorians. I will not be howled down by the other side of the house for standing up for the faith-based organisations of this state. They can yell and scream across the chamber, they can keep yelling about it, but I am proud to stand up for these organisations and what they actually deliver in this place.

Ms Ward interjected.

Mr WALSH: You keep yelling and howling down the faith-based organisations and what they deliver in Victoria. You keep howling them down.

Ms Ward: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, as a Catholic—raised a Catholic—I take exception to the comments made by the member opposite. He is not the only Catholic in this place, and he is not the only one who has his own beliefs. He should stop sowing division and hatred in this place.

Ms Ryan: On the point of order, Acting Speaker, I do not know what the point of order was. It was a ridiculous diatribe from the member for Eltham. She has made no point of order.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Taylor): Thank you, member for Euroa. There is no point of order.

Mr WALSH: I find it disappointing that those on the other side would want to ridicule organisations in Victoria who deliver services to the less advantaged in the community.

Ms Ward: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, I would ask the member to please talk in facts. There has been no ridiculing of religious organisations on this side at any point, and particularly while he has been on his feet. I would ask the member opposite to engage with the truth, rather than misinformation.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Taylor): The member for Eltham has raised a point of debate. However, I would remind the Leader of The Nationals—it has been a wideranging debate—to stick to the context of the bill.

Mr WALSH: Acting Speaker, I am sticking to the context of the bill. The context of this bill is that the Labor government of Victoria want to introduce legislation that limits the ability of faith-based organisations as to who they can employ to do jobs. They based the consultation on a falsehood about what was going to be in this legislation so that faith-based organisations were of the belief that they would have some protections under their codes of conduct in how they could actually manage staffing in their particular organisations. That is not part of the legislation. This legislation has been based on a falsehood, and I support the member for Gembrook in his reasoned amendment that it should be withdrawn. The government should go and consult with those organisations again about what is really in the legislation here.

Faith-based organisations deliver untold services to this state and, as I have said already in my contribution, to those less advantaged in the community. But if you focus particularly on education, which the government seems to want to do with this particular piece of legislation, and if you look at the number of students that are in non-government schools here in Victoria, if those non-government schools were not delivering the services they were doing, if they were not attracting the parents that want to send their students to those schools for the values that those schools actually have, then the government could not afford to build the schools and could not afford to pay the teachers to teach the 40 to 50 per cent of students who are in non-government schools.

So I do not know why the Andrews Labor government wants to go to war with faith-based organisations who teach our students—

Members interjecting.

Mr WALSH: Those on the other side take exception when I comment that they are yelling and screaming. They are yelling and screaming. Why does the government want to go to war with faith-based organisations and take their rights away to employ people in those schools, in those hospitals and in those hospices? Why can’t they have the right to actually employ people who reflect the values of what they actually deliver in those particular services? As, I think it was, the member for Gembrook said in his contribution, ‘I bet the Labor Party doesn’t employ an electorate officer who is a member of the Liberal Party or a member of the National Party’. That is discrimination at its highest. If you take it at face value, anyone should be able to have any job without any relationship to their values or what their beliefs are.

What the schools are asking for—before I was howled down, I said what the Archbishop of Melbourne, Peter Comensoli, was asking for—is the right for those organisations to actually employ people who reflect the values of those particular organisations. You will find in those organisations there are people of various gender identities, and that it is not held against them. It is about having a belief, if it is a Muslim school, in the Muslim faith or, if it is a Christian school, across the different religions in the Christian world. It is about having the faith and the views of that particular organisation. Why can’t those schools, those hospitals, those hospices and those social security networks have the right to employ someone that reflects their values? That is what the Andrews Labor government is trying to take away from those schools. As I said, I do not know why they are going to war with the faith-based organisations of this state.

Mr EDBROOKE (Frankston) (11:17): Well, wasn’t that interesting. Once again, I just urge the opposition to actually read the bill. There is nothing in this bill that stops faith-based organisations and schools from employing people of their faith—people of their beliefs. There is simply not.

If I can begin by taking up the member for Gembrook’s comments. He stood here and spoke about freedom of belief and having the inherent right to talk about what you believe. Meanwhile it seems like half his colleagues in this house and the other are out there rubbing shoulders with people who are making death threats to MPs and yelling at people—encouraging them and congratulating them for making death threats to people who are here reflecting their communities’ beliefs.

Ms Ryan: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, what the member for Frankston is saying is completely untrue, and I ask you to draw him back to talking on this bill.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Taylor): There is no point of order.

Mr EDBROOKE: Just taking that up, I will put on the record that we have seen the member for Ferntree Gully, we have seen the member for South-West Coast, we have seen the member for Warrandyte, we have seen Mr Ondarchie in the other place and Mr Davis in the other place actually rubbing shoulders with people with Nazi interests.

Ms Ryan: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, I renew my point of order on relevance. We are talking about the Equal Opportunity (Religious Exceptions) Amendment Bill 2021, and the member for Frankston is not talking about this bill at all. I ask you to bring him back to debating the bill.

Mr Fregon: On the point of order, Acting Speaker, in regard to relevance, I think the Leader of The Nationals opened this up on values, and I believe the member for Frankston was talking about values.

Mr EDBROOKE: On the point of order, Acting Speaker, I was told that I was not speaking factually. If The Nationals want to look at the front page of the Age today, they can see those facts. Indeed on Twitter they can see their colleagues out there rubbing shoulders with what I would call Neo-Nazis, and that is a fact. Now, to come in here and speak about the expression of freedoms and not be able to actually draw a line and speak about what you believe in is just so ironic. It is tasteless. I just will not stand here—

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Taylor): Member for Frankston, on the point of order, I do not uphold the point of order.

Mr EDBROOKE: As perhaps the only person in this house at the moment that has possibly taught in a private school, a Catholic school, I think I can bring something unique to the house. First, I just want to say that the school that I taught in I think handled this very well. I never heard of any kind of discrimination towards an employee, whether a teacher or a gardener or a maintenance person or someone in the ancillary world around the school community being discriminated against based on that. But I am aware of cases, as the former Attorney-General, the member for Altona, did actually point out.

This bill does not stop schools employing who they want for those jobs. It does not stop them employing the best teachers for the role. It does not stop them employing people with religious beliefs that are in line and in sync with their own. What it does is remove the ability for religious bodies and schools to discriminate against an employee based on their sex, sexual orientation, lawful sexual activity, marital status, parental status or gender identity. I think we can all agree that that is something that we should be striving towards in a civilised community.

When we hear terms like ‘going to war with people’, I think we have got to take a step back and look at what is actually happening outside now and what some of our Liberal colleagues in the upper house have been saying to these mobs outside and be very, very careful with what sorts of semantics we throw out there, because what we have seen—and it appears it is the same with this bill—is a huge misinformation campaign. I have spoken to a ton of people in the teaching fraternity and at least three priests in Frankston about this bill. Yes, there have been concerns. When it is explained we might not agree on everything—and we have been through this many times before—but there is respect from those people that they can actually employ who they want but they cannot discriminate. That is what this bill brings to the table, and I think that is more than reasonable.

The bill basically does allow discrimination if the following three elements are satisfied: where conformity with the doctrines, beliefs or principles of the religion is an inherent requirement of the job, which basically means that if you have got a teacher who has to teach religion and is involved in pastoral care that involves a religious aspect, then that is an inherent part of their job. If they are someone that is mowing the lawn or doing maintenance or maybe some kind of occupational therapy, it might not be an inherent part of their job. Also we can discriminate against a person who cannot meet the inherent requirements because of their religious beliefs or activity, and I think I have spoken about that. But also this bill allows discrimination if the discriminatory action proposed to be taken against the person is reasonable and proportionate based on the circumstances of the case.

We have heard, as I have mentioned, from the former Attorney-General, who in a very eloquent way put this much better than I can. But this bill I think for some people does not go far enough. For others it hits the balance. For others it is a direct affront to their faith. As well as teaching in a Catholic school I also attended a Catholic high school, one that was run by the Marist Brothers. I think even in Traralgon—and I think one of the members on the other side, one of The Nationals members, went to the school, as did John Pesutto—they ran this line very, very well. We never heard of any sort of discrimination in that school. We had people that worked in that school that respected the faith but did not show an affront to it and were able to do what they do best, and it is what schools do best when they are focused on children.

Children come out the other end of their primary school and their secondary school of course with a welfare overlay and a pastoral care overlay, but children come out best when schools actually focus on education and they focus on welfare. I do not hear too many schools in my electorate too focused on this bill, what it will mean for them and the dramatic consequences that we have heard the Leader of The Nationals talk about.

This bill does not change or affect any parent’s ability to send their child to the school of their religion or indeed for single-sex schools to exclude people of the opposite sex. It still allows schools which are wholly or mainly for students of a particular sex, race, religion, age or disability to exclude students who are not of that particular group, and it does not affect the ability of religious schools to set the code of conduct policies that they should have as well. It is a message to our community and our school community as well that equality is not negotiable anywhere in Victoria. No matter what your religion, your sexual orientation, your marital status, your gender identity or any other attribute, the bill does not privilege the right to prioritise equality over the right of freedom of religion and instead I think provides more of a balance, and I believe that the balance in this bill is struck and it is correct.

Again, there will be people that disagree with me and there will be people that say, ‘This didn’t go far enough’. There will be people that say this is just an affront to their faith. To me, in direct disagreement with what I have heard from the other side of the chamber, I do not think this is a barrier to schools employing who they want to employ, who they think will be able to educate children, teach their faith and provide that pastoral care. You can see it as discrimination if you want, but it will stop some schools—and it is probably more of a personal issue or an individual issue with school leadership—discriminating against people because of their gender, their sexuality, their religion and even if they got a divorce. We have heard about these terrible, terrible incidents, and under this bill they will no longer happen.

Certainly in my experience I have not seen firsthand a school or a community or even a religious body that has made these changes and discriminated against someone, but I am very, very reassured that the contents of this bill and of course the legislation when it passes will stop some of the incidents we have heard about, which to me are harrowing. To be able to discriminate against someone based on anything like that is an affront to all of us in our community—everyone that prioritises equality. I commend the bill to the house.

Mr MORRIS (Mornington) (11:27): It is a pleasure to join this debate on the Equal Opportunity (Religious Exceptions) Amendment Bill 2021. I will have been in this place for 15 years at the end of the month, and we have dealt with many, many controversial issues during that time. Some of them have been of great significance to individuals; some of them have been more about social reforms, the evolution of societal attitudes and so on.

When I was a relatively new member we dealt with the Relationships Bill 2007, which became the Relationships Act 2008, and I strongly supported that bill. At the time it was seen as a vehicle for formalising same-sex relationships—relationships particularly for gay and lesbian couples—in the absence of changes to the Marriage Act 1958, which was, of course, a federal statute. Marriage equality at that time was a far-off dream for many, but I think it is fair to say that it was also a very long way from being accepted by the community. In fact I commented during that debate that the passage of the Relationships Bill would not lead to a change in the Marriage Act. I think I effectively said, ‘It’s not marriage, and if it was I wouldn’t support it’.

Now, I have reflected on those views. It was 2008; it was a while ago. I have reflected on that statement and I think I can honestly say that it was more about the way the community was thinking at the time than about any personal views I may have held. Certainly had the opportunity to vote for it come up at that stage—outside the Parliament, as an individual at the ballot box—I know what my vote would have been, and it would have been positive. But the community was not there yet; the community was a long way from it.

The reality is if you want to undertake these reforms, you really cannot get too far ahead of where the community is at.

Public opinion does change, and it changes sometimes very, very quickly. We have seen that on a range of issues. That bill, as I said, was debated in 2008. Nine years later the nation voted overwhelmingly in favour of marriage equality—overwhelmingly in support. Every state and every territory in the nation voted in favour of it. In my own patch, in the electorates of Dunkley and Flinders, there was a slight variation but it was roundabout 70 per cent across the board. We will not, of course—and God forbid that we do—but if views were reassessed now, I think that that number would be significantly higher even than 70 per cent. By December of that year of course the amendments had become law, with 128 votes in support in the House of Representatives. So things move relatively quickly.

Can I say, though, I recognise the impatience of those in 2008 who said, ‘Look, the Relationships Act is nice, but it’s not what we want. It’s not what we need. It doesn’t go far enough’. The fact is—setting aside the constitutional niceties—had this Parliament voted in 2008 to amend the Marriage Act in the way that was being suggested, we would have been doing it without widespread support, and it would have effectively been change imposed on the community. When you impose that change you do not have the sort of debate—you would not have had the issue being embraced the way it has been subsequently by the community. When you impose that change you create division. People resent things being imposed on them and their positions become entrenched; they do not have open minds.

Of course we had that debate, and I should say I understand how uncomfortable that was for many members of the GTBTILQ+ community, because had it been about straight people, it would have made me bloody uncomfortable, I can tell you—very, very uncomfortable—but it was not. So there was a cost to that debate, and I recognise that. But there was a benefit too, and that was that it had an educative role for the whole community. It got people talking about it. It got people thinking about it. It gave people an opportunity to reflect on their own positions and how they came to their own positions—had they ever thought about it before? To the great credit I think of the Victorian community, to the great credit of the Australian community, when they did reflect their views evolved; the culture evolved.

If you want to have lasting change to societal attitudes, if you really want to get that cultural evolution and not just have political correctness, which is effectively forcing a segment of the community to keep their views to themselves, then you have got to have that cultural change, you have got to have that cultural evolution. Without it the opposing views do not go away. They just go underground, but they keep up the fight; they keep up the resistance. They are still there. The society does not get to evolve. The opposition is invisible, but it still exists. I think the bill before us is unfortunately a perfect example of how not to handle a debate like this.

Now, I have spoken before in this chamber about the differences in approach between that of Steve Bracks and John Brumby and the current Premier. Premier Bracks and Premier Brumby were committed to outcomes. They were not above using the issue for politics—why wouldn’t they, as politicians?—but they were committed to the outcome, and they did not let the politics get in the way of the outcome. They wanted to genuinely bring the community forward, as did Ted Baillieu on a range of other issues.

We have seen significant change in the last four parliaments. We have seen support across the chamber on a range of difficult issues, support that was both deserved and then received, but often that has been after a significant inquiry, whether it is a Victorian Law Reform Commission inquiry or whether it is perhaps a parliamentary inquiry of a joint standing committee—whatever.

That gives people the opportunity to provide input. It gives people the opportunity to be heard, to have their concerns addressed. Of course, as we all know, being heard does not mean your views are automatically taken on board, but it gives the decision-makers—in this case the legislators—the opportunity to test those views and come to a conclusion. And if you do not accept the view that is being put to you, at least the risk is on the record; you know that it has been considered.

That is not the case with this bill. The government claims that this is overwhelmingly supported. The government claims there has been extensive consultation. We know that is not the case. We know that a particular and considerable section of the community feels their rights are being overridden with this bill. It is clear from the ad that was in the paper yesterday and from all the emails and all the communication that I am sure we have all received on this issue that there is considerable concern, but certainly the Anglican community, the Catholic community, the Hindu community, the Coptic and Orthodox community, the Jewish community, the Sikh community, the Islamic community and a range of other faith communities do not believe they have been consulted meaningfully. And as the ad said yesterday:

We … urge the Government to conduct meaningful consultation with faith groups and other stakeholders which will be in the interests of all Victorians.

I could not agree more. As I think my colleague the Leader of the Opposition said, no-one deserves to lose their job because of their sexuality. That is above and well beyond this discussion. What this discussion is about is a legislative instrument that the government is bringing into this house to achieve a political outcome, and I think it is regrettable that politics has been allowed to dominate this discussion when this is an important issue and we do really need to bring the community with us.

Mr KENNEDY (Hawthorn) (11:37): The Attorney-General in the question and answers document said:

[QUOTE AWAITING VERIFICATION]

We will better balance the right to equality with the right to religious freedom, ensuring protection and promotion of both rights.

I am sure that there are people who are better able than I am to more eloquently and more thoughtfully express the right to equality; however, I venture to speak on the right to religious freedom, ensuring protection and promotion of both rights. I have always been a practising but questioning Catholic. It has been a privilege to serve as president of the Association of Teachers in Victorian Catholic Secondary Schools, which is now part of the Independent Education Union, on the Catholic Education Commission of Victoria and as president of the Principals Association of Victorian Catholic Secondary Schools. The church, like many other denominations and non-Christian faiths and so on, has achieved much in its care and advocacy of those in need—not just Catholics.

When I look around this chamber, I find it interesting to observe the disproportionate number on both sides of the house who went to non-government schools—well out of proportion to those numbers within the state. Now, I am not sure what that tells you. Maybe we want to say that people who have got some eye to service of one kind, public service and so on, may have had some of that fostered in their non-government schools. I will just put that there.

I would also like to say that whilst I had 41 years in Catholic schools, 30 as principal of Loyola College in Watsonia, during that time I completed a bachelor of theology degree from the United Faculty of Theology of the Melbourne College of Divinity, so I have a really strong interest in this, and I can see that it is something that cannot just be ignored and that has to be addressed.

Now, we have had a few arguments about process, about how much consultation and so on. My limit of three years in this place has taught me a great deal. One thing is that people who say ‘Delay’ or ‘There is not enough consultation’ very often just simply do not like it and it is a means. I have finally worked that out.

I want to move along and just say a few other things. The questions and answers document, which I presume many others have seen, rightly emphasises contemporary experience and understandings of the right to equality for gender, marital status and sexual orientation. What I am going to do today is just say a little bit about the right to religious freedom, which is part and parcel of this particular piece of legislation. I would like to just mention the discussion that took place at the federal level with the Greens’ Discrimination Free Schools Bill 2018, which took place just a couple of years ago. One of the speakers was Senator Wong, who is a staunch supporter of the LGBT, and she said this:

Labor does respect the Australian people. We will treat this legislation in the mature way it deserves. We will treat this legislation in the mature way the Australian community deserves. Regrettably, they have been denied such an approach by the government. We respect the right of parents to send children to the school of their choice and to have their children educated in accordance with their religious convictions. We respect that many parents choose religious schools because they want their children to be grounded in the identity and mission of a particular faith. We also respect that religious schools, and parents of students, are entitled to require employees to act in their roles in ways that uphold the ethos and values of that faith, and that this requirement may be taken into account when a person is first employed and in the course of their employment.

And I believe that we here at the state level have been saying much the same thing. I think we just need to understand that the legislation is in one sense bigger than what could be seen by some as a circumscribed ‘inherent requirement’, because—in my view, anyway, and my experience—such an inherent requirement incorporates a variety of commodities, including incidental requirements and a critical mass as applied to selecting, promoting and terminating teaching and non-teaching staff. So, for example, I think it could be true that this does not apply to the gardener or the office staff—but it may very well apply to the office staff. It may be argued that the office staff have quite a connection with the local established church and so on and so forth.

I believe, in the material I received from the framers and so on of the bill, that it makes clear that in fact the provision allowing a religious individual to discriminate on the grounds of a broad range of protected attributes is still there. I think it is important to recognise that that critical mass can mean that whilst the first and foremost thing should be to have a qualified teacher of physics, it does not follow that there has to be a Catholic physics teacher, for example. But it might mean that there should be a critical mass of teachers, for example, who are adherents of the Catholic faith, and obviously so. So I do not see that the legislation goes against that.

I have been a bit concerned, though, by the needless politicising of this by some of our speakers today.

The member for Murray Plains was mocking us, would you believe, saying, ‘trust us’, ‘tell the truth for once’, ‘wants to go to war’—all that sort of emotive stuff is no substitute for argument and data and what have you. I must say too that I am just a tad disappointed with my own archbishop, fine fellow that he is. It was said that he said:

… a new law aimed at religious organisations is ‘one more unneeded attack by the government upon people of faith in Victoria’.

That sort of sentence could have been written by a member of the Liberal Party, and I am just disappointed to see it expressed in those terms—in terms of an attack on the government and so on. So, I don’t know, he might want to rethink that.

I think that we need to just keep in mind that there is a lot implied in this bill, but a lot of it is, in a way, supportive. In some ways too we may see in history, and hopefully will see in history, that it clarifies some issues as well. It also highlights for employers the importance of indicating up-front what are the expectations. So, for example, the word ‘conduct’ is one that I have been mentioning in preliminary discussions with people. It is the conduct of a staff member that can be so important in terms of their position in a school rather than something that is privately held. In fact it has nothing to do with what is privately held—well, it does, but I think it is the conduct that is the most important thing there. I conclude by, I suppose, wanting to just say that our schools, the ones that I am most familiar with, and I dare say other faith schools, have made enormous contributions, and I am sure in many cases, despite the heat of the matter, that in the light of day they will start to see that in fact it is fairly consistent—quite consistent, one would hope—with their day-to-day operations.

Mr HIBBINS (Prahran) (11:47): It is with great pleasure that I rise to speak on the Equal Opportunity (Religious Exceptions) Amendment Bill 2021, and this is a bill that I and the Greens will be supporting through this Parliament. This bill addresses the significant issues that the Greens along with LGBTIQ+ communities have been advocating for—and fighting for change—and they are the exceptions, the carve-outs, in the Equal Opportunity Act 2010. An act that is supposed to protect people from discrimination instead currently allows for faith-based schools and faith-based organisations and services to discriminate against people on the basis of their sexuality, their gender identity and I think their marital status, which obviously impacts, and I think has been used to impact, sole parents. Now, surely this is an untenable law by any standards, let alone today in 2021, or in fact for the many decades that these provisions have been in place throughout the various iterations of equal opportunity and anti-discrimination laws.

Certainly I agree with the former Attorney General, who did state that this was a long-overdue bill. This certainly is long overdue. Now, it has not always been, I am aware, the government’s position throughout its entire term that these carve-outs should be so reduced. I think previously, when they were elected in 2014, it was about, ‘Well, you can’t discriminate against the gardener, but you can against the maths teacher’. Then before the next election there were obviously commitments made, and now in the third year of government they are coming through—because if we did not get them through in this term of Parliament, the risk was: who knows what would happen in the next term. There was a real risk that they would never get through.

Now, in making this contribution I certainly note that many faith-based schools and many organisations do a fantastic job when it comes to equality, but the law as it stands and the need for this bill is clear.

Firstly, the fact that discrimination is allowed means a teacher could face the sack, a student could be expelled or a homeless person could be denied access to a service simply because they are gay or transgender. Secondly, even if the discrimination is not so overt, and this goes to how insidious these laws are, the threat of discrimination, the risk of discrimination are still there and they can prevent people from living as who they are, forcing them to stay in the closet, as the saying goes, and not live consistently with the gender they identify with. I have heard from teachers in my own electorate who will not go for jobs at a faith-based school lest they experience discrimination when applying. Why should teachers, students, social workers or service users like people who are experiencing homelessness or family violence risk going through a door where they may be discriminated against? For young people in particular, who may have been kicked out of home because of religious discrimination and who then need to access a faith-based service, many of them simply will not do it because of that fear of the risk of discrimination. That is just how insidious these laws are.

Finally, like those Victorians who are protected by the Equal Opportunity Act, no matter how good an organisation or a school may be, if a person feels that they have been discriminated against they should have recourse under the law, and under the law as it stands when it comes to faith-based organisations they do not. It takes many brave people to be able to speak out when they feel or when they face this discrimination. It is little wonder many people in their contributions already in this debate from the opposition or when I first raised this or spoke to the government about my private members bill some time ago indicate that it is not a problem: ‘We don’t hear about this’. Well, if people do not have recourse under the law, of course you are not going to hear about it because they have nowhere to go. It takes someone to be brave enough to then actually put their hand up and come forward.

There are, as I will outline later on, and as has been mentioned by the former Attorney-General, examples of where people have experienced discrimination under these laws, so the importance of this bill cannot be overstated. We look at Evie, a transgender student who as a 10- or 11-year-old at a religious primary school was made to attend seven chaplaincy sessions designed to prevent her from affirming her gender as female. This was done without the knowledge of her parents. This bill will mean that people like Harley will not be counselled against disclosing their sexuality when staying in a faith-based family violence refuge. It means that teachers will be protected from losing their jobs after disclosing their sexuality, like Sam, who was forced to resign from Flinders Christian Community College, or John, who worked in Catholic schools for 37 years, 20 of those as a principal, and spent the whole time hiding his identity. So there are examples where the law as it stands has meant that people have experienced discrimination, and this causes real, deep and lasting harm to people, to the LGBTIQ+ community, who are already facing higher rates of bullying, harassment and violence. It has a major impact on people’s mental and physical health. If we allow discrimination in our laws, we are creating schools, workplaces, services where same-sex attracted and gender-diverse people have no protection.

The current exemptions, as I said, have meant that school students could be denied enrolment, excluded from activities, expelled from religious schools for being trans or same-sex attracted, and unmarried or pregnant people could be denied support—that could be housing, emergency aid, counselling. This is just not acceptable, and it is certainly out of step with the values of the overwhelming majority of Victorians. When I say the overwhelming majority of Victorians, I also refer to our multicultural communities and our faith communities.

These are the standards that I see, and I have certainly engaged with our multifaith and multicultural communities on matters of equality. I see the change that has gone on within those organisations but also the views of so many people of faith who support equality.

So the bill includes a number of changes that the Greens and advocates have been fighting for for many years. This will make a tangible difference, and whilst we are always looking at ways to strengthen the protections against discrimination, make no doubt this bill will make a tangible difference, a real difference, to people’s lives by protecting them from discrimination at religious schools and organisations. The bill removes the ability for religious schools to discriminate on the basis of people’s sexuality, gender identity, sex, lawful sexual activity, marital status or parental status. The same applies to religious organisations that receive state government funding. They will not be able to discriminate on the basis of sexuality, gender or family situation. Both those bodies will continue to be able to offer their services or have an organisation or a school for people of certain religious beliefs. When they are looking to discriminate on the basis of religion, it has got to be reasonable and proportionate.

The bill also adds an inherent requirement test for employers at religious schools and organisations so they might only discriminate on the basis of religion if it is an inherent part of the role and it is applied consistently and is reasonable and proportionate. I think that is a really important part of it—to say, ‘Well, if a school does decide that it wants to use these provisions that allow for discrimination on the basis of religion, they cannot just simply pick and choose’, and to say, ‘If someone does happen to come out or transition gender, they can’t then decide, “Oh well, we might be allowing some other people who don’t adhere to our faith to teach at or attend our school, but we are just going to nominate you”’. I think that is a really important protection.

Now, look, these are good protections. They are not necessarily watertight. There are still loopholes in the act that could see discrimination continue, but have no doubt, this is a significant improvement for protecting LGBTIQ people and their communities. This is not an attack on religion, no matter how much it might be so framed. There are still protections that ensure religious schools and organisations can hire people of faith as religious instruction teachers or as principals, for example—no changes to the way that clergy are hired and trained. It simply removes the right to discriminate on the basis of gender identity, sexuality and other protected attributes.

Look, to be honest, if you are running a school or running a service and you think you need these existing exemptions to discriminate against teachers and students, with all the damage that that does to a person, well, maybe it is time to have a bit of a think about why you are running a school or why you are running a service. Those who do want to continue with these provisions are just kidding themselves if they think like that, because all they are really doing is forcing people to hide who they are and hide who they are at their schools and services.

Now, these changes have certainly been something that the Greens and LGBTIQ+ organisations have been advocating for for many years. I would certainly like to thank and acknowledge the work of the pride lobby, Equality Australia, Minus18, Thorne Harbour Health and the many organisations and individuals that have advocated tirelessly for these changes. Since the Greens were first elected to Parliament it has been a priority to amend the Equal Opportunity Act to remove these types of discriminations against students and teachers. In fact it was as far back as 2007 that Sue Pennicuik, a former MP in the other place, sought to amend the then Equal Opportunity Act to remove the provisions that allowed for discrimination in religious schools, and she again tried to get rid of those exemptions in 2011.

Since I was first elected, with the support of my upper house colleagues I have introduced three private members bills to address these issues. The first was debated and voted down by Labor and the Liberals in the upper house with next to no reason given as to why; the second was in 2018 in this chamber, which was voted down, again at the first reading; and in 2020 my colleague Samantha Ratnam introduced the Equal Opportunity Amendment (Equality in Schools) Bill 2020, which is currently on the notice paper. Now, one of the big challenges in fighting for reform in this area has been that the wider public have just not been that well aware of these exemptions. In fact it was not until the Ruddock review into religious freedoms for the federal government came out in late 2018 that people realised the possibility of such discrimination—that teachers could be sacked or students could be expelled for being gay or transgender—was even a thing. There was outrage, quite rightly so, and it was at that point that I committed to introducing that private members bill to this place on day one of the new Parliament, which I did do.

Now, in consulting with advocates and members of the LGBTIQ+ community I have heard that this bill could be stronger and that there are other sections of the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 that could be used as a way to discriminate. Certainly we will take their advice and look at ways that we may seek to amend this bill when it comes to the other place. I know there are concerns around gaps in the bill, around the loophole in section 42 of the act that could still permit religious schools to discriminate against LGBTIQ students if the school community, the parents, support this discrimination. It could mean that students would still not be free to wear the uniform of their gender identity or use the appropriate bathrooms or change rooms, and it may mean that students would still need to hide their identity for fear of discrimination. Certainly this is not something that would be tenable. Also, as has been noted I think in Tasmania, this ability to discriminate against students on the basis of religion only exists at the time they enrol, which is not the case with this bill. And of course this would address the situation where if a young person who is growing up and may be coming to terms with their gender identity and sexuality changes their religious beliefs, they should be free to do so without fear of reprisal from their school.

Also, in relation to government-funded services, the issue that has been raised with me by the community is that when someone is in crisis and they need to access housing support, emergency aid, family violence support or any other services which a faith-based organisation is providing, how do they know if they are accessing a service that is state funded, commonwealth funded or privately funded? Again, this could just lead to those similar issues that I mentioned before, where a person, having already faced discrimination, possibly at home, does not know whether they are going to face discrimination when they go through that door, creating an untenable situation.

One of the other opportunities that has also been missed in this bill is that it does not restore the powers of the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission. These powers were taken away by the previous Liberal government. The Greens have previously called for the commission to be able to conduct public inquiries, enter enforceable undertakings and issue compliance notices. The commission should have the power to order someone to provide information and documents and to order witnesses to attend and answer questions. Certainly if we are going to crack down on discrimination, we need to make sure the commission has the powers to follow through and to address the systemic causes of discrimination.

Now, before I finish I just want to address some of the points that have been raised by the opposition. For the opposition there always seems to be a reason and there always seems to be an excuse. They want to wait for the religious freedom review. Well, hasn’t that just dragged on forever? I mean, that has been going on for years now. If anyone wants to wait for that—that is off into the never-never. I think originally that was the position of the government, that they wanted to wait for that to occur before proceeding with this bill. I think it has been very clear for a long time that that was simply just untenable.

It was in fact in 2018 when the Prime Minister, in response to the outrage over the Ruddock review, said that he was committed to protecting students from discrimination at faith-based schools, and what has happened to that? That has come to absolutely nought. Then there are always the excuses of ‘consultation’, ‘It hasn’t been properly drafted’, ‘There are some issues’. They are just excuses so they can go out and tell one group, ‘We support equality’ but tell another group, ‘We oppose the bill’. I mean, these are really the same old tactics we are hearing from the Liberals and the opposition about why they cannot support a bill that improves equality for LGBTIQ+ Victorians.

So for all the points that I have raised and some of the tightening that can be done with this bill, I do want to say that I am incredibly pleased that these laws are being brought forward. I wish them a speedy passage through both houses of Parliament. Should they pass, and I hope they will, they will have a tangible and lasting impact on the lives of LGBTIQ+ Victorians. So I want to thank all those who have pushed to see this change. I certainly acknowledge the government and the Attorney-General for putting forward this bill. It is something that the Greens and I have been pushing for for a long time, and so I commend this bill to the house.

Ms WARD (Eltham) (12:06): In my opening comments in my support for this bill I would like to talk about the fact that it is actually quite disturbing that the way to debate an issue in this place has come down to who can be the better Catholic, who can adhere the most to Catholic doctrine, who can be the purest Catholic in this place. If that is really the crux of your debate, of your objection to this—that you are a better Catholic and so therefore you want to entrench discrimination—I would suggest that your Catholic upbringing has not been as good or as thoughtful or as purposeful as, let us say, the Catholic upbringing of the member for Hawthorn, who I think describes himself very, very well as a questioning Catholic. That is what I would think all Catholics, all good Catholics, would consider themselves to be—a questioning Catholic. This was what my experience was growing up as a Catholic, and I believe it was also the experience of the member for Frankston, who also put forward his experience as a Catholic teacher in a Catholic school. I see the member for Altona nodding her head, another fellow Catholic in this place brought up in the Catholic faith who is also a questioning Catholic.

I think that when you are really trying to say, ‘I am the better Catholic in this place and therefore my will should be followed’, that is not the Catholic debate that I was brought up to believe in. The Catholic debate that I was taught was debated on its merits. But I was also taught about compassion and fairness. I was taught about kindness. That was essential to my Catholic teaching, and it is disappointing that we are not seeing that reflected in some others in this place. I think it is disappointing that instead of actually talking about the merits of this bill, we are seeing a reversion to yet more fear, yet more division, yet more hate coming from some of those opposite.

I really want to compare the debate that was offered from the member for Murray Plains and from the member for Mornington, one of which was emotive, was filled with bile, was filled with division, and one who thoughtfully spoke through his process—which was the member for Mornington. I have to say, I cannot understand with somebody who is as hardworking and thoughtful and cares about the parliamentary process like the member for Mornington does that his party would see fit to challenge him for preselection. I think that is incredibly disappointing and is a reflection more on the current state of the Liberal Party than it is on the member for Mornington, who is an excellent parliamentarian.

I want to draw your attention to kindness. Colossians 3:12 says:

Therefore, as God’s chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience.

At the time that we are in in this state, these words have never been more important.

The need for kindness, the need for communities to come together and the need for people to feel included and to feel a part of our state has never been more important. It is very important for the government to show how important inclusion is.

I will tell you a story that I experienced in high school. A friend of mine at my Catholic high school, her mum, a Catholic, was principal of a school, a Catholic girls school. She had to step down from her position because she became divorced, and that was not accepted at that point. So her whole career was derailed because she chose to leave a bitterly unhappy, damaging relationship. The church has moved on since then. We do not see that as much anymore. We see inclusion, and we see an acceptance of the realities of modern life.

This bill speaks to that. This bill removes yet another layer of discrimination. It is really, really disturbing that those opposite actually want to portray this government as being anti-religion, as wanting to smash religion and as having no respect for religious beliefs. That is an abhorrent thing to say, and it is incorrect. What it is is an attempt to make people angry, not to engage with the merits of the bill. It is about making people angry through misinformation. To go down that path, as we are seeing those opposite do so often—that Trumpian path of non-truths, of lies and of misinformation to drum up anger, to drum up fear and even to drum up violence—is wrong, and this is not what this legislation is about.

This legislation, as others have said before me, is if you are a gardener at a school, your sexual identity, your gender identity, has nothing to do with where you are employed. If you are teaching religious doctrine, if you are teaching the teachings of your faith, that is quite a different occupation, and having to follow the practice and the teachings of the religion you follow is an important part of that job. So when we see those opposite saying, ‘You don’t employ anyone in your electorate offices who aren’t a member of the Labor Party’, that is quite different. That is not the same example at all.

I really think that those opposite need to work through their values and what it is that they actually stand for, because if they stand for separation, if they stand for discrimination, then possibly they are in the wrong job—because I believe that it is the role of everybody in this place to be inclusive of every Victorian in this state, to represent every Victorian in this state and to help every Victorian in this state to follow the pathway that they want to, to have the opportunities open to them that they need and to not be discriminated against based on their gender, on their gender identity or on their sexuality. The sexuality of another person that I work with is not my business, nor is it my place to judge them or to prevent them from fulfilling their career aspirations solely because of those characteristics. I think it is disappointing that we are seeing a lack of support for helping people to avoid being discriminated against.

Now, we have been here before. We have had legislation that protected people, which those opposite repealed. We brought legislation to this house in 2016 that those opposite did not support and did not support in the Legislative Council, despite the fact it was an election commitment made by this government—this government that won the election in which we made that commitment. We then won another election 2018, where we made this commitment again, and here we are. And yet we still may see those pretend to engage in a crusade—and I use that word deliberately—to protect the true believers of this state. Nothing could be further from the truth. What those are interested in is cheap populism. They are interested in dividing, they are interested in causing hurt, they are interested in causing pain and they are interested in breaking this state apart, because they see the only path to government is through division, is through hurt and is through fear. That is because, as I have said in this place many times—and those opposite have done nothing to change my mind on this—they are a policy vacuum.

They stand for nothing, they believe in nothing. They will go out there and they will talk to people who have gallows, they will talk to people who are saying terrible things, they will talk to people who will send members of Parliament used condoms in the mail. Those people outside who incite violence, those opposite will go and talk to them. They will put on Facebook ‘Here with all of my closest friends’—shameful. It is shameful to engage in and incite anger, violence, division and hurt.

Those opposite really need to have a good think about what their values are and what they stand for, because it is disappointing to me that I am not seeing what they are. I do not know what they are. All I see is anger, bile and hatred—and I ask them to stop. I ask them to become a part of a community that is inclusive. I ask them to help us look after the people in this state. I ask them to show us how much they care about the people in this state by uniting this state, not trying to divide it, not trying to sow seeds of hurt and hate and division. I support the legislation.

Mr ROWSWELL (Sandringham) (12:16): I also rise to speak on the Equal Opportunity (Religious Exceptions) Amendment Bill 2021, and I intend to do so in three parts. Firstly, I will address what the bill aims to achieve and why I oppose it, the second part being just some general comments and reflections, and finally I will comment on some of the submissions that have been received from stakeholders, including the Institute for Civil Society, religious leaders, Equality Australia, the pride lobby and also representatives of the legal profession.

The bill removes the existing legislative provisions that allow religious bodies to decide who to employ based on certain characteristics, and it introduces new provisions that prevent religious bodies, including schools, from deciding who they employ and if religion is an inherent requirement of an employed position. I oppose this bill because religious freedom is, in my view, a foundational cornerstone of a modern, tolerant, diverse, inclusive and respectful society, and governments, in my view, should not be the arbiters of what does and does not conform to a certain set of religious beliefs. The separation of church and state matters, and these things must be protected and defended as a pillar of our democracy.

Organisations should be allowed to establish, defend and protect their workplace and their culture. I notice that the contents of this bill do not pertain to a non-religious ethos that guides many other schools. An example of that is a Steiner education. A Steiner school, which is guided by the educational philosophy of Rudolf Steiner, promotes an unorthodox school program that limits standardised testing. If a teacher in a Steiner school no longer ascribed to the philosophy of Rudolf Steiner, the school would be allowed to exercise their good judgement and that teacher could be dismissed for not promoting the values and the mission of that school.

The purported aim of this legislation is to address discrimination in our community. However, this very legislation only discriminates against more Victorians. The legislation discriminates against the countless organisations that members of the government take by some measure for granted and their contribution to the Victorian community. Whether it be a Catholic aged-care home, a local synagogue, an Islamic school, the St Vincent de Paul Society, the Salvation Army or a Lutheran bank, these are organisations that contribute to our Victorian community in a particular way, and to discriminate against these organisations in this way is something which I do not agree with.

Just finally on this first part of my contribution, I do note with some hesitation that there are in my view two types of persecution that are occurring in our community at the moment.

The first type is the overt type—the persecution that we see in Afghanistan against moderate Muslims who are seeking to establish a better community and a better society for their people, the overt type that we saw in 2019 when those Christian martyrs were killed in Sri Lanka. But we also see the sort of persecution that is polite, perhaps disguised as culture, modernity and even progress, which ends up taking away freedom and even the right to conscientious objection.

Mark Sneddon, who is a former Crown counsel to Victorian Labor attorneys-general and now heads the Institute for Civil Society, has given a submission to the government in relation to this bill. I note the institute’s concern with the inherent requirement test. I quote from their submission:

Victoria is a pluralistic society that celebrates diversity and inclusion … The ALP, the Catholic Church and Equality Australia are not internally very diverse organisations in their worldviews or mission. But as organisations with strong commitments to particular worldviews, beliefs and missions they help to create and sustain a diverse, pluralistic Victoria. None of these organisations should be compelled by anti-discrimination law to hire or retain people who are not active ambassadors for the cause in word and conduct. But this is what the inherent requirements proposal will do to religious bodies and schools.

The inherent requirements amendment proposed trespasses on several human rights and freedoms … Determining how important it is that a person in a particular position conforms to the religious doctrines, beliefs or principles involves judgments as to the culture and mission and self-definition of the religious organisation and its fidelity to its own religious precepts—a task which is not appropriate for secular institutions and for which they are ill-equipped …

to deal with.

I would then refer to many representations from religious leaders and organisations. Archbishop Comensoli, of course the Catholic Archbishop of Melbourne, wrote to every member of Parliament. In his letter he said, quote:

The proposed legislation diminishes the ability of faith organisations to confidently manage employment matters according to their faith and conscience.

The archbishop went on:

In my own context, Catholic organisations are inclusive and welcoming places, not despite but because they are Catholic … I am particularly concerned that the introduction of an ‘inherent requirement’ test is a serious intrusion into the expression of faith, and an unnecessary instrument of power …

The Government has been unable to identify a single problem in Catholic schools with which this legislation is meant to address …

… this is looking increasingly like a willingness to hurt the rightful expression of religious faith coupled with an extravagant adoption of political power over our lives.

I received a letter, as did other members, from some 695 priests, pastors, ministers, elders and deacons; all of them are greatly disturbed looking at how this bill will strip away religious freedom and cultural rights, putting their churches, Christian schools and organisations, in their view, at risk of litigation and making them vulnerable to attacks by people who disagree with their beliefs and value system. I also received a letter from some 14 religious leaders, including the Bishop of the Anglican Diocese of Melbourne, and Rabbi Dr Shimon Cowen, director of the Institute for Judaism and Civilization and also the son of former Governor-General Sir Zelman Cowen. These leaders all expressed how this bill attacks religious bodies, schools and individuals but how political parties still have the ongoing privilege of being exempt from the Equal Opportunity Act 2010.

Just last night I received another letter from some 14 religious leaders representing the Anglican Diocese of Melbourne—it was agreed to by Hindus, Ukrainian Catholics, members of the Jewish faith, Krishnas, Coptic Orthodox, Sikhs, the Russian Orthodox, the Board of Imams Victoria, the Islamic Council of Victoria and so on. So there is great consternation within religious communities—not just Christian, not just Catholic but a broad range of religious communities—to the introduction of this bill.

I did meet with Equality Australia and the Victorian Pride Lobby in forming my position on this bill. I am personally grateful for the opportunity to speak with Ghassan and Sean and for the stories that they shared with me. I say to them and those that they represent and speak on behalf of that I find the stories they have shared with me particularly tragic and difficult. Those experiences should never be experienced by anyone, but it is my respectful assertion that a legislative change is not the way to deal with the circumstances which both the Victorian Pride Lobby and Equality Australia raised with me.

Finally, I make reference to some comments by those in the legal profession. Patrick Parkinson, who was until recently the dean of law at the University of Queensland, said that:

… the legislation is inconsistent with a number of international human rights norms, particularly those which protect the liberty of parents to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions.

I agree with the amendment moved by the member for Gembrook earlier today. It is clear that the government has not consulted broadly enough. This bill should go back to the drawing board. It is ill considered, and it should be reconsidered.

Ms THOMAS (Macedon—Minister for Agriculture, Minister for Regional Development) (12:26): It really is a privilege to rise today and speak in support of this very sensible and much-needed reform here today. Of course I join many of my colleagues in having spoken already on this bill in the previous term of government. Prior to being elected to this place I had the honour of representing working people, teaching and non-teaching staff, as an organiser with the Independent Education Union here in Victoria. And of course I know there are a number of former members—and indeed they would still be associate members—of that union who have been elected to this place. Firstly, it is a great union, but I have got to take you right back to the 1990s when we were fighting these issues in our schools, defending the rights of people to go about their work with all of the professionalism associated with that and to practise their religious beliefs but also to be who they were, to love who they loved and to identify how they identified—and holding also onto their faith. It was our job in the Independent Education Union to represent those members, and it was a great privilege and honour to hold that role.

This amendment builds on the work of current and previous Labor governments in making it clear to LGBTIQ Victorians that, as we have said many, many times, equality is just not negotiable when it comes to our government. Indeed I would suggest that this is a view that is now held by the majority of Victorians. It extends the same legal protections to staff and students that are rightfully expected in other workplaces across the state. Constituents have written to me, and I have received—I counted them up before—63 letters on this issue. I have responded to every one of those constituents, and I made the point that it is not an attack on religious freedom. It is not about treating religious schools differently. It is in fact bringing those schools much more into the norm that is expected in other workplaces and according the workers in those environments the same rights that are enjoyed by other Victorians.

I do need to reiterate the specifics, because it does seem to me that these are lost on those on the other side. It does not diminish religious schools. It simply does not. It does not infringe on or diminish the ability of those schools to rightfully teach their beliefs to students. It does not change how religious bodies can recruit their leaders, and it does not force schools to hire people who do not support their religious beliefs. It also does not mean that a school is required to accept students of different faiths. What this bill does is achieve a balance between the religious rights of schools where the teaching of central tenets is an important part of the curriculum and the ability of students and employees to be lawfully protected from discrimination based on who they are or who they love.

Under the law as it currently exists—and let us be clear, this is what those on the other side are fighting to maintain—a staff member in a religious school can be legally dismissed on the basis of their sex, their sexual orientation, their lawful sexual activity, their marital status, their parental status or their gender identity, even when these characteristics have absolutely no bearing on that person’s job and the role that they are required to perform. Indeed we know that admin staff, gardening staff, library staff and so on can also similarly be fired on the basis of these, what are in every other facet of life, protected attributes. So these carve-outs for religious schools, for us on this side of the house and for the vast majority of Victorians, are simply unacceptable, because they allow discrimination for the sake of discrimination.

We have also been told that this is a farcical attack on religious schools. Well, this is also nonsense. I would like to point out that we are very proud here on the Labor side of the chamber not only to fund non-government schools in ways that have never been seen before, but also because we have people in our caucus expressing the diversity of religious experience here in Victoria: Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists and Hindus. The world’s major religions are represented and practised by people in our caucus as well as, as my friend the Minister for Creative Industries did point out, agnostics and atheists. But we reflect, I think much better than those on the other side, the diversity of religious belief and experience within Victoria more broadly.

So this is not a farcical attack, but what is farcical is to continue to argue, as those on the other side have done, that this is an attack on religion and religious expression. I take up the member for Hawthorn’s comments too. It was disappointing to see the Catholic archbishop here in the Melbourne diocese seek to politicise what from our point of view, this government’s point of view, is about ensuring fairness and equity—we are bringing schools that are well supported by this government into the 21st century and ensuring that where there is no inherent requirement those schools cannot discriminate on the basis of those attributes that I outlined before.

The other point that I would like to make is that of course, as I said, we have been very proud as a government since we were elected in 2014 to support many reforms that give expression to the equality in our community that should be enjoyed by all Victorians regardless of their sex, their sexual expression or their gender identity. This is yet one other part of that reform. I want to take the opportunity to note that the Shadow Minister for Equality, who sits here on the other side of the chamber, is not on the speaking list for this bill, he will not be making a contribution. I also think it is worth noting, and I thank my friend Ms Harriet Shing in the other place for bringing to my attention and reminding us all, that the Leader of the Opposition, when he was speaking on Joy FM, said that no-one should be sacked from their jobs due to their sexuality.

So it just goes to show what we have seen time and time again from the Liberal Party. They will change their tune depending on who they are talking to. They are just so blatant about it. It is truly embarrassing and pathetic. The Shadow Minister for Equality is too gutless to get up and speak on this bill. We know what you think because we saw it in the leaked shadow cabinet tapes. Why don’t you take on your member for western metropolitan Melbourne in the other place? Why won’t you take on his bigoted—

Mr Wakeling: On a point of order, Speaker, I know the minister at the table is having a rant, but this is not an opportunity to be talking about the opposition. She needs to get back to the bill at hand and make sure that her comments are limited to the bill before the house.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Dimopoulos): Thank you for the point of order. The minister will be mindful of attacking the opposition and will continue with her contribution.

Ms THOMAS: All right. Well, thank you very much. I will take on board your advice, Acting Speaker. This is an important bill. We brought it to this place last term. We were not successful in getting it through the upper house at that time. We have brought it back because we are a party that has beliefs, and we commit to them and we follow them through. We do not flip flop. We do not say whatever suits the audience at any time or place, like those on the other side, and the fact that, again, the Shadow Minister for Equality will not speak on this bill is a disgrace. I commend this bill to the house.

Mr WAKELING (Ferntree Gully) (12:36): I am very pleased to contribute to this debate on the Equal Opportunity (Religious Exceptions) Amendment Bill 2021. This is a debate that I, over the journey of my time here in the Parliament, have had on many occasions, because it seems that the government is on a continual crusade in its attack on some within the Victorian community.

My simple view is that we pride ourselves on the fact that as a society and as a state we have people from a range of different ethnic backgrounds and different religions, and we are enhanced by that. We are enhanced by our multiculturalism, and in fact I attend many events with multicultural groups across the state and have attended with members of the government. There is bipartisan support for those multicultural communities. We stand up here, genuinely stand up together, and support the diversity of our ethnic communities and our various different religious communities. So my position on this bill is simply to state that I support people’s right to express their religious views in accordance with their own culture—be it Christian, be it Islamic, be it Jewish, be it Hindu or any other religion. That is the starting position that I adopt in regard to this bill.

We pride ourselves as a state on the fact that we have diversity in our education setting. People of all political parties stand up in this house and talk glowingly about Catholic and independent schools within their own communities, and so they should. Members of Parliament stand up in this house and support applications for funding investment in those schools. In my own community I have some great Catholic and independent schools that provide fantastic educational opportunities, and we know that a significant number of Victorian parents choose to have their child or children educated in a non-government setting. Now, unless the government is now forming a view that they do not want to encourage non-government education, why would the government be bringing legislation to the house which is clearly attacking those institutions? I mean, I understand that they may not think that that is the intention of the legislation, but this is how it is perceived by those institutions themselves. This is how it is perceived by parents, and that is why I have been lobbied by many parents in my community who are not political activists but are concerned about this legislation. That is why I have been emailed by teachers at many of the schools in my local community about this legislation.

There are many organisations across this state where people are employed because of their beliefs.

The union movement, for example, employs many industrial officers. Yes, they are qualified. Yes, they have experience. However, they rightly employ people based on their political values. I obviously had experience for many years in the industrial relations sector. In fact I have masters qualifications, but that in and of itself would not automatically entitle me to become an industrial officer at the CFMEU and no-one would expect me to.

Let us look closer to home. People in this house employ staff as electorate officers. I would like to see the opportunity now for the government to apply its own principles that say you cannot discriminate and to open it up so that anyone with electorate office experience can apply for a job and not be discriminated against based on their own political values. I have staff with years of experience, but of course they will not be afforded an opportunity to work in a Labor Party member’s office because that person is not a member of the Labor Party. When the government stands up in here and talks about the fact that we are trying to remove discrimination, that people should not be employed based on the values of that organisation, let us not be hypocritical about this debate. What the government is saying is that we are happy to implement this to attack schools, we are happy to implement this in regard to religious institutions, but other organisations like the union movement, like our own staff that we employ in our own electorate offices are a different issue. We are more than happy for people to be discriminated against based on their political views or based on their ideology or based on their value system when it comes to employment in those areas. I am not standing up in this house saying that the union movement should be forced to employ someone who is a supporter of the Liberal Party to be employed as an industrial officer at any of the unions that are affiliated with the ALP. I am not saying that. But what I am saying is do not stand in this house and lecture one section of the community when you are not willing to apply the same philosophy to other organisations.

Can I say that I value the work of our religious institutions. I value our multicultural community. I value the fact the people of the Islamic faith have the opportunity to send their children to an Islamic school, and those parents rightly have an expectation of the form of education that their child will be receiving in that school. Clearly the faith taught in that school is going to be different to the teachings in other religious schools. No-one in this house is saying that should not be the case. I just find it absurd to think that we are now telling institutions, like Islamic schools, like Jewish schools, like Christian schools, that they cannot employ people that do not conform with their faith.

I understand that there are members in the government who genuinely have a different view, but what the reasoned amendment that has been put forward by the member for Gembrook is saying is that there has not been adequate discussion with the affected parties on this issue. You speak to people—

Members interjecting.

Mr WAKELING: Do not take it from me, I am not the affected party. I am not the institutions that are under attack. I am not the one under attack; they are the ones that feel they are under attack. They are the ones that feel as though they are not being adequately engaged. Unfortunately we see a pattern with this government of implementing legislation, claiming that they have negotiated in good faith with stakeholders. If you scratch the surface and you talk to the stakeholders involved, you find there has been either no consultation or lip-service. And lip-service is obviously an information session telling them what the new law will look like. An information session is not consultation. It is critically important that the government stops its attack on these institutions.

That is the way they feel they are being treated by this government.

Now, members of the government might say, ‘We don’t care if independent schools feel like they’re being attacked. We don’t care if faith-based schools are under attack’. That is an issue for the government. That is an issue for members of the government to take up with their own institutions in their own communities. But the communities that I represent and the institutions that I have spoken to have made it very clear to me that they do not feel consulted, that they feel they are under attack and that they do not believe their voices have been adequately heard by this government. I firmly believe that what the government needs to do if it wants to head down this path of challenging the authority of independent schools, if this is the agenda that it wants to go with, is to make sure it consults with the affected parties, because they feel like they are under attack and they feel as though they are not considered to be of any worth by this government.

Ms SETTLE (Buninyong) (12:46): I am delighted to rise to speak on this bill, the Equal Opportunity (Religious Exceptions) Amendment Bill 2021. I have stood quite a few times now in this house and been able to speak for this government on something that we all hold incredibly dear, which is equality—equality for all. As our Premier has said again and again, this is not negotiable.

What I would like to go to first, though, before I go to the substance of the bill, are some of the extraordinary contributions from those on the other side. It is interesting; when I talk to my young sons about the notion of debate and argument they seem to have a much better grasp than those on the other side. All I have heard today is false equivalence just again and again on so many different levels. So, firstly, I think what I found most distressing from the member for Ferntree Gully was this false equivalence between sexual orientation and faith or lack of faith.

There is a very, very fine constituent in my electorate, Gabriel Waldron, and Gabriel wrote to me the other day. He is a committed Christian—an absolutely committed Christian—and a very proud queer man. It is an absolute false equivalence to suggest that they are somehow opposed: faith and one’s sexual orientation. But as the wonderful member for Macedon pointed out, perhaps the reason they are struggling so with this idea on the other side is that their shadow for inequality is unable to stand and speak on this bill. So perhaps that just highlights the impotence on the other side around equality and addressing equality. If their Shadow Minister for Equality cannot stand and speak for equality now and on this bill, then we can only assume he is doing nothing in their chambers when they discuss it. That is how we end up with such an awful and ordinary debate from those on the other side.

The other thing from the member for Ferntree Gully, another classic false equivalence, was around union membership. Look, I really need to point out: I love the union movement. I am a committed unionist myself. But not all unionists are members of the Labor Party. It is quite a separate thing. We do not require Labor Party values to be a member of the union. They have union values. But I would like to highlight, as my friend and colleague the member for Wendouree pointed out during that contribution, that nobody in the union movement can be fired because of their marital status or their sexual orientation. So we have just got another insane false equivalence going on from those on the other side.

Look, I do want to turn to the bill, and many people know in this house that I feel very strongly around matters of equality in this space. It is something that I have worked on and cared about for a very, very long time: since my work at the Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras in the 1980s. As I say, I am really proud that I get to stand up again and again in this house and speak to things that we have done to make sure that that equality is there.

The fact that we created a Minister for Equality in this government was pretty extraordinary, but I think a thing that really mattered was the removal of old criminal convictions, for example. I am old enough to have friends who went through awful, awful times, when they could be convicted because of who they loved. It sounds insane now, and I know my children barely believe me when I tell them, but of course that existed and that hung around in people’s lives. When this government made an apology for the criminalisation of homosexuality, it meant an awful lot to a lot of people. This government again and again has come to prove that equality is non-negotiable.

There was the debate around birth certificates and gender identity—I was really proud to speak again on that—and that we allowed adoption for all couples. Again and again we have passed legislation, and of course most recently, and one that I feel very strongly about, was the Change or Suppression (Conversion) Practices Prohibition Bill 2020. This government said loud and clear: ‘You are not broken, we support you, you do not need changing’. And I would say the same to any teacher out there.

We have extraordinary teachers. We have seen the amazing work that they have done throughout this pandemic. Look, I do not know, but statistically I reckon 10 to 15 per cent of them will be homosexual or have a different, diverse sexual orientation, and it in no way changes their ability to teach or to communicate. Those on the other side continually seek to divide. Again, with this bill, they are trying to set up this false equivalence: that by defending equality we are in some way taking away the rights of religious schools and institutions, which of course is absolute rubbish. If you are in a religious school and your role is to counsel students, then this does not apply. Where this applies is when you are a teacher, when you are a maths teacher or an English teacher. Tell me how your sexual orientation in any way impacts your ability to impart that information to those hungry little minds in the classroom. It is just absolute nonsense. And they would have us believe that in some ways we are discriminating against the schools. Instead, those on the other side have continued to discriminate against the LGBTI community when they raised objections to this and the conversion therapy bill.

I would like to say at this point as well that it is Transgender Awareness Week this week, and I would like to give a big shout-out to my many trans friends out there in the community. I am sure there are a few teachers among them, and I am sure they are doing some extraordinary work, working with our young people.

Sadly, there has been discrimination in the past. I know in Ballarat, the Ballarat Christian College some years ago demanded that their teachers sign a document saying that marriage is just between a man and a woman, which of course we know is absolute rubbish. Mrs Rachel Colvin, who was an English teacher with 10 years experience, refused to sign that document. She refused, she got counselling and she lost her job—that is insanity—a woman who was committed for 10 years to teaching. I do not know what her sexual orientation was—she did not make it public—but she was very clear that she would not sign a document that was divisive at heart. We have got to make sure that people are not put in that position, and that is what this legislation is about.

It is a crying shame that those on the other side continue to do this. It is a kind of political expediency, as the wonderful member for Macedon pointed out. The Leader of the Opposition, when he was on Joy FM, was happy to say that no-one should lose their jobs because of their sexual orientation, and then he comes into the house and now is sort of trying to score a few brownie points with certain groups, so he says something completely different. We have seen nothing but flip-flopping from the Leader of the Opposition on this and many, many issues, and it just seems to continue. It is incredibly sad that at the desk here we have a shadow minister for inequality who will not stand up and speak for equality. He will not stand up and speak on this bill, this important bill.

I find it pretty extraordinary that we are in this place at this time discussing this.

Look, I want to really, really commend this bill to the house. As I say, we have extraordinary teachers. This government has supported them all the way through the pandemic, and they have done wonderful work with all of those students. I know that a fair percentage of them will be very, very glad to see this bill go through. As this government has said time and time again—and it is really a strong, strong mantra for me—equality is not negotiable. Those on the other side can negotiate for their political lives. They can try and win and curry favour with people as they like, but this government will not. We will stand firm that equality is everybody’s right. Everybody has the right to be safe in their employment regardless of their sexual orientation, and I am very, very proud to be a part of this government, which continues to put equality first and foremost in all that we debate. I commend the bill to the house.

Ms SULEYMAN (St Albans) (12:56): It is an honour to speak after the member for Buninyong and her contribution on the Equal Opportunity (Religious Exceptions) Amendment Bill 2021 in the short time that I do have. We have seen some excellent contributions on our side of the house so far when it comes to this critical legislation that really does affect all Victorians. It delivers on our promises of 2014 and 2018 to better protect LGBTIQ+ and other Victorians from discrimination.

We all have our own stories when it comes to discrimination. As the first woman of Muslim faith to be elected to this Parliament, I am extremely proud to be part of the Andrews Labor government, which is making sure to close every loophole when it comes to discrimination in our community. But I too know that discrimination continues to be very much alive in our communities—it is very sad to say. As someone who grew up with Turkish-Cypriot heritage, as a daughter of migrants, who saw discrimination against our communities, that shaped my views towards being part of the Labor movement. One of the many reasons that I ended up being part of the Labor movement with my family was the sense of multiculturalism—the sense of our party really embracing multiculturalism.

I did have a lot of, I probably have to say, similar stories that many other ethnic communities would share with me—stories of discrimination based on your religion, based on your surname, based on where you live, based on your ethnicity, based on your religion, and the list can go on. We are seeing this more and more. You say you are in 2021, and you are seeing more and more of these stories. Really, really disturbing for me is what is being portrayed in the media, what is being portrayed outside our own house—the Parliament, the place of the people. You wonder what is going on not just in Victoria but globally with the sense of the peddling of fear, division, hate and aggression on issues, rather than, where there are differences of opinion, being respectful to one another and, as we have heard today on the other side of this place, showing care, compassion and kindness.

This amendment is long overdue. I mean, we are having an argument, or a debate, I would say, in relation to making sure that there is no discrimination for individuals across our state, whether it is on religious grounds or whether it is about who they choose to be with or who they are. I mean, I just find it really extraordinary. I am very proud that it is our government that is taking these steps to make sure that we have an inclusive, kind and compassionate community for everyone.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Dimopoulos): Order! I am reluctant to break now, because it is such a powerful contribution, but it is time to break for lunch. The member will have the call when we resume discussion on the bill.

Sitting suspended 1.00 pm until 2.01 pm.

Business interrupted under resolution of house of 16 November.

Questions without notice and ministers statements

Public Health and Wellbeing Amendment (Pandemic Management) Bill 2021

Mr GUY (Bulleen—Leader of the Opposition) (14:01): My question is to the Premier. The president of the Victorian Bar, Ms Roisin Annesley, QC, yesterday stated that individuals detained under the government’s pandemic proposals should be entitled to an independent judicial merits-based review of their detention by a court. Does the Premier oppose independent review of Victorians detained under this new pandemic proposal?

The SPEAKER: I made a ruling yesterday drawing everyone’s attention to standing order 107. We cannot refer to a debate pending in the Council, so I ask the Premier to answer the question only in so far as it relates to matters not pending in the Council—broad policy issues.

Mr ANDREWS (Mulgrave—Premier) (14:02): Then in accordance with your ruling I will be fairly limited in what I can say. What I will say, consistent with your ruling, is that we believe that through a thorough process of consultation over many, many months, learnings from the practical experience of this one-in-100-year event and the good work of both the parliamentary counsel as well as the Department of Health assisted by central agencies and others, we have put forward to the Parliament a balanced, proportionate set of arrangements that are well in advance, well in excess in every good sense of that term, that build on in a positive way, I should say, those arrangements that were there under the Public Health and Wellbeing Act. These are pandemic-specific powers. They should be read down in that context and in the urgency and the gravity of what a global pandemic of a wildly infectious virus means. We are not talking about games here, we are talking about people’s lives. For all of those reasons, not least of which, I should add, the favourable comparisons with the arrangements and provisions in New South Wales—in fact in excess of the arrangements in New South Wales. While I am on my feet let me be very clear about what occurred, as we understand it, in New South Wales yesterday: Minister Hazzard saw fit to essentially sign orders or at least give notice that he was going to sign orders not to deliver what the bill that we have been debating delivers. He has already got those powers—and more. What he was talking about yesterday was going even further—

Mr Guy: On a point of order, Speaker, on relevance, noting the Premier referred to pandemic powers. It is those I am asking about—as to why he opposes independent review of Victorians detained under them. I did not ask about any other state.

The SPEAKER: Order! The Premier has been relevant to the question. The Premier.

Mr ANDREWS: Indeed, Speaker. Part of a global pandemic are that the things that happen beyond the borders of the great state of Victoria are relevant. I am terribly sorry, Leader of the Opposition.

A member interjected.

Mr ANDREWS: Well, indeed. And the most recent outbreak that we had to deal with, as well as the people of many other states in our nation and the people of New Zealand, came from New South Wales actually—the gold standard, it came from New South Wales. In any event, for all of those reasons, not least of which the favourable comparison with arrangements in New South Wales—greater oversight, greater accountability, more checks and balances—and a similar favourable comparison with arrangements in New Zealand, the government, a majority of members in this house, and through the passage of the second-reading debate a majority in the other house, at least at a second-reading stage, agree that this is a balanced set of arrangements. Not wanting to offend the ruling you have made and the advice you have given me, I shall go no further.

Mr GUY (Bulleen—Leader of the Opposition) (14:05): The powers the Premier referred to—Victorians can be detained under with no independent merits-based judicial review—I ask: on what precedent was that based?

Mr ANDREWS (Mulgrave—Premier) (14:05): I cannot be certain the member for Bulleen, as he would have been then—he might have been in the other place at that time. I am not certain what position the now Leader of the Opposition took on the Public Health and Wellbeing Act when it was amended or when it was actually rewritten in 2008. He was in the Parliament at that time—

Ms Green: He wasn’t the member for Yan Yean.

Mr ANDREWS: He was not the member for Yan Yean—and what a costly exercise that was. He was not the member for Yan Yean. The people of Yan Yean knew better, didn’t they, member for Yan Yean.

The SPEAKER: Order! The Premier to come back to answering the question.

Mr ANDREWS: Presumably the Leader of the Opposition voted for that bill, and it is from that bill and that act that these powers are derived. Instead of scaremongering and finding fault for its own sake, the Leader of the Opposition ought to read the bill before he bags it.

Ministers statements: mental health funding

Mr ANDREWS (Mulgrave—Premier) (14:06): I am delighted to update the house on the government’s full delivery of the recommendations of Australia’s first and only royal commission into mental health. We know that there is no health without mental health, and we know that the Victorian mental health system is fundamentally broken. That is not to criticise the dedicated professionals who work within it. That is simply an acknowledgement that we can and we must do better to save lives and change lives. That is why we as a government have accepted not just the recommendations that were cheap, easy and nice—you know, the easy, the low-hanging fruit. We have recommended all the recommendations, all of them, just as we said we would do some three years ago.

Today, with my honourable friend the Deputy Premier and Minister for Mental Health, we are very pleased to make announcements in relation to youth prevention and recovery centres. These are home-style environments where clients can either step down after an acute admission when they do not need to be in hospital but are not quite ready to go back to home—they can transition through the PARC system—or a client, a mental health consumer, who does not quite need acute care but might, for instance by reason of a medication change, need some added support in a hostile environment. They can step up into these PARC facilities.

It is $141 million; 900 extra Victorians will get help, support and care closer to home in a safe, family, consumer-led environment every single year because of these investments. It is a fundamental investment in saving lives and changing lives. It is part of the recommendations of the royal commission, each and every one of which is being delivered by our government in not only the biggest boost to funding in the history of our nation and a globally significant investment to get better outcomes for those who live with mental illness, but us doing what we said we would do.

Public Health and Wellbeing Amendment (Pandemic Management) Bill 2021

Mr GUY (Bulleen—Leader of the Opposition) (14:09): My question is again to the Premier. On what grounds will the government not accept the advice of the president of the bar council, Ms Roisin Annesley, QC, that either house of the Parliament should be allowed to disallow a pandemic order?

The SPEAKER: Subject to my previous ruling, the Premier.

Mr ANDREWS (Mulgrave—Premier) (14:09):Again, conscious of the ruling that you had made earlier, Speaker, I will not offend your advice and guidance, and again I will refer the Leader of the Opposition to my previous answer.

The Leader of the Opposition—and this is rather at odds with the period of time that he was in government—apparently the new standard is that there has to be unanimity of view. There has to be absolute agreement from everyone. I do not recall that being a feature of his time as a minister of the Crown, and I do not recall that being a feature of the government he was a member of, just quietly. But what we have here is a desperate attempt by some to perhaps shift the focus away from the fact that they have spent their time sucking up to extremists.

Members interjecting.

The SPEAKER: Order! Just before calling the Leader of the Opposition on a point of order, again there is too much shouting across the chamber and from the public galleries as well, which are part of the chamber. Members should be aware I can see members who are interjecting from the public galleries section of the chamber, and they will be removed from that part of the chamber as well if they shout. I know it is a jovial point but it is a serious point as well, and members should reflect on their orderly behaviour in the chamber.

Mr Guy: On a point of order, Speaker, on relevance, I asked a simple question, which was: ‘On what grounds’. It is a simple question to the Premier about advice he had taken. I ask you to bring him back to answering it.

The SPEAKER: I do ask the Premier to come back to answering the question.

Mr ANDREWS: Speaker, consistent with your ruling, I have referenced the grounds: consultation, the work across my department, the Department of Health, experiences throughout the pandemic and learnings in both our state and our nation, and globally, and of course the legislative experience in New South Wales and New Zealand. So that is the answer strictly to the question.

But I am asked in a broader context about the pandemic, about laws, about debate. I do not want to offend the ruling that you have made, Speaker. It is absolutely clear: for some people, they might have become the leader of their party by sucking up to extremists, but if you want to be the leader of the state you have got to do a little bit better than that. You have got to do a little bit better than that. What I would say, Speaker, in answer to the Leader of the Opposition: just imagine if over the last two years we had a pandemic response crafted by someone beholden to extremists, beholden to anti-vaxxers, beholden to Nazis and Neo-Nazis, beholden to people who think gallows—

Members interjecting.

The SPEAKER: The member for Bayswater and the member for Evelyn can leave the chamber for the period of 1 hour.

Members for Bayswater and Evelyn withdrew from chamber.

Ms Staley: On a point of order, Speaker, you have repeatedly ruled that question time is not an opportunity for the government to attack the opposition. The Premier is making outrageous slurs—

Members interjecting.

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Ringwood can leave the chamber for the period of 1 hour.

Member for Ringwood withdrew from chamber.

Ms Green interjected.

The SPEAKER: And the member for Yan Yean.

Member for Yan Yean withdrew from chamber.

Ms Staley: so I would ask you to enforce your many previous rulings on this topic and ask the Premier to desist.

Mr ANDREWS: On the point of order, Speaker, I am asked about matters that are currently before the Parliament. I am limited in the detail in which I can go to those, but I can, as I understood it, speak in broader terms. I can also canvass alternatives, alternative points of view. Let us hope Hansard got that and that there is a clear recognition from this moment that in the point of order that the member for Ripon has just raised, accusing me of ‘outrageous slurs’, she has been more condemning of me than the Leader of the Opposition will be of the extremists on the front steps of this building.

Members interjecting.

The SPEAKER: Order! I did not hear the Premier reference his remarks towards any member of this place. The Premier to continue.

Mr ANDREWS: As I was saying, we have put forward a balanced, measured, necessary set of powers that should be read down for the purpose for which they were designed: specific to a pandemic, a wildly infectious and deadly virus—this one and whatever might come to us in the future. Let us hope that many of these powers never have to be used, but this is a balanced set of arrangements that is well in excess from accountability, from an oversight point of view—checks, balances, safeguards. It is well and truly beyond the provisions in New South Wales—and of course not a word from those opposite about arrangements in New South Wales other than fawning over them. If you love New South Wales so much, well, off you go. You will not be missed here. New Zealand as well—

Members interjecting.

Mr ANDREWS: Well, now I should grow up, should I? You go and denounce. Sucking up to extremists will not get you the leadership of this state.

Members interjecting.

Mr GUY (Bulleen—Leader of the Opposition) (14:15): Noting concerns from Liberty Victoria and the law institute and further from the president of the bar association, who have said that the only amended issues in this proposal of the government are around low order and failing to amend the big issues such as detention orders or disallowable instruments, why did the Premier only focus on the smaller issues rather than amending the proposals from the very start?

Members interjecting.

The SPEAKER: Order! The house will come to order. It seems like both sides of the house are happy to debate an issue that is pending in the Council, but it is my role to uphold the standing orders, and standing order 107 says that this house is not to debate matters that are pending in the Council. We have trod a very fine line in talking about policy issues. I think substantive question number 2 was okay, but this question has simply referenced the bill, replacing the word ‘bill’ with ‘proposal’. I would ask the Leader of the Opposition to ask a different question as a supplementary.

Mr GUY: Noting the concerns around the government’s policy issues surrounding pandemic response, why has the government only bothered to change issues that relate to low order rather than the higher order issues such as detention orders, which the Premier has previously referred to, and disallowable instruments?

Mr ANDREWS (Mulgrave—Premier) (14:16): I do thank the Leader of the Opposition for his reference to ‘the low order’—from a priceless low-roader. As if you would be taking lectures from the Leader of the Opposition. He was a low-roader last time—

The SPEAKER: Order! The Premier will resume his seat. The Premier knows question time is not an opportunity to attack members of the opposition.

Mr ANDREWS: These are—

A member: Grow up.

Mr ANDREWS: Oh, so being lectured on the maturity of debate—

The SPEAKER: Order! I ask the Premier to resume his seat.

Mr ANDREWS: from people who suck up to extremists, are beholden to extremists—

Members interjecting.

The SPEAKER: Order! I ask the Premier to resume his seat. The member for Caulfield can leave the chamber for the period of 1 hour.

Member for Caulfield withdrew from chamber.

Mr ANDREWS: As I was saying, these are a set of proposals that have been put forward, and they are balanced. They are replete with safeguards, checks and balances. That is not to say that they are necessarily supported by every person across the state. They are not supported by those opposite, for instance. They are not supported by their mates to whom they are beholden—their anti-vax, right wing, extremist mates.

A member: Grow up.

Mr ANDREWS: Grow up? Well, you call them out and then we will stop referring to it. Until then, this will be yours. You will own this for a long, long time.

Members interjecting.

The SPEAKER: Order! The house will come to order.

Ministers statements: level crossing removals

Ms ALLAN (Bendigo East—Leader of the House, Minister for Transport Infrastructure, Minister for the Suburban Rail Loop) (14:18): In 2015 someone stood in the main street of Frankston and said this about our level crossing removal project: it was all talk and no action. This was the Leader of the Opposition. Well, Premier, you must have been channelling Elvis. We have had a little less conversation and a lot more action when it comes to removing dangerous and congested level crossings, because just this weekend there will be seven level crossings removed at Mooroolbark, Lilydale, Edithvale, Bonbeach and Chelsea, and this brings the number to 54—54 dangerous and congested level crossings removed by this government. Only seven level crossings were removed in the full decade before we came to government in 2014. We are removing seven in one weekend alone. On top of that, we made that commitment to remove 50 level crossings by 2022. We are delivering 50 level crossing removals a full year ahead of schedule, and we are not stopping. We are so far ahead of schedule. We increased the number from 50 to 75 by 2025, and we have recently increased that even further to 85 level crossings being removed by 2025.

So from Lilydale to Laverton, from Seaford to Sunbury, we are seeing level crossings across Melbourne—dangerous, congested deathtraps that hold up traffic, that cause problems on our train network—removed at a faster rate than has previously been even contemplated let alone delivered. Victorians have seen with their own eyes that we get on and remove level crossings. They have heard with their own ears how those opposite oppose and complain about each and every level crossing removal site. We have removed 54 level crossings, and we are going to keep on going.

Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission

Ms STALEY (Ripon) (14:20): My question is to the Premier. Former minister Adem Somyurek last week told the anti-corruption commission that the Premier was aware of Labor’s red shirts rorting. Despite statements on multiple occasions that all Labor MPs, including the Premier, would cooperate with the red shirts investigation, members of Victoria Police’s fraud squad have revealed that on 26 June 2019 the general counsel of the Department of Premier and Cabinet confirmed the refusal of Labor MPs to be interviewed. Why didn’t the Premier cooperate with the investigation as he had repeatedly promised to do?

Mr ANDREWS (Mulgrave—Premier) (14:20): I am not sure whether the member for Ripon can name the particular member of the fraud squad who made those comments. I think that might have been a report of a report of a report without a name attached to it, actually. See, facts matter, and doing your research matters. Doing a rip-and-read from a News Limited paper is not the same as actually crafting a question. These matters have been well and truly canvassed. It is not my intention to make a comment in any way, let alone to enter into a debate with people who have been called and have led evidence at an IBAC inquiry. As far as the Ombudsman’s report into these matters is concerned, there was a report, the recommendations were accepted and the Australian Labor Party Victorian branch repaid moneys. The record reflects that I have been drawn on these matters many times, and I stand by the answers and the comments that I have made and the action that the government has taken and indeed the action that Presiding Officers have taken and the action that those opposite have voted for.

Ms STALEY (Ripon) (14:22): Former minister Adem Somyurek also gave evidence to the anti-corruption commission that the Premier was directly engaged in branch stacking. Can the Premier guarantee that all ministerial staff employed by the government are solely focused on ministerial duties and none are engaged in Labor Party factional work?

Mr ANDREWS (Mulgrave—Premier) (14:22): Every member of my government and every member—

Ms McLeish interjected.

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Eildon can leave the chamber for the period of 1 hour.

Member for Eildon withdrew from chamber.

Mr ANDREWS: of staff who work in their offices, whether they be ministerial staff or other staff, are well and truly acquainted with my expectations that they work hard for the people of Victoria in delivering on the commitments that we have made. I will just make the point for the member for Ripon’s benefit: we have not upgraded more than $10 billion worth of schools by accident, we have not removed 50 level crossings by accident, we have not delivered the biggest reform agenda in the prevention of family violence by accident, we have not upgraded more road and rail than any government in the history of this state—and the list goes on and on and on. All of that has come from hard work that has been rewarded with the greatest gift that could be given to any government, and that is a second term. We do not take that for granted. We never have, we never will. Those opposite can reflect as much as they want on their own standards and their own performance. We are going to continue doing the things we said we would do and getting things done.

Ministers statements: regional rail network

Mr CARROLL (Niddrie—Minister for Public Transport, Minister for Roads and Road Safety) (14:23): The list does go on and on, and I am here in my capacity as the public transport minister to report on the Andrews Labor government’s delivery of a world-class regional rail network right across our state. We know of the unprecedented investment of $4 billion with the commonwealth—and I will come to the shadow minister in a minute—on the regional rail revival network. Every regional railway line is being upgraded. We also know that $7.5 billion of rolling stock is being invested in. Forty-seven VLocitys are going into the regional rail network. We are building trains, building trams and building buses—made in Victoria, for Victorians—creating construction jobs and manufacturing and maintenance jobs. We have added 1500 services since we came to office, nearly 800 delivered in regional Victoria—unprecedented. On the Ballarat line—my colleagues the member for Wendouree, the member for Melton and the member for Buninyong—for the first time in Victoria’s history in peak times there is a 20-minute service for Ballarat people living in regional Victoria. We are likely to see this continue to grow, which is why I was very surprised when I got a copy of today’s Weekly Times. In relation to the government’s investment in regional rail during the pandemic, the opposition spokesperson, the member for South-West Coast, said:

… the Government could have saved taxpayers money by giving every nurse and other emergency worker an Uber or taxi vouchers to get to work …

The party of Kennett lives on—cuts and closures. We know the next thought bubble to go through the shadow cabinet will be hitchhiking. That will be their next public transport policy.

Regional rate reform

Ms CUPPER (Mildura) (14:25): My question is for the Minister for Local Government in the other place. After extensive consultation with rural and regional councils and peak bodies, including Rural Councils Victoria, the Municipal Association of Victoria and the Victorian Farmers Federation, last week I formally submitted a proposal for regional rate reform to the Minister for Local Government. Statewide rate reform is needed because of the scandalous disparity between metropolitan and rural/regional rates. Right now a farmer in Buloke is paying six times the rates of a resident in Stonnington for a property of the same value. This might pass the pub test in Toorak, but it falls well short in Birchip. Does the government agree that this disparity is an economic injustice for rural and regional communities?

Ms D’AMBROSIO (Mill Park—Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change, Minister for Solar Homes) (14:26): I thank the member for Mildura for her question. I will make some comments, certainly, with respect to that question, and for any additional information I will certainly ask the Minister for Local Government to follow up in writing. But I do want to say that our government is absolutely committed to supporting rural communities. We know that it is particularly tough for rural councils in terms of financial sustainability, and it is something that has preoccupied our government now for some time—to work with those councils and to work with various industry bodies and communities to find some ways to help them to achieve greater financial sustainability. I really do thank the Independent member for Mildura for that question and for the very strong representations that she has made and continues to make working with many of those local rural communities and of course industry bodies, which all understand very well the challenges—and the growing challenges—facing rural councils.

I know that certainly the Minister for Local Government has had a number of meetings with the member for Mildura. There have been regular engagements that the minister has had, certainly with those councils, and he is certainly very much committed to looking at a range of options, working with those councils, the industry groups and the communities ultimately who are served by those regional and rural councils to work through solutions. I would be very happy to add to my comments here by referring this question for a written response from the Minister for Local Government.

Ms CUPPER (Mildura) (14:28): My proposal to the minister sets out two strategies for reducing this scandalous disparity between rural and regional rates and those of their metropolitan counterparts. Will the government consider those proposals put forward, including a recurrent grant scheme for the most disadvantaged councils and ultimately an equalisation funding system that would level the playing field for all rural and regional councils once and for all?

Ms D’AMBROSIO (Mill Park—Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change, Minister for Solar Homes) (14:29): I thank the member for Mildura for the supplementary question. I understand that the proposal that she refers to, which has been submitted to the Minister for Local Government, is a very comprehensive one. It identifies a number of the challenges, which of course we are very well aware of but also explores a number of options for consideration. I am very confident that the government, through the Minister for Local Government, will be very prepared to consider very carefully all of those options. Certainly there has been some work underway and some decisions made with respect to matters to do with equalised funding systems and the like. However, there are many ways that can be considered and explored to really help achieve ultimately that greater financial sustainability for those rural communities in particular. I certainly again add that the Minister for Local Government will receive from me this particular supplementary question for a response in writing.

Ministers statements: Big Housing Build

Mr WYNNE (Richmond—Minister for Planning, Minister for Housing, Minister for Child Protection) (14:30): I cannot beat my predecessor’s commentary, but I will give it a crack. Monday of this week marked a year to the day that the Premier and I announced the $5.3 billion big build, the single biggest investment in social and affordable housing in Australia’s history. One year on we have made incredible progress to deliver on that promise. There are now over 4000 homes under construction, with 15 000 jobs created for a contract value of $1.7 billion. Homes Victoria has engaged 59 builders, who have started construction on 485 sites: 195 in metropolitan Melbourne and 290 in regional Victoria. This includes some of our fast-start sites, such as 200 homes in Dunlop Avenue, Ascot Vale, 206 homes in Bills Street in Hawthorn and 178 homes at Markham Estate in Ashburton. We have also announced the first round of funding for community housing projects. Some of these projects funded include 152 homes in Brighton East, 118 homes in a project in Wantirna, 99 in Carnegie and a 77-home project in Hampton East.

Homes Victoria, and the Big Housing Build, is already delivering. It is already delivering jobs and a boost to the economy as of course we come out of the pandemic. It is also doing so quite staggeringly, because the benefit-cost ratio is $4.58 for every dollar invested. The Big Housing Build is changing lives, and I am proud to mark the one-year anniversary of this important milestone by our government.

Animal rights activism

Mr WALSH (Murray Plains) (14:32): My question is to the Minister for Agriculture. Twenty-one months ago the state government committed to a parliamentary inquiry’s recommendation for legislating on-the-spot fines for extreme activists who invade farmers’ private property, yet no legislation—

Members interjecting.

The SPEAKER: Order! Government members will come to order.

Members interjecting.

The SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the House! The Leader of The Nationals!

Members interjecting.

The SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the House! The Leader of The Nationals has the call.

Mr WALSH: Twenty-one months ago the state government committed to a parliamentary inquiry’s recommendation for legislating on-the-spot fines for extreme activists who invade farmers’ private property, yet no legislation has been introduced. Why has the minister failed to introduce this important legislation and continued to allow extreme animal activists to trespass on and steal farmers’ private property?

Ms THOMAS (Macedon—Minister for Agriculture, Minister for Regional Development) (14:33): I welcome this question from the member for Murray Plains. The Victorian government is working hard every day to support our agricultural interests here in Victoria. I am very proud of what is being achieved right across the industry as we continue to deliver on our 10-year strategy, the first time in fact there has been a strategy, to support growth of the agriculture sector here in Victoria. In relation to the parliamentary report and the recommendations of that report, I can advise the member that work is well underway. We will deliver on our commitments, as we always do, and I look forward to bringing that legislation in due course.

Mr WALSH (Murray Plains) (14:34): Back in January the minister was quoted in the Weekly Times as saying:

Despite the challenges of the coronavirus pandemic … engagement across government and industry will take place this year …

How does the minister justify the fact that on-the-spot fines have not yet been introduced, yet similar laws now exist in New South Wales, Queensland and South Australia?

Members interjecting.

The SPEAKER: Order! It is difficult to see who is shouting behind masks, but I am going to keep having a crack at kicking people out who are shouting. I need to be able to hear questions and the answers that ministers give.

Ms THOMAS (Macedon—Minister for Agriculture, Minister for Regional Development) (14:35): Despite the protestations of the member for Murray Plains, can I point out that there already is an offence of trespass and that it can already be employed, and indeed that we have a policing unit that is dedicated to supporting farmers and attends to crimes on farms and that we have this work already underway.

Mr Walsh: On the issue of relevance, Speaker, the question was very specific about why there are not laws here in Victoria when there are in New South Wales, Queensland and South Australia, and I would remind the minister that her current laws meant John Gommans’ invaders were fined $1 for stealing his goats.

The SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of The Nationals has strayed from points of order.

Mr Edbrooke interjected.

The SPEAKER: The member for Frankston can leave the chamber for the period of 1 hour.

Member for Frankston withdrew from chamber.

The SPEAKER: The Minister for Agriculture is being relevant to the question.

Ms THOMAS: Once again, I will make the point that the member now wants to talk about comparisons with New South Wales. Well, the Premier was called up on that before, but when it suits them—this is what we see from those on the other side—they flip-flop. They will say whatever they are talking to whoever wants to hear.

Mr Walsh: On a point of order, Speaker, I would ask you to get the minister to show some respect to the farmers of Victoria and to actually bring her back to answering the question please.

The SPEAKER: Order! The minister has concluded her answer.

Ministers statements: Solar Homes program

Ms D’AMBROSIO (Mill Park—Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change, Minister for Solar Homes) (14:37): I am absolutely delighted to report on the progress of the Andrews Labor government’s $1.3 billion Solar Homes program. This is delivering a renewable energy revolution right across Victoria’s suburbs and regions, helping thousands of Victorians take control of their energy bills and reducing their emissions.

We have seen more than 174 000 solar installations right across the state thanks to this program. The member for Tarneit, for example, will be absolutely pleased to know that her electorate is leading the state, with more than 9000 installations through the Solar Homes program. We are also making it easier for households to install a solar battery, with more than 4000 of those done so far. I am sure that the member for Sunbury will be happy also to hear that his electorate is leading the state in battery installations, closely followed by Torquay, which I am sure will please the member for South Barwon. We are doing this while we are creating more than 5000 jobs and helping customers save about $1000 on their energy bills each and every year.

Together with the Minister for Roads and Road Safety we are supporting initiatives to drive up the uptake of electric vehicles, including through programs such as the Solar Victoria zero-emissions vehicle subsidy program. In fact we have seen a 200 per cent increase in ZEV sales in Victoria since the program was launched. Victorians are getting behind the wheel of the ZEV revolution, and I am sure that the member for Kew would be pleased that his constituents are jumping onto environmental and safe transport options, with his community joining suburbs like Point Cook and Keysborough who are leading the state in the uptake of subsidies.

Not only are we putting renewable energy on the rooftops and in the driveways of everyday Victorians, we are also leading the country in renewable energy. We are delivering the biggest battery program in the Southern Hemisphere, and I am sure the member for Lowan would be absolutely delighted.

Constituency questions

Ripon electorate

Ms STALEY (Ripon) (14:39): (6126) My question is to the Minister for Transport Infrastructure, and I ask: when will the speed restrictions on the Western Highway between Buangor and Ararat be removed? This has been a longstanding project that has been stalled for a long time, and recently it was recognised that construction will not take place on the project until a new cultural heritage management plan has been prepared and approved and current legal restraints are resolved.

There was a Victorian government spokesman on 20 October this year making the remarks that it will not take place. So clearly the government is not going to build it in this building season, and it will be the next one either. It is about time that the 80-kilometre speed limits for construction work that is not occurring be removed and we get back to 100 kilometres an hour, given the government has admitted there will not be construction work on that road.

Bayswater electorate

Mr TAYLOR (Bayswater) (14:40): (6127) My constituency question is to the Minister for Disability, Ageing and Carers. I rise to ask the minister when construction of a brand new 120-bed public aged-care facility in my community will be finished. Locals deserve the best healthcare facilities and to be able to age in their community. That is exactly why I am so proud the Andrews Labor government is delivering a 120-bed state-of-the-art public aged-care facility right in the heart of my community. Of course when complete the facility will support a range of resident care needs and contemporary models of care to provide a dementia-friendly environment. The design aims to optimise physical and mental wellbeing through access to natural light, fresh air and views to the amazing Dandenong Ranges. It is going to be a game changer for healthcare facilities and for those who need it in the outer east.

Not only are we getting on with this work, though; I am incredibly proud we are providing a major rebuild of the Angliss Hospital to provide a new lease on life for our much-loved community hospital, with $98.9 million to rebuild a section and deliver a new in-patient unit and new operating theatres, among other improvements. Our healthcare heroes have done an incredible job during this pandemic, and they are still doing the hard yards. This investment ensures they can continue to do the work in the facilities they and all locals deserve, close to home. This new public aged-care facility is an incredibly important project for my community that will ensure locals can age in place in first-class facilities. I thank the minister for his consideration of my question.

Euroa electorate

Ms RYAN (Euroa) (14:41): (6128) My question is to the Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change. Why has the Andrews Labor government failed to address persistent power outages in the community of Pyalong despite being aware of the issue for nearly five years? Pyalong residents are incredibly frustrated by continual power outages. This is not a new issue but has in fact been previously brought to the attention of this government and the current minister. The minister promised me in 2017 that Powercor was going to make a significant investment to improve the network, yet residents have experienced 50 power outages since January last year. The flow-on effect of these outages is a loss of phone reception and no access to vital services like the FireReady app, which is particularly problematic when it comes to the fire-prone summer months. The government put a small amount of money into batteries for local communities earlier this year. It is disappointing that communities such as Pyalong, which have previously raised these issues with the minister, were ignored in this funding. This is a serious safety issue that I ask the minister to address urgently.

Footscray electorate

Ms HALL (Footscray) (14:42): (6129) My question is to the Minister for Education. I am seeking an update on the modernisation works at Footscray Primary School and the community consultation that will be taking place. The government has invested record amounts in education funding across Victoria, and the benefits of this are being particularly felt in my electorate at Footscray. I am extremely grateful to the government for its commitment to public education, and having fantastic new facilities like the upgrades at Footscray Primary is only one piece of the puzzle; you need policy to match it. The Footscray Learning Precinct is an example of the government’s revolutionary vision for education, linking all ages and stages of education, from our foundation and early years all the way up to high school and beyond. The Footscray Learning Precinct and the Andrews Labor government are making Victoria the Education State.

Croydon electorate

Mr HODGETT (Croydon) (14:43): (6130) My constituency question is for the Minister for Health. Can the minister please provide clear instructions on how people can gain access to places such as public libraries when they are able to provide a paper copy of their immunisation history statement, however, do not have a smartphone or any photo identification? My constituent attended a local library to utilise the services but was turned away even though multiple forms of paper and card identification were able to be supplied. The guidelines supplied by the Department of Health stipulate that a paper copy of an immunisation history statement must be accompanied by photo identification, which my constituent does not have. She was therefore denied admission to this community service and left feeling extremely distraught and like she is invisible in the eyes of the state. Minister, what other options are available for constituents in this instance, and how will you make all vaccinated Victorians, even those who do not own a smartphone or have a photo ID, feel supported?

Pascoe Vale electorate

Ms BLANDTHORN (Pascoe Vale) (14:44): (6131) My constituency question is for the Minister for Roads and Road Safety. The question I ask is: what is the latest information on the Andrews Labor government’s Glenroy to Coburg cycling link project? I was pleased to have the minister visit Derby Street back in May to discuss this $4.48 million project on site and see the great linkages and safety benefits that this upgraded cycling route will provide. The route will travel from Boundary Road, south along Cumberland Road, east along Kent Road and south along Derby Street to O’Hea Street in Pascoe Vale South, connecting the Glenroy and Coburg communities by bike.

O’Hea Street connects to the Upfield bike path, which now features two brand new train stations at Coburg and Moreland as well as the separated cyclist and pedestrian path. Derby Street is home to Pascoe Vale North Primary School, Derby Street Children’s Centre and many cherished cafes, medical services and local businesses.

Set to feature green bicycle lanes, six intersection upgrades, raised platforms and marked bike stencils, this project will enhance cyclist and road safety and encourage active transport in the community. This is an important project, connecting the north and south of my electorate.

Sandringham electorate

Mr ROWSWELL (Sandringham) (14:45): (6132) My constituency question is to the Minister for the Suburban Rail Loop. The question I ask on behalf of concerned Cheltenham residents is: why is the Suburban Rail Loop Authority intending to construct emergency tunnel exits from the surface to the tunnel after the construction of the tunnel instead of at the same time as the tunnel is constructed? From the very inception of this project it has been ill-conceived. From the very time that it was thought of as a thought bubble in the minister’s office and drafted on the back of an envelope, before public servants and agencies were notified about it, it has been ill-conceived. This is yet the latest example of this particular project being ill-conceived. This is an important matter for my community because it affects the amenity of my community’s area, and I trust that the minister will answer it comprehensively in due course.

Bass electorate

Ms CRUGNALE (Bass) (14:46): (6133) My question is for the Minister for Roads and Road Safety and relates to the Healesville-Koo Wee Rup Road and its current surface condition. Can the minister please update me on the work scheduled to address the numerous potholes along this stretch, the Pakenham to Koo Wee Rup section? In normal times we have 23 000 vehicles that travel daily, and our commitment to duplicate two lanes to four and put in new roundabouts, traffic lights, safety barriers and a new shared path is absolutely welcomed. Contracts are expected to be awarded this year, with construction starting early in the next. Many in my community have emailed me and also reported the condition directly to VicRoads, adding in neighbouring roads, including the Monash; Thompsons Road near Soldiers Road; and the Phillip Island tourist road. I am pleased that we have temporarily lowered the speed to 60 kilometres an hour, and crews were back out yesterday doing assessments. I would appreciate any information on when they will be fixed so I can relay this back to my community.

Mornington electorate

Mr MORRIS (Mornington) (14:47): (6134) My constituency question is for the Minister for Tourism, Sport and Major Events. In the depths of COVID the Liberal and National parties came up with the idea of a regional travel voucher scheme, and we were pleased to see the government adopt that idea subsequently. I am referring to a screenshot from a website taken just before question time started, the vic.gov.au/regional-travel-voucher-scheme website:

The Victorian Government has announced 80,000 regional travel vouchers valued at $200 will be made available, building on the success of the Regional Travel Voucher Scheme.

Information on how Victorians can apply for and use the vouchers will be available here soon.

To my knowledge it has been saying ‘available here soon’ for a considerable period of time. Now, I am wondering if the minister can advise me when those vouchers will be made available.

Broadmeadows electorate

Mr McGUIRE (Broadmeadows) (14:48): (6135) My question is to Minister for Transport Infrastructure. How is Victoria’s landmark Big Build project improving services on the Upfield line? This is strategically important for the economic comeback of Victoria, Melbourne’s north and Broadmeadows, where jobs are needed most. We have a community unity ticket underscoring its importance for economic and social development and the environment. The investment attraction strategy I launched has inspired shovel-ready and pipeline projects already estimated at $1 billion and predicted to provide 5000 jobs in the next five years at no cost to taxpayers. Such catalyst investments provide local jobs for local people and underscore the value of the government’s infrastructure program. Level crossing removals add to the Metro Tunnel project, designed to increase passengers on the Upfield line by more than 70 per cent in the peak and likewise by more than 27 per cent on the neighbouring Craigieburn line. Importantly both lines service the state district of Broadmeadows. The Andrews government has removed five level crossings on the Upfield line, including the level crossing at Camp Road that had proven fatal.

Bills

Equal Opportunity (Religious Exceptions) Amendment Bill 2021

Second reading

Debate resumed.

Ms SULEYMAN (St Albans) (14:49): Before the break I was speaking in relation to the changes that our government is making to make it much more equal in our communities and of course protect and put in place the right measures for the LGBTIQ+ community and others, safeguarding students and teachers from being discriminated against for their sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, marital status and of course parental status as well.

I was echoing the statements from this side of the house in relation to how our government has been committed to absolutely fostering a more inclusive community where students and teachers and other employees are better protected from discrimination. We have seen that this bill will of course have a positive impact on our community. As someone who is of faith, of Muslim faith—of deep faith, I must say—I do feel these measures allow school communities to continue to employ people that they choose, so that continues to be the practice and continues to be permitted. Let us be very honest, when there is common sense and respect, you do not tend to find problems and issues. So I always go back to those words: common sense and respect.

What we have unfortunately seen politically recently, as I was saying previously, is the rise of hate, the rise of aggression and the rise of a really dangerous type of divisive politics, and we really need to get back to the facts and respect each side of the debate. I do acknowledge that I have received—and I do speak to my constituents in St Albans and various stakeholders about this—some mistruths in relation to this bill. But I can assure my constituency and my community that this is a bill that protects and really prevents such divisive and unequal commentary, I would say, in our diverse community. I have said previously, but I will say it again, that my particular community of St Albans, with a very diverse multifaith, cultural and ethnic base, is just a pot full of all sorts of communities coming together and living harmoniously, respecting one another regardless of their religion, regardless of their sexual orientation or their gender identity and so on.

I just want to also briefly mention that late last year the Legal and Social Issues Committee did an inquiry into anti-vilification protections, and as part of that inquiry we heard about the rise of hate speech, the rise of attacks and discrimination and the attacks on our LGBTIQ+ community. We were able to, in a by partisan way, deliver a very strong report to government with strong recommendations around vilification and hateful conduct. So I think it is really important to note that, where there are individuals who are subjected to discrimination of any kind, I find that we have been the government to really take on and have a very strong stand in relation to making sure that everyone is treated equally, and that is why I am very proud to be part of the Andrews Labor government.

Since we were elected we have continued to deliver on our election commitments, making it absolutely clear that no-one in the community will be disadvantaged, whichever way they identify. And I think it is really important that we send the message out to our religious communities that we are a government that works in partnership with our religious communities and our education institutions and there should be no fear of this bill. This is a bill that really is making sure that everyone is equal and that the right protections are in place. And again I repeat: where there is common sense and respect you do not find that there are issues. So always my message would be, echoing the sentiments of this side of the house and commending this bill to the house: always go towards the side of evidence, facts and, most importantly, respect and dignity.

Mr McGHIE (Melton) (14:55): I rise today to contribute to the Equal Opportunity (Religious Exceptions) Amendment Bill 2021, this amendment that has provoked an emotional response from some in our communities. Rationalists believe all decisions should be based on reason and evidence. This is most in line with my principles that have influenced my decision-making as a paramedic, as a unionist and now as a parliamentarian. In my decades of work representing our state’s hardworking paramedics, I have always ensured that discrimination is not tolerated and that equality is not negotiable.

The Andrews Labor government was elected in 2014 and then re-elected in 2018 with this same mandate. In making rational decisions, one should always look at evidence and reason. So I would like to start my contribution with just that: some evidence. Recent media reports have highlighted instances of teachers being discriminated against and even fired, simply because of their sexuality. An article in the Age on 10 August 2021 read:

Steph Lentz was sacked this year for being gay. It was perfect perfectly legal.

Deb James, the general secretary of the Independent Education Union, said:

Many of our members have been subject to discrimination in the workplace, dismissed simply because of who they are or whom they love …

These outdated laws have robbed students of skilled teachers, who also make schools inclusive and welcoming spaces for LGBTIQ+ students.

This is a problem that often stays hidden because staff are fearful of speaking out, speaking out on these particular issues in fear of losing their livelihoods. An article in the Age acknowledged this, stating that:

Multiple teachers interviewed by The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald, speaking … on the basis of anonymity to preserve their employment, say they too have observed or been personally subjected to discrimination because of their sexuality.

The Age also reported that:

… a recent survey by the Independent Education Union’s Victoria and Tasmania branch detailed numerous complaints of discrimination against teachers and students—including fear of being sacked—because of their sexuality in Victorian religious schools.

This is not just a problem that affects LGBTIQ+ Victorians. Teachers are also at risk of discrimination because they are divorced, unmarried or single parents. A recent Independent Education Union survey of almost 1150 members working in faith-based schools in Victoria and Tassie found that 51 per cent of respondents reported having witnessed or been subjected to discrimination based on their marital relationship and/or parental status. I know it has felt like we have lost track of time over the last 20 months with all that has been going on, but I checked my phone just before and noticed that it is 2021. This is not 1950, and even if it was, it would not have been right then either.

The Rationalist Society of Australia states on its website that 70 per cent of Australians say that religion is not important to them and only 15 per cent are actively religious. A 2018 Essential Research survey found that 72 per cent of Australians believe it should be illegal for faith-based schools to fire a teacher or expel a student because they are gay or transgender. In 2020 a YouGov survey found that 78 per cent of Australians agree that trans people deserve the same rights and protections as other Australians, with 66 per cent also agreeing that trans people should be protected from discrimination in religious schools, and the majority support was demonstrated across gender and religious belief. So there is a clear expectation in our community that discrimination should not be tolerated in our society to any degree. That for me is the crux of this issue: discrimination in the workplace should not be tolerated or accepted, nor should it be tolerated or accepted in our schools. Our students should not be subjected to it.

Of course with every bit of legislation there is a range of views in our community, and as members of Parliament we often get correspondence with a range of views.

It is unfortunate that the most vile correspondence often comes from those in the community that purport to stand up for morals, as if somehow that is exclusive to individuals that subscribe to a particular belief system. I respect all individuals and acknowledge that many religious people do fantastic work, and I have been involved with some of that work that they have done. I do, however, strongly disagree that someone’s beliefs entitle them to discriminate against others. The sexuality of a maths teacher has zero impact on their ability to deliver an education to students. The marital status of a history teacher should not prevent them from teaching students about first contacts and the diversity and longevity of Australia’s First Peoples.

Some of the correspondence that I have received challenged me to ask myself this, ‘What if this bill was aimed at political parties and the way we employ staff?’. Well, thinking about that, my answer is that if I discriminate against my staff, then I should be held to the community standard of that 72 per cent of the population I referred to earlier, and that is to have action taken against me. I think that would only be appropriate.

Do we know what it looks like when political parties cuddle up to discrimination and division? Just look at the 2018 election results for all the evidence that you need. The Victorian community took a very dim view of attacks on our LGBTIQ+ communities with the Safe Schools program and dog-whistling racism on our multicultural communities.

In my office I have one electoral officer, Greg, and he is happy for me to tell this story. Greg went to teachers college and also studied some papers that would allow him to teach in a religious school. Greg and his former partner had a child out of wedlock. Although they later got married, many years later his relationship ended. He got divorced and took on the role of a single parent for many years before later remarrying and having another child. He is well known to a number of my colleagues, having wandered the halls of a few ministerial offices. Under this legislation as it currently stands, if he had been working at a religious school and not here, he could have been legally dismissed for any of these reasons—having a child outside of wedlock, having a divorce, being a single parent and choosing to remarry in a non-religious ceremony. So when I receive correspondence that asks how I would feel if I was subjected to the same standard as outlined in this bill then, yes, I would feel good about that. If I dismissed him for any of those reasons that they could dismiss him for if he was a teacher in a religious school, I would not deserve to be a member of this house or make any employment decisions, if I had responded to Greg in that way.

Equality is just not negotiable. Discrimination has no place in Victoria. The answer to the question ‘Could your political party operate under such legislation?’ is that any political party that wants to discriminate in that same way does not deserve to be elected. Nearly 80 per cent of the population thinks that way also.

Some other communication that I have received has been in favour of this legislation, and I will take this time just to share with you some correspondence from one of my constituents. This came in only a couple of nights ago, and this is from Ken:

[QUOTE AWAITING VERIFICATION]

Mr Steve McGhie

I’m writing to express my support for the Equal Opportunity (Religious Exceptions) Amendment Bill 2021, which will strengthen Victoria’s anti-discrimination legislation, and I urge you to support the bill. No-one should be fired, expelled, denied services or treated unfairly because of their sexual orientation, their gender identity, parental or marital status. The proposed amendments to the Equal Opportunity Act will better protect Victorian students, teachers, staff and people accessing services from discrimination by faith-based organisations. Every Victorian deserves to live, work and study with dignity and respect no matter who they are or whom they love.

While the government’s proposed bill will be a huge step forward in protecting people from discrimination, I also encourage you to consider amendments that ensure that schools cannot bypass these important protections by setting discriminatory standards for themselves. These reforms will make a huge difference to the daily life and mental health and wellbeing of the LGBTIQ+ Victorians who work and study in religious settings and those who access services from faith-based organisations.

I have many wonderful advocates for the LGBTIQ community in my electorate, some of whom are religious clergy. Like the majority of the community, they do not agree with discrimination either. Similar laws to these amendments have been in place in Tasmania for over a decade, and the Tassie experiment shows that closing the gaps which allow discrimination has fostered a more inclusive environment in faith-based organisations.

I began this contribution by stating that decisions should be based on reason and evidence, and the evidence is clear: discrimination exists and the community finds it unacceptable. The evidence also shows that we all benefit when we push out discrimination from our society. We have moved on from our past, and it is time that our legislation reflects that. I support this bill. I thank the Attorney-General in the other place and her staff for their hard work on these amendments, and I commend the bill to the house.

Mr FOWLES (Burwood) (15:05): It is a great pleasure to make a contribution around the Equal Opportunity (Religious Exceptions) Amendment Bill 2021. On this side of the house equality is not negotiable—there is no doubt about that—and whilst we might have heard words very similar to that or even words identical to that from some members opposite, the gap in this debate has thrown into stark relief whether people are prepared to see through their convictions on these matters or simply allow them to slide.

There was a terrific article in August of this year written by Ben Schneiders and Royce Millar, two of the fine journalists of that august journal of record, the Age. It was just a gut-wrenching read. It was a gut-wrenching read because it demonstrated the importance of these protections and what the failure to have those protections in place was doing in a real sense—in a lived experience sense—out there in the real world. It focused on a number of people, including Steph Lentz, who has obviously made her circumstances public as a result of this article by Ben and Royce. I found it just a gobsmacking set of circumstances that someone with Christian values and a Christian ethos could be told that they were not going to heaven, could be told after many years of service in an organisation that they were no longer welcome simply because of their same-sex attraction. She said:

Because of my strong commitment to Christianity and its doctrines, I suppressed that part of myself, believing it was wrong …

She took a year off, soul-searching, in 2020, and came out to herself for the first time in a real way. Ultimately she got divorced. She left a very conservative parish and joined a more evangelical-type parish, which affirmed her sexuality. Of her own volition she wrote to her school to explain what had changed in terms of her circumstances: that she was gay, that she was proud and out as gay and that she had reconciled that issue with her Christian values and could continue to be a teacher of Christian faith. However, the school said, ‘Well, you’ve failed to affirm our statement of belief, including the immorality of homosexuality’, and later on she was dismissed.

If this was an isolated case, it might not be enough on its own to create the need for us to act, but sadly it is not an isolated case. In the same article they canvassed the views of David Patterson, who has been speaking out about the treatment of the LGBTQI+ community inside Christian schools—some Christian schools, I should say. It is worth noting that just like there is a spectrum in sexuality, just like there is a spectrum on gender, there is a spectrum within the Christian belief set as well. Undoubtably there are a whole bunch of people who would both identify as Christian and as members of the LGBTIQ+ community, and there are varying degrees—from warm embrace, acceptance, maybe treading down to tolerance and ultimately intolerance and bigotry—within the spectrum of Christian belief sets. But our job in this place is not to protect belief sets to the exclusion of all other values.

I do not dispute for a moment that some might hold those beliefs in a genuine way and genuinely feel like those beliefs are legitimised by their interpretation of various religious texts. I do not dispute that the beliefs are genuine and real. The issue I have is one of tolerance and respect and the ability of people to live their lives as they would see fit. Many people spoken to by these journalists say they have either observed or been personally subjected to discrimination because of their sexuality and that the discriminatory policies and clauses are often hidden in these kind of generic value statements contained within the foundational documents or the general documents attached to a particular school.

Crest Education took this view that homosexual activity was unprofessional, but I think the extraordinary bit about the Crest Education constitution is that they concatenate that status—homosexuality—with a whole bunch of other things that I think speaks to a deeper prejudice. They say that:

Of specific concern are actions that may be deemed as unprofessional conduct and not in accordance with the Biblical principles on which the College is based. Such actions include:

any sexual activity outside of a marriage relationship;

homosexual activity …

At that point you are at what I would describe as a belief set that is about a particular view of Christianity, but they concatenate it then with:

unlawful sexual activity including grooming;

alcohol and substance abuse …

… distribution of pornographic or sexually explicit materials …

The way in which that is constructed speaks to the deeper issue, I think, that they believe that the morality of homosexuality or sexual activity outside of a marriage is in some way equivalent to grooming or distributing pornographic material, and they are just not. There is a line to be drawn between the private activity of teachers in whatever school system—the private and lawful activity of teachers—and that sort of activity, like grooming, which is clearly unlawful and appalling activity. To seek to gather those up in one basket of immorality I think speaks to a pretty warped view of the universe. The issue these schools encounter is that their position is not one that can actually be sustained broadly in a sense that they are burying some of these things in these value statements because they are lacking the courage to be transparent, knowing full well that the school community would take significant umbrage with it.

These rules that we propose to introduce with this equal opportunity amendment bill are not just about protecting the rights of those teachers as workers; they are about protecting the students from that overtly insular view of the world that says all of those things are in fact immoral. What, then, of the gay student who goes to that school? What, then, of the student whose parents are divorced? Or what, then, of the student who has sexual activity outside of a marriage whilst at that school? The fact that you do not have human role models who have lived experience deprives those students of an important part of their education—not just their academic education, but their life education.

I was very fortunate to attend university with Anna Brown, who these days is the CEO of Equality Australia. Anna is a terrific woman. She is absolutely fantastic. She was always a great and thoughtful leader on campus, and she has been a magnificent leader of this movement more broadly around the nation. She said in response to this bill that:

Everyone deserves to live, work and study with dignity and respect, no matter who they are or whom they love …

Everyone deserves to live, work and study with dignity and respect no matter who they are or whom they love. It is not a complicated principle to wrap one’s head around, and it is a very easy principle, I would suggest, to endorse. It is certainly an easy principle for those on this side of the chamber to endorse because it speaks to the very strong equality agenda of this government. There are those that would say it is okay for schools to ride roughshod over principles like that in furtherance of principles that they say have a theological basis.

But ultimately as a government our job is not to preference one particular theology over another, our job is to support human rights across all the humans for which we are responsible. The right not to be discriminated against in an employment setting is a fundamental right. It is a right that has been recognised by multiple acts of this Parliament. It is a right that continues to be recognised, particularly by those on this side of the chamber. It is a right that in our view is inalienable, and it will be supported, as should this bill.

Ms GREEN (Yan Yean) (15:15): I believe that I am the final speaker on the Equal Opportunity (Religious Exceptions) Amendment Bill 2021 today. I have either been in the chamber or listening in my office to the many contributions to this debate. Fundamentally I am in support—everyone on this side of the house is in support—and this bill delivers on a Victorian government 2018 election commitment to limit religious exceptions under the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 to better protect Victorians from discrimination. It was something that we were elected to do. The Equal Opportunity Act, as originally passed by the Bracks-Brumby governments in 2010, which I had the privilege of being a member of, imposed an inherent requirements test on religious bodies and schools in the area of employment. The inherent requirements test was removed in 2011 by the former coalition government before the Equal Opportunity Act commenced operation. In 2016 our government introduced legislation to reintroduce the test, but that bill was defeated in the Legislative Council. Then our government reiterated its commitment to legislate to remove discrimination for LGBTIQ+ Victorians in 2018.

I just find it gobsmacking that the opposition, after all the intention that we have shown and that we have been consistent about since 2014 and then reiterating in 2018 that this is what we were going to do—we have been very clear with the faith communities about this—have muzzled their equality spokesperson, you would think they did not have one, in this debate and come in here and said that the whole bill needs to be withdrawn. They are having a bet both ways, saying, ‘Really we support it, but it needs more consultation’. To quote the member for Hawthorn, in his three years in here he has learned that this sort of tactic is when you are really not supporting something.

I do not understand this once great Liberal Party. The small-l Liberal Party of the 1970s led by Dick Hamer was about being open to difference and not judging people. It seems that the once great Liberal Party is a completely different creature these days. It cannot call itself a true liberal party. It is becoming a conservative reactionary rump. Where is the kindness in public discourse about these things, the respect for those that are impacted? Other members on this side noted the measured contribution by the member for Mornington, who I serve on a committee with. I have a great deal of respect for him. He, like me, has a same-sex-attracted young person in his household, in his family, so I think he gets the real import of this. But the way fans of hatred are being framed within this debate and within the debate about the pandemic legislation—I say it is un-Australian, it is un-Victorian, it is lacking in humanity and it is also not consistent with religious values. It is un-Christian.

I was raised in a religious school, just as you were, Acting Speaker Blandthorn, and as were many on this side of the house. For the member for Murray Plains to have got in here and tried to present himself as Captain Catholic—you know, the Catholicism that I was raised in was not judgemental, it was supportive. Jesus said, ‘Love one another as I have loved you’.

He was not afraid to be around people who were on the wrong side of the law, who were reputed to work in sex work—people like that. There was always forgiveness and kindness fundamentally. I think that what is occurring in public this week around this debate and the untruths that are being told about this debate and then also about the pandemic legislation I find completely distasteful, and I have not seen it in the 19 years that I have been in this Parliament.

As the mum of a same-sex attracted young person I was particularly moved by the personal story of a student, Evie Macdonald. Evie Macdonald is a 16-year-old transgender girl. Between 2011 and 2015 Evie attended a religious school on the Mornington Peninsula. In 2015, when she was 10 years old, her teacher asked the class to divide into separate groups of girls and boys. When Evie said she wanted to go with the female students her teacher refused and told her that she was a boy and physically dragged her towards the group of male students. In 2015, without her parents’ knowledge, Evie was made to attend seven sessions of chaplaincy counselling by the school, designed to prevent her affirming her gender as a girl. When Evie’s mother, Meagan, found out she was furious, and Evie’s parents removed her from the school as soon as they could get placement at another school.

Another story that really moved me was that of teacher Sam Cairns. For seven years Sam worked at Flinders Christian Community College, a non-denominational Christian school. Sam was herself a graduate at the school. When Sam came to terms with her sexuality she assumed the school would not accept her being open about who she was, and in 2011 she reluctantly decided to resign. Sometime later the school welcomed her back as a relief teacher and then on a short-term contract, but on the first day of her contract Sam was called into the vice-principal’s office and told to immediately pack her things, as the school had been made aware of her choice of sexuality. Under these proposed laws teachers in a similar position to Sam’s could not be fired simply because of their sexuality or gender identity.

I think in the 21st century it is fundamentally what we should do. Labor has always protected people in their employment, and attributes that you cannot change should not see your values being questioned. Those opposite have said that this is about values. Well, I think, yes, it is about values. It is about the value of treating everyone with respect in whichever part of their lives but particularly in employment and particularly in education.

I want to particularly commend the member for Hawthorn for his really considered contribution on this bill, especially given his 30-year history as the principal of Loyola College. I had a lot to do with him in that time, and many of my constituents attended Loyola College in the time that he was the principal and still attend Loyola College to this day. I love that the member for Hawthorn describes himself as a committed but questioning Catholic, and I think that is what the member for Eltham also said. Something that Jesus probably always challenged us to do is to question whether we are treating each other with the respect and the love that we ought to. I think that this bill before the house and the other steps that we have taken to be respectful to LGBTIQ Victorians are just measures of how we should be in the 21st century.

It is extremely difficult for young people, whether they are coming out or whether they are feeling that they are transgender or they may just be different to the other kids at school. There is enough difficulty for a young person having to resolve those types of things without them being in a school that does not recognise diversity either in its student body or in its teacher body. Having a diverse range of teachers would help these young students understand that there is nothing wrong with them as individuals. I do not want it to be like the time when I was in Catholic education, in year 8, when there were two teachers at my school who were actually living together who were not married. They were both sacked.

I thought it was wrong then, and I think it is wrong today. We should not be returning to that period of time where those sorts of judgements were made.

I commend the work of the department and of the Attorney-General, and I thank everyone who has contacted me about their concerns pro and against this bill. But I can assure those who are concerned about it that they should not be concerned about it. This bill offers protections for people and does not single people out. I commend this bill to the house and thank those particular government members and other members who are supporting the bill for their contributions on this important piece of legislation.

Mr HAMER (Box Hill) (15:25): I am sorry to steal the member for Yan Yean’s thunder, but I did want to make a short contribution on this bill, just reflecting on some of the contributions that have been made to date and then also on my own experience, engagement and involvement in faith and in a faith-based environment.

The member for Yan Yean touched on the opposition and looked back at some of the Liberal policies in the 1970s and 80s. I was thinking back even just three weeks ago about the matter of public importance when the opposition was falling over themselves to talk about what they had done over the decades to support LGBTI rights. It is interesting that we come to this point in time, three weeks later, and the first legislation in which this is discussed and we see the position that they have adopted. As the member for Yan Yean also mentioned and as a number of other speakers have mentioned, this bill has had a long gestation. The changes that are proposed in this bill were first proposed more than 10 years ago but were taken out of the bill before it came into force. Again they were an election commitment through 2014 and tried to be adopted in 2016, and now we are trying once again to get that up.

It is really important to look at the clauses that are being removed and the clauses that will remain and the actual changes that are happening with this bill. What is being removed is really about what you would call behaviour or ‘attributes’, to use a better word from the bill, that are not controlled by religion. As I said, it is on the basis of sexual orientation, lawful sexual activity, marital status, parental status or gender identity, but the core one that will remain is about religious belief. There is the reinsertion of the inherent requirements test, but to me the connection between the inherent requirements and the religious belief is what is important and fundamental to the religious bodies and the religious institutions.

When I think of my own experience—and I also went to a faith-based school and I choose to send my kids to a faith-based school—and when I think about why my parents sent me to a faith-based school and why I choose to send my children to a faith-based school, it is the values and the ethos of the school and of the religion that I look to. But those values and that ethos can be provided in a number of different ways, and to me it is not about the attribute of the individual who is delivering them, particularly if that relates to what they do in their private life. It really does not matter to me, and it did not matter to me when I was a child, what the gender identity of the teacher was or whether they were married or whether they were living with somebody and were not married.

What was fundamentally important was the education. Were they able to provide that education guidance, that school leadership that we were looking for, and get the best out of me and all the other students, or get the best out of my children. In many environments that does not even have a religious aspect, but where it does, that is where the protections or the requirements in the bill still allow for that to happen. I think that that is where this bill does strike the balance. It is not about impacting on faith where that faith is inherently important to the role—to the job being done.

I am proud to be supportive of this bill for those reasons. As I said, as a government I think we have introduced a whole range of long-lasting reforms, breaking down discriminatory barriers, particularly in an employment setting. I think, as the member for Burwood touched on, we need to have role models, and teachers are role models for all of our children. They should be a reflection of society more broadly, and there should not be unreasonable barriers to employment facing teachers or facing anybody. For that reason I do support the bill, and I wish it a speedy passage.

Ms HORNE (Williamstown—Minister for Ports and Freight, Minister for Consumer Affairs, Gaming and Liquor Regulation, Minister for Fishing and Boating) (15:33): I move:

That the debate be now adjourned.

Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.

Ordered that debate be adjourned until later this day.

Bills

Justice Legislation Amendment (Criminal Procedure Disclosure and Other Matters) Bill 2021

Second reading

Debate resumed on motion of Ms HUTCHINS.

Mr BATTIN (Gembrook) (15:33): I rise to lead the debate for the opposition in relation to the Justice Legislation Amendment (Criminal Procedure Disclosure and Other Matters) Bill 2021. I will start off by putting our position that the opposition will not be opposing this piece of legislation before the house today. Obviously we know that the purpose of this bill is to amend the Criminal Procedure Act 2009 to implement recommendations made by the Royal Commission into the Management of Police Informantsregarding the disclosure obligations of informants in criminal proceedings.

Just quickly on that, we will start with the fact that obviously most in the community have well and truly heard about the Lawyer X concerns and issues that led to the royal commission here in Victoria about the handling of police informants. The report from the royal commission came out with many recommendations, and this bill will instigate action on one of those recommendations, but it is very important that as we go through it, even though we are putting in new legislation, we understand the impact of what happened with Lawyer X—the impact not just on the legislative side but the impact potentially on the community. We now see that people who were convicted in the past using evidence that was put forward by Lawyer X at the time, who went into court using evidence that was gained in an undesirable fashion, are now seeing some cases overturned.

First and foremost, one of the most important things for all members in this house would be to ensure that every person who is locked up for a conviction for something that is bringing danger to our community either remains there and serves out their sentence or can do programs to ensure that they are better for the community.

The bill also amends the Magistrates’ Court Act 1989, the Judicial Entitlements Act 2015, the County Court Act 1958, the Supreme Court Act 1986 and the Constitution Act 1975 to provide for the Chief Magistrate to be a dual commission holder with the Supreme Court. It further amends the Criminal Procedure Act and various other acts to broaden sentence indications in the higher courts, enable electronic applications for personal safety intervention orders, validate electronic applications for personal safety intervention orders, enable the Children’s Court of Victoria to make rules in relation to the exercises of family law jurisdiction and allow evidence to be given remotely in proceedings relating to family violence.

Obviously some of these would have been brought around due to COVID. Obviously ensuring people can give evidence—

Members interjecting.

Mr BATTIN: I was hoping it would be a bit more exciting than that!

Some will be giving evidence in relation to matters that pertain to family violence, and I understand this is part of the Royal Commission into Family Violence recommendations. I have said on record in the past and will say again to the government that I congratulate them for bringing in the Royal Commission into Family Violence, not only having seen the victims of family violence in my former role but knowing the effects of family violence on a family. With my grandfather very violent toward my mother and her siblings, I understand the long-term the impacts of that. So when the royal commission came in, it was something that I know I supported. I think it was a great concept—to get the people’s views on record and to ensure recommendations came out—and I am glad to see that some of those recommendations are coming through now, which will be changing legislation.

Any person who has been to a family law court will understand that when you are going in and you are seeing a victim—and it is generally a female who is a victim going into these circumstances, with a male offender—a lot of it is not just about the physical violence. It is actually about the intimidation, the threats. When you walk into a court and see your offender sitting opposite—the intimidation that you can feel there. I have seen on occasion a victim get into court and totally change what they have said to us in statements in the past. A lot of that will come down to those intimidation tactics that are used whilst in the court.

As I said, a lot of this may have been instigated because of COVID, to make sure we could have the continuation of courts and to make sure we could have the continuation of hearings, but I think it is really important to note that hopefully it can be used in other circumstances in the future. A person who is a victim of domestic violence does not need to be put through the system where they have to relive that continuously and put further pressure on themselves. It is something that no person would like to see, when you actually see the impact on those victims, especially if that victim is a child who is giving evidence.

Speaking to not just victims but, as I said, within the family, the one thing I have learned about domestic violence in my time is a lot of people tell me how the offender, whilst an offender, they cannot stand. But when the offender is not offending—my mother would say her father was the best dad in the world on Sunday, the day he did not drink. So to go and ask someone to then give evidence against someone that they still love, whether that is a love that is because of a commitment to them or because ‘He is my father’ or for whatever reason—or due to intimidation—it is really important that we have the stages in place to protect them so they can give their evidence as they go through court. It should be—the system needs to be—all about the victim, and I do think that is fantastic that that has come through today.

The bill is also to amend the Criminal Procedure Act to further provide for the disclosure obligations of informants—this is going back to the X factor; to require informants in certain proceedings to identify relevant information, documents or things that are not contained in the full brief or hand-up brief and the explanation for why they have been excluded; to provide for procedural aspects of applications for orders concerning non-disclosure; and to clarify that the evidence that relates to the credibility of the prosecution witness in criminal proceedings is relevant to the proceeding and must be disclosed.

[The Legislative Assembly transcript is being published progressively.]